Debates of Nov. 8th, 1996

Referendums

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, justice department lawyers appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada this morning to receive instructions, including the date the reference will be heard. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court indicated clearly that the court will set the date for arguments and for the hearing. It is up to the court to decide, during the coming weeks.

I would like to add that there was no intended provocation on our part in suggesting June 23. We need time between now and next June to prepare, and we intend to do everything necessary to prepare.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Once again, Mr. Speaker, the facts are being distorted.

As I have mentioned in my preamble, at 8.30 this morning, as they were going into cabinet, three ministers defended this date. However, when the government lawyers set out for the Supreme Court, they received a counter-order. Between 8.30 and 9 o'clock, cabinet changed its mind and the government lawyers were asked to withdraw the June 23 date. What the judge said was this: "That is a good decision, because it really is up to me. You should consult with all the provinces to find out which ones wish to make a contribution. At a time that suits everyone, when we know who wishes to take part in the debate, we will all sit down and we in the Supreme Court will set a date in consultation with all parties concerned, according to our schedule". This was what was actually said this morning by the Supreme Court.

I therefore ask the Minister of Justice to explain why they changed their mind between 8.30 and 9 o'clock, if it was not because the editorials, the hot lines and the whole world opened their eyes to the fact that it was provocation.

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member speaks of provocation. What we are interesting in doing is resolving legal issues that are raised by the position of the Government of Quebec in relation to the application of the Constitution toward its desire to separate that province from the rest of the country.

Provocation is hardly the word one would use for a government that seeks a court date to determine issues of fundamental legal and constitutional importance to all Canadians but particularly to Quebecers.

It is in the interests of Quebecers in particular to resolve these issues, to clarify the consequences of the position taken by the Quebec government and to determine the legal issues that arise.

It is in the interest of Quebecers in particular to avoid chaos after a unilateral declaration of independence. It is because of the position taken by the Government of Quebec that we have made a reference.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in life there are no chance occurrences, only coincidences. And one must be able to read, analyse and interpret these coincidences. The government selected June 23 and then, this morning, changed its mind.

Once again, are we looking at a government that is at the mercy of mandarins who suggested that it be June 23, or will the government have the courage to tell us that it alone took the decision, and that it is therefore the prime mover in everything that is now going on?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member tries to make something out of very little.

The indignation that comes from this episode is very difficult to accept. The hon. member speaks of provocation and humiliation and I suppose we should take it that the hon. member and her party know what that is all about.

We saw it during this past week with a display by the bloquistes and their partners in the Government of Quebec, the kind of political humiliation and provocation of which they speak, when they set out to destroy Jean-Louis Roux, the lieutenant-governor of Quebec. They used tactics that have no place in Canadian politics. That is the kind of provocation we should avoid in public life.

If we want to start somewhere to avoid provocation, I suggest that the Bloc Quebecois and the hon. member cease and desist with tactics such as that.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it would appear that the Minister of Justice is a master at provocation. I would submit that the official opposition is a master at showing respect for the people of Quebec.

What explanation can there be for the decision to choose June 23, with its obvious political repercussions? How could the government make that decision without considering the impact of such a provocation?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out first of all that we are not the ones who will choose the date, the Supreme Court of Canada will choose the date of the hearing.

As for the question of provocation, it is the Government of Quebec itself which has provoked questions, which has said that neither the courts nor the Constitution have anything to do with the issue of sovereignty. That is where the provocation lies.

We have acted on behalf of all Canadians, including all the people of Quebec, in asking questions before the courts so as to regulate, clarify, determine the legality of these important questions.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we acknowledge that the Supreme Court has exercised great good judgment in rejecting the government's choice ofJune 23.

Might this government provocation in the constitutional issue, which appears to have had its origins with employees in the Department of Justice, not be explained by the fact that their ranks also include supporters of the hard line, of plan B?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, it was my experience as an advocate in the courtroom that when one of the parties was completely without confidence in his or her position on the merits of the case, he or she would resort to tactics such as complaining about the date for hearing in order to distract attention from that weak position.

What we are witnessing in the House today is exactly that syndrome. Left completely without any argument on the merits of the case, finding themselves in a position that is untenable legally, the members of the Bloc Quebecois have resorted to the selection of the hearing date as a ground on which to resist this initiative which is intended to clarify and resolve legal questions that they themselves have raised.

I suggest this is conclusive evidence of the falsity of their position in the law.

Air Transportation

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, 16,000 jobs are on the line as Canadian Airlines attempts to restructure the company.

The so-called official opposition says that we should merely let Canadian go, that there is only room for one national airline in Canada. That simply is not acceptable. I am sure the minister agrees that is not an option for the Canadian airline system.

We are not sure, though, exactly what options or ideas the minister has brought to the table in his talks with the airline. Would he detail for the House what plans, options or proposals he has made to Canadian Airlines to help it in its restructuring plan?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the hon. member's comments with respect to the importance of Canadian Airlines International, our second largest carrier. It is very important to the government's competition policy, which has had such a dramatic effect in reducing the costs of travel in Canada and increasing the number of Canadians who travel.

With respect to the second part of the hon. member's question, it is not possible for this or any other government simply to continue to cover losses of a company that has had a chronic problem of losses. What must happen is restructuring to place that company on a profitable, competitive footing so that it can expand beyond the 16,000 jobs which have been created by Canadian Airlines International.

The plan of restructuring involves a number of elements, for example, changing the contract with American, changing the routing structure, making use of Vancouver's hub, increasing the Asian routes and the open skies routes with the United States, adjusting salaries and wages, as well as other measures. We want to make sure that plan has a fair chance.

I know it is difficult for the employees, but we want them to be able to vote on that plan.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that the government knows and is concerned about the 16,000 jobs that are at stake in the restructuring of Canadian Airlines. I believe that Canadian Airlines is doing its part. It is aggressively attempting to restructure everything from its debt to its service contracts.

However, the minister also knows that the government is intimately involved in the Canadian airline industry. It is involved in everything from fuel tax rates, which are some 30 per cent higher than our American competitors, to regulatory regimes and so on. All of this plays a part in any restructuring plan. The company cannot do it all on its own. The government will be, by necessity, involved in whatever changes come to be.

Will the minister tell us what options he is considering on the open skies treaty and on the taxation policy? What are some of the specifics he is offering to Canadian and its employees?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, this is not a situation where we are offering to any one particular company some special deal, not at all. What we are trying to do is make sure there is competition in the industry and that the players are treated as fairly as possible by the government.

I would like to thank the hon. member's colleague, the hon. member for Calgary Centre, who stated recently that a government bailout does not appear to be a viable option. With that I agree wholeheartedly.

We want to put Canadian back in the business of being a profitable company, creating new jobs and expanding internationally and domestically as well.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Labour.

Canadian Airlines is trying to restructure and would like to take some of its proposals directly to the Canadian employees for their evaluation. While it is up to Canadian Airlines to convince its employees of the merits of any restructuring plan, the union leadership still refuses to let its members vote directly on any company offer. Even after the union leadership divided on the question it will not allow its employees the chance to vote on any restructuring plan.

Will the Minister of Labour intervene to free up employees of Canadian Airlines to ensure their democratic right to determine their opinion on the restructuring plan and will he ensure that they have the right to vote on any restructuring offer by Canadian Airlines?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree that the employees of Canadian should have the right to vote on their future and on the restructuring program that has been proposed by Mr. Benson, the CEO of Canadian Airlines. It is their right and opportunity. It is a difficult decision. They have been asked for sacrifices previously. In no way do I wish to influence their vote one way or another, but they should have that right.

It is unacceptable to us to have a decision made by 300 people, I understand, in Toronto. There are 6,000 to 7,000 employees of that company in Vancouver and 6,000 to 7,000 in Calgary. That type of approach is simply unacceptable to us.

We want to make sure that the actual employees who are affected by this plan have the opportunity of expressing their views. That seems to be only fair. I certainly implore the leaders of the machinists and the Canadian Auto Workers to allow this element of democracy to take place.

Zaire

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Today, Rwanda opposed France's participation in plans for intervention by the international community. Meanwhile, more than 13,000 people have died since the beginning of the conflict, and hundreds of thousands of refugees are in danger of dying in eastern Zaire. Deprived of help for more than two weeks, they are cut off from the outside world by the rebels, who prevent humanitarian organizations from reaching their region.

Since Kigali is opposed to France's participation but would look positively on an Euro-African military mission, could the minister tell us whether a proposal of this kind is being considered?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I share the tremendous concern of the hon. member over the tragic situation in Zaire and the great lakes region. Today, the UN Security Council is considering several proposals for a cease fire in the region.

As you know, a ceasefire is the only way to ensure that humanitarian aid can be safely delivered to these regions. The Canadian position is to support the efforts of ambassador Chrétien and also to encourage all parties to submit plans to the UN and the Security Council for a security program in the region and also for expanding humanitarian aid as soon as possible.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the aid professionals sounded the alarm, saying they needed action, not words. People are dying like flies in Zaire.

Does the minister realize that, if the international community continues to wait and see, there will be a real slaughter, and that, in the circumstances, considering the humanitarian emergency, the only solution may be to consider military intervention on short notice?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, certainly we agree fully that the potential for disaster is imminent.

The latest report is that there are still supplies available in the region. The major difficulty faced is finding a secure environment so that they can be delivered. That has to come about through political agreement at the international level.

I disagree with the premise of the hon. member that there is no action. As I just pointed out, we have the engagement of Ambassador Chrétien on behalf of the Secretary-General. He is in the region at this moment meeting with leaders and attempting to forge some form of consensus.

The Security Council is considering a number of proposals today. We hope by the latter part of the day to have an indication of the initiative by the United Nations. It is something that has to take place. There is no magic wand. There is no panacea. There has to be an agreement by the international community on a course of

action. At that time, all members of the United Nations will consider how they can participate.

We are trying to get that agreement through the efforts of Ambassador Chrétien, by the diplomatic efforts at the UN and by the special efforts that Canada is making to try to influence and persuade the Rwandans, in particular, to agree to the return of the refugees.

Those are the necessary conditions. We are working as actively as possible to get that agreement. I hope we can get it soon so that we can continue to go on with the kind of aid the hon. member would like to see happen.

Ethics

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the former heritage minister violated section 23, clause 1, of the conflict of interest code for public office holders in his dinner for dollars scandal.

The former minister of defence violated section 23, clause 3, of this same code when he gave a former campaign pal over $150,000 in untendered government contracts.

And the youth minister violated section 3, clause 9, of this code when she improperly used her government credit card.

Why were these clear violations of a code that we know exists allowed to go unchecked?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, these questions were asked yesterday, the day before, the day before, last Friday, last Thursday, last Wednesday, and the Prime Minister, the minister and the President of the Treasury Board have answered every single one of them.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, the questions remained unanswered and that is why we are asking again.

The emperor has no codes. The President of the Treasury Board, the ethics counsellor, the youth minister herself and even the Prime Minister have admitted that the minister violated the conflict of interest code and Treasury Board guidelines.

In the face of the facts and the admissions, where are the consequences?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, the only emperor I know with a clothing budget is Preston Manning.

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, I would remind you not to call each other by name.

Unemployment Rate

[Stéphan Tremblay, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

In spite of all his posturing and the government's attempt to pull the wool over our eyes, the unemployment rate in Canada has reached the 10 per cent psychological threshold. I will not call for a minute of silence, but I will remind the House that the OECD had forecasted a 2.1 per cent increase in employment, one of the highest in the world, according to the government. However, since the beginning of the year, in the past 10 months, the average increase in employment has been only 1.1 per cent, barely half what had ben forecasted.

What steps does the government intend to take to create the tens of thousands of jobs necessary to reach its goals according to the OECD's forecast?