Debates of Dec. 2nd, 1996

Canadian Airlines International

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.

To provide some background, just before the Prime Minister left for Asia, he stated that there was no question of bailing out Canadian International. A few hours after the PM's departure, his Minister of Transport met behind closed doors with the directors of Canadian International and employee representatives. The outcome of this was a promise of assistance via a fuel tax reduction, a promise on which we do not yet have details on either the exact mechanisms or the financial impact on the taxpayer.

Is the Minister of Transport aware that, by decreasing the fuel tax for all airlines, he is not helping Canadian International in the least, because its competitors will be able to take advantage of the cut to reduce fares, so, in the long run Canadian will end up in just

as much of a hole as before, and the big losers in all this will be the Canadian taxpayers?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, Bloc members should co-ordinate their questioning a little better. On the one hand, they say that we are trying to favour Canadian Airlines and, on the other hand, their official critic on transport is saying that it would in fact be even-handed.

The hon. member is more or less correct. It is even-handed. It will apply to all airlines and is not specific to Canadian Airlines.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc is concerned with the future of air travel in Canada, not the protection of one company.

How could the Minister of Transport have shown such a lack of basic prudence and judgment as to announce government assistance to Canadian International, without even knowing the costs and the mechanisms for the measure he was proposing?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the earlier questions from the Bloc asked for very specific information. Now we have another question which is much more general.

Yes, there will be a loss to the treasury and to various airlines from the reduction in tax. But there would be a much greater loss to the federal treasury if the second carrier in Canada, the one which provides competition and is one of the fundamental components of our competitive air transport policy, was allowed to go down for want of a relatively small amount of tax.

The fact is, if Canadian got into more serious trouble, we would not be collecting those taxes in any event.

Krever Commission

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Krever inquiry was established, as members know, to get to the bottom of Canada's tainted blood tragedy. It is responsible for finding out how HIV infected our blood supply, leading to the deaths of thousands of Canadians.

Justice Krever's inquiry has now led him right to the doorstep of a previous Liberal administration. Legislation was drafted in 1984 which might have prevented this tragedy, but the Liberal government of the time chose to ignore it because a federal election was on the horizon.

Will the present government now co-operate fully with the Krever inquiry and release all the documents surrounding the draft legislation of 1984?

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

Mr. Speaker, the government has every intention of assisting the Krever commission in getting to the bottom of the events surrounding the tainted blood scandal. In fact, it was the commission's lawyer, in December of 1985, who made the decision not to call previous ministers of health to testify before the inquiry.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Justice Krever thinks this information, particularly the information about why the legislative regulations were not proceeded with, may hold the key to why our blood supply killed thousands of Canadians, yet the government refuses to release all of the pertinent documents. We are talking about the national interest, the public interest in health. Is the security of our blood supply not part of the national interest? Is finding out why Canadians died not in the national interest?

Why does the government place cabinet secrecy ahead of the national interest in health? Why does it place the political security of Liberal politicians ahead of the security of Canada's blood supply?

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

Mr. Speaker, I categorically deny the claim of the hon. member. In fact, the former minister of health, who could shed some light on the situation, stated publicly that she would be very happy to testify before the Krever commission.

Unfortunately, the commission's counsel made a decision not to call any previous ministers. I would advise the hon. member that if he is quite serious about getting to the bottom of the matter, he might advise the commission to rethink its decision not to call any ministers to testify before the inquiry.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the commission wants documents that pertain to why draft legislation and draft regulations that might have prevented this tragedy were not proceeded with. Those are the documents the commission wants.

In August 1984 when the current Prime Minister was Deputy Prime Minister, Health Canada scientists were sounding alarms about the dangers of AIDS and legislation was drafted that might have protected the blood supply. The warning and the legislation was ignored by both Liberal and Tory governments and tainted blood victims, their families and all Canadians deserve to know why.

Will the government dispel the appearance of a cover-up by giving Krever all the information he needs to get to the bottom of the tainted blood supply?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have already been advised by the Clerk of the Privy Council that among the 30 documents that were certified as subject to prohibition under the

Canada Evidence Act, there are no documents referring to the time when John Turner was the leader.

Canadian Security Intelligence Service

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service has appointed Normand Chamberland to the position of director general, Quebec region. Mr. Chamberland is a former RCMP officer, a member of the G-2 section, which had the task of infiltrating and destabilizing the separatist movement in the 1970s. Furthermore, it was acknowledged before the Keable commission that Mr. Chamberland had been part of an operation involving the theft of dynamite from the firm Richelieu Explosives.

Why has the minister allowed CSIS to appoint a person involved in a series of illegal RCMP operations in the 1970s to the position of director of its Quebec service?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I will have to inform myself further about the matter. I am sure the individual in question met all the legal requirements. However, I will be happy to get more information for my hon. friend.

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, might I suggest to the hon. minister, while he is gathering information, that he check whether it is true Mr. Chamberland got around it by the skin of his teeth and only because he testified under the protection of the Canada Evidence Act?

Does the minister himself not find it odd that, as its senior official in Quebec, CSIS is appointing Mr. Chamberland, a specialist in undercover work, who, as the Keable commission confirmed, never apparently hesitated to use illegal means to achieve his ends?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, all these matters were gone into thoroughly by the McDonald royal commission. Its report was received and acted on by the government, in particular, in creating a separate security service in the form of CSIS. I think that the action in question has been proven appropriate and in the public interest over time. I think this speaks for itself.

Canadian Airlines

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government has been very adamant that the changes to the tax regime for Canadian Airlines will help them in the current situation. It is conditional on the employees accepting the restructuring plan.

Earlier in question period the Minister of Transport stated that he is waiting on the response from the sixth union, the CAW. We have heard that response and it is very clear that Mr. Hargrove is equally adamant that his members are not going to be allowed to vote.

All weekend I have been receiving faxes from Canadian Airline employees, some pleading for help, some stating: "Regretfully to Hargrove we did not authorize you to have the final say. We only authorized you to negotiate on our behalf".

Is the Minister of Transport prepared to take some action or is he actually prepared to allow Canadian's restructuring plan to collapse?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, in no way do we want the Canadian restructuring program to collapse. It is extremely important to that company.

I must be very candid with the House and the hon. member. It is a matter of great regret that one of the six unions is refusing to take part in the restructuring proposal of three governments, the company and the five unions.

However, if I can respond directly to the hon. member's question, it is a matter of my experience over the last week that the Canadian autoworkers and Mr. Hargrove did not always take exactly the same position from day to day. I think now that he realizes that the management of the company is attempting to restructure debt repayment, Mr. Hargrove will realize the critical importance of joining in a collective effort to save this airline.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have met with many labour groups in the past to discuss problems with strike lockout settlement mechanisms. They have pointed out it is very rarely used because the threat of using it generally causes settlement.

My question is for the Minister of Labour. Given that the labour code does not permit the government to ensure the democratic rights of Canadian's employees, if the government is not ready to act yet, will it at least amend section 108(1) of the labour code so that it would be in a position to take action when it decides it may be necessary?

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I told the House last week that section 108(1) does not apply in this case. This is the restructuring of a company. I invite the leadership of the union, the president of the Canadian auto-

workers, to negotiate with the Minister of Transport and come to a settlement like the other unions who accept this package so that Canadian Airlines International can continue to operate.

I do not think it is proper for the government to amend the labour code at this time. As a matter of fact, we are in the process of amending the labour code. It is before a committee of the House. It took us three years to get it there, negotiating and creating a consensus with union and management, something the Reform Party does not believe in.

[Translation]

Magdalen Islands Ferry

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

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

On November 22, when asked why people in the Magdalen Islands had been waiting since 1994 for the federal government to buy a new ferry, the minister refused to reply, claiming he was not aware of the case. However, over two years ago, his department set aside $30 million to replace the ferry, and the minister is now sitting on this money instead of responding to the needs of the people in the Magdalen Islands.

Now that he has had two more weeks to read a file that has been on his desk for two years, could the minister tell us why he does not go ahead and buy the new ferry as requested by all groups in the Magdalen Islands?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, if the member will recall his earlier question, he related it to a letter that had been sent the day before of which I did not have a copy at that time.

With respect to the issue of the ferry to the Madeleine Islands, the situation is quite clear. He is correct, there was money put aside for the purchase of a new ferry. I might add there is also an existing ferry which will serve well for the immediate future. In due course we will replace that ferry with another one.

The important fact to remember is that there are many changes taking place in Atlantic Canada with respect to ferry services. A good number of vessels are coming free or being released from certain routes which previously were taken up. The situation is flexible. We hope to obtain a ship within the price limit that he has suggested to this House.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on November 22, we also pointed out that the federal government had failed to follow up on recommendations made in a 1992 report ordered by Transport Canada, which revealed that the Lucy Maud Montgomery urgently needed repairs to be up to safety standards.

At the very least, until a new ferry is finally purchased, can the minister guarantee without a doubt that the Lucy Maud Montgomery is perfectly safe to operate?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time the hon. member has referred to a 1992 report which is previous to this government being elected.

I can assure him that report was looked at with the greatest care. The alleged deficiencies of the Lucy Maud Montgomery were examined and the vessel was brought up to full safety compliance.

Child Poverty

[Sharon Hayes, Reform, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is rumoured that the government will be introducing a new government program to deal with the problem of child poverty.

The Reform Party agrees that something must be done to address this issue. Will the Minister of Human Resources Development consider giving low income Canadians tax relief as an approach to child poverty rather than create another big government program?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to see that the opposition will be working with us to improve the lot of children in Canada. This is a very important issue and I thank the member very much.

We were very successful last week at the ministerial council with the provinces. We identified child poverty as something we really wanted to work on. We are looking into an integrated child benefit. That was a prominent issue on all of our agendas. We were quite pleased to see that the provinces welcomed that initiative. They could see that we could work in a complementary fashion with them.

[Sharon Hayes, Reform, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, bigger and better government programs may be well-intentioned but have left a very poor track record. We will thank the minister when he actually accomplishes something. However, statistics tell another story of the past.

One in five Canadian children live in poverty. That is 1.4 million children in all. The most recent increase is among children who

live in families with working parents. Families have suffered a $3,000 national pay cut since 1993 due to tax increases. Rising taxes are exactly why the working poor have less money for their children.

Does the Minister of Human Resources Development not see that it makes more sense to cut taxes to the working poor? That would leave more money in each pay cheque rather than giving them a government cheque through another big government program?