Debates of Nov. 7th, 1996

The Canada Labour Code

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-66 tabled by the Minister of Labour guarantees the impartiality of federal labour legislation governing union-management relations, in order to ensure that they favour neither union nor management, but rather the process of collective bargaining.

Henceforth, in areas coming under federal jurisdiction, people working off the work site may take part in collective bargaining if they so desire. The employer will, moreover, not be allowed to use replacement workers in order to get rid of a union.

Thanks to the proposed amendments, any deadlock in negotiations will not have repercussions on the public to such an extent as to make them withdraw support of the collective bargaining process. As well, union and management representation on the Canadian Industrial Relations Board will increase the credibility and legitimacy of that board's decisions.

It is to the advantage of all Canadians to increase the efficiency of the collective bargaining process, not just for today, but for the coming century. This is the reason we have acted, and this is what the outcome of the amendments presented will be.

Jacques Parizeau

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, last Monday, Jacques Parizeau indicated that his government had built a $19 billion reserve to prepare for a victory of the yes side in the October 1995 referendum.

Why would the Quebec government set up an emergency fund that is equivalent to the Bank of Canada reserve if, as the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois have been claiming, sovereignty is not a source of concern for the financial markets?

Why did separatists choose not to tell Quebecers that they were ready to play Russian roulette with their savings?

How can Lucien Bouchard claim that he was not informed of the building of this reserve since he was the one designated by Jacques Parizeau to prepare the negotiations with Canada in the event of a victory of the yes side?

All these questions deserve an answer, and I address them directly to the BQ member for Roberval.

Top Gun Competition

[Jack Frazer, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Canadian air force team from Canadian Forces Base Cold Lake, Alberta participated in a William Tell air to air combat competition in Florida with Captains Steve Nierlich, Ross Granley, Brian Murray and Dave Mercer as the air crew competitors.

Competing against the best from NATO and the United States our team emerged with Captain Steve Nierlich winning top gun honours.

Canada has done well in William Tell in the past but this is the first time in the history of the 42-year-old competition that a Canadian has been the top gun and the Canadian team has placed first overall.

Aeroplanes do not fly well nor do weapons hit their targets without excellent maintenance by the support crews. This win for Canada is a true example of a dedicated team effort. I am sure that all members of this House join me in congratulating these fine representatives of Canada on a job well done. You have brought great honour to Canada and we are proud of you.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Presence In Gallery

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, we have in our gallery today, as distinguished guests, the Canadian forces team which did us proud at a prestigious international air to air combat competition.

Canadians beat out all other teams to win top honours in the William Tell fighter pilot competition. Based in Cold Lake, Alberta, Canada's fighter force is a symbol of excellence in our armed forces, a reminder that Canadians can and will compete with the best in the world, and win.

The 58 team members are with us today. My colleagues, please welcome Canada's 58 top guns.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Air Transportation

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian is facing insurmountable difficulties and calling, once again, for federal help.

In response, the Minister of Transport stated that the government would not get involved for the time being. The Liberal member for Vancouver Quadra now says the government must step in. The pressures are growing and might even pay off.

My question is for the Prime Minister. The government's policy has always been to let our air carriers play by market rules, which means allowing free competition with all the risks it entails. My question to the Prime Minister is this: Is government policy still the same and is he still ruling out any injection of public funds into the bottomless pit that is Canadian?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question, but there is no change in the government's position in this regard.

We do not believe that putting money into a company that has not requested it, to deal with a problem that is essentially a restructuring problem to deal with long term deficits would not have any purpose whatsoever.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Transport ruled out any regulatory changes that would allow American Airlines to acquire a bigger share of Canadian.

Can the Prime Minister, or the Minister of Transport, assure us that his government will not now or later change regulations so that Canadian cannot be taken over by American?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, no application was received from either Canadian International or American Airlines to increase American's share of Canadian.

As no application was made, we did not review this matter and there is no reason to make a decision.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Transport not think that, in the final analysis, there is only enough room for one national air carrier in Canada, as the Bloc Quebecois has always maintained, and that the government's policy of encouraging and supporting two carriers can hardly work?

Should the government not revise its policy before injecting taxpayers' money into the financial sinkhole that is Canadian?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the government's policy is to favour competition among several airlines. It is not a matter of having only two airlines; there are several others involved. We want a system that will help increase the number of flights while reducing fares.

[André Caron, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.

Canadian is about to come back and pass the hat for more taxpayers' money to deal with its financial problems, but year after year, the same company continues to pay a very expensive $150 million annually for its service contract with American Airlines, and will do so for 20 years.

Before even considering the possibility of injecting one cent of federal money into Canadian, could the minister give taxpayers the assurance that he will make sure that Canadian's contracts with American Airlines have been revised to make them much fairer to Canadian?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's position is based on an erroneous premise. There has been no request from Canadian International for government funds, there has been no request for money from the government. We are not going to force a company to take our money. That will not happen.

[André Caron, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there may be no request, but in January something is going to happen. We know that Canadian announced last week that the company will have a liquidity problem starting next January.

Does the minister still intend to demand that Canadian continue to pay back the remainder of its $120 million loan from the government, as agreed, and will he refuse to delay the payback so as not to give Canadian special treatment?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

First, Mr. Speaker, the loan of $120 million was from three governments, not one. Second, three-quarters of that loan has in fact already been repaid.

With respect to the overall issue of the position of Canadian, we believe it is really important for this restructuring to succeed. A company which has a structural problem and consistently loses money year after a year is not in a position to continue for many years in operation. Therefore we want to make sure the restructuring process succeeds.

The issue of a loan or of changing ownership simply does not enter into the fundamental question which is a restructuring of its systems so that it becomes a profitable company and can continue to employ 17,000 Canadians

Ethics

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said repeatedly that he holds his cabinet ministers to a higher ethical standard. However, in the past three years Canadians have seen little evidence of these higher standards. Minister after minister in the Liberal government has broken the code of conduct for even public office holders. Some are forced to resign while others are staunchly defended by the Prime Minister. Canadians deserve to know why this double standard.

Will the Prime Minister clear up this confusion by simply releasing the secret ethical guideline he has for his cabinet ministers?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, on June 16, 1996 we published the "Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders". We have issued the Lobbyists' Administration Act. We have other provisions in legislation to guide everybody in public office.

As far as communications by the Prime Minister to ministers, they are communications within the privy council. I do not release them but it is not very complicated.

I have said to ministers that they must adhere to the highest standards of conflict of interest that they can find. I am very proud to say that despite the member's innuendo there is only one minister who has given me his resignation. The reason he resigned was that he had written a letter to a tribunal to help a poor lady who wanted her husband to come to Canada.

There was no other resignation, and the member cannot say what she said because it is not the truth. There was only one, and everyone in Canada knows why the former minister of defence resigned.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has bragged repeatedly over the years that he has ethical guidelines for cabinet ministers that go well beyond this code of conduct for public office holders, and now he says they have just mentioned it and had a chat about it.

Nobody seems to know what these guidelines are, where they are or whether they exist at all. If the Prime Minister does have these ethical guidelines that he talks about, there is no good reason why they should not be made public.

Again, does the Prime Minister have a set of guidelines for his cabinet ministers who have higher ethical standards than even the code for public officers which he has talked about? And if so, why in the world will he not release them to the public?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I repeat they are communications between me and my ministers, and we have the result today.

In three years there was only one incident that has caused the resignation of one minister. One of the complaints in letters I received was that they were too strict for the former minister of defence to resign.

Look at the conduct. For the last three years this government has had no serious accusations of misconduct because the ministers have accepted the highest standards seen for a long time in the Canadian Parliament.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, all the bluster and bragging in the world will not solve the problem. Ethics are a public matter and Canadians deserve to know what the Prime Minister's so-called higher standards are.

In the last election the Liberals promised to restore integrity to our parliamentary institutions and make government open and transparent. I think I heard those words several times during the campaign.

It is very difficult to see how secret ethical guidelines square with the Prime Minister's red book promises. Will the Prime Minister live up to his red book promise and release the guidelines for these higher standards for Liberal cabinet ministers?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, no wonder they are losing a member a week. They have nothing to contribute to this Parliament. They go on about this problem, which we have already explained.

The secretary of state got up in the House and explained herself. It is the tradition of the House of Commons that if a member does not accept the word of a minister, they should make a charge, an accusation.

They have nothing but innuendo. For example, yesterday one of the members linked this operation that was done in good faith to that of a bank robber. He did not apologize.

When I see political people operating at that level of innuendo I do not want to spend too much time on them but I know they cannot find anything to talk about. When they cannot talk about the real problems of the nation we know they are politically bankrupt.

The Film Industry

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage is convinced that Polygram's entry on the Canadian film distribution market will be detrimental to the industry. Her colleague at the Department of Industry seems to take an entirely different view of the matter and would be inclined to let Polygram enter the Canadian market. However, the decision on this issue is up to the Minister of Industry, who will have to abide by the policies established by the Minister of Canadian Heritage. It is indeed very disturbing.

How will the Minister of Canadian Heritage make her colleague understand that, as shown in a recent study by Heritage Canada, it is imperative for the film industry that no exception be made for Polygram?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the hon. member's proposal. As soon as the decision is, I will let him know. Right now, a request has been made. According to law I am obliged to keep that information confidential. And I have nothing to say to him about the Polygram case.

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the problem in this case is that the decision is up to a body with two heads. The head of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, which wants to protect the cultural industry, and the head of the Minister of Industry, which wants to circumvent the cultural industry. Cabinet will be meeting in two days time and Polygram may be on the agenda at this meeting.

I would like to know, then, what guarantees can the Minister of Canadian Heritage give us to show she is in a position to ensure compliance with Canadian policies?