Debates of April 22nd, 1996

Somalia Inquiry

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, clearly I carried out my responsibilities by setting up the commission of inquiry on Somalia. I would ask the hon. member to await the commission's deliberations. Once these deliberations are over, he will have all the answers he and the people of Canada want.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, a commission of inquiry is usually called upon to investigate events of the past that continue to take place in the Canadian army. Events have occurred under the responsibility of the minister that warrant his action. The minister cannot hide behind a commission letting it assume his responsibilities for him. Things are happening right now.

How has the minister been able to hide behind the commission since the start of this affair saying that all issues would be examined, when he knew the identity of the military personnel who gave the orders to falsify and hide documents, officers who remain in positions of responsibility and whom he has not yet sanctioned as his responsibilities would require him to do?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the hon. member read the terms of reference of the commission of inquiry on Somalia.

In the terms of reference, which I quoted from last week, there were the terms "cover-up", "missing documents" and "tampering of documents". This terminology was used in the original terms of reference.

In specific reply to the hon. member's question, the commission has determined that even though the mandate of the commission was to November 28, 1994, when it comes to documentation and the allegations of tampering, destruction or cover-up, the commission feels it can go beyond that timeframe.

If the hon. member has some concerns about other events that did not take place in the watch of the other government, all this will be under the eye of the commission. It will get to the answers the people of Canada expect and which they will receive.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it appears that the commission members are aware that some documents have been destroyed. It also appears that the military police are aware that some documents have been destroyed. It seems that the public relations office, presumably reporting to the minister-there is perhaps a minister in that department somewhere-is also aware that some documents have been destroyed. It would appear the minister is the only one not aware. There was no video this time, so he knows nothing.

Can the minister tell us whether or not he has seen the military police report stating that documents were destroyed? Has he or has he not seen it? A very simple question.

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, there have been selective readings from what I suppose is the military police document which will be part of the evidence presented this Wednesday at the inquiry.

The inquiry should be allowed to table that report, have it made public, let everyone read it and come to their own conclusions, rather than my selectively responding to quotes from a report, whether from that report or another document, in the House of Commons.

The whole point of creating the inquiry was to allow a thoughtful, orderly process with due regard to the legal rights of individuals, all to be conducted in an impartial setting away from the partisanship of the House of Commons. It was the right thing to do. It was what this party called for in opposition. We have delivered on that commitment.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, the military police are investigating the events of June, July, August and September 1995. The minister refuses to deal with it, washes his hands of it, passes the buck to commission members. So much for his version.

I have a very simple question. Is the minister telling us that, in the Canadian armed forces, you can do anything you want without the minister dealing with it, that it will just be handed over to commission after commission after commission? Is that what his attitude is?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the question really makes sense. The hon. member will get all the answers to the questions he posed today and the questions in the House in the last couple of weeks.

If they are patient while the commission does its work, there will be a subset of hearings on the documentation issue beginning Wednesday. Other things will be revealed and other testimony will be given over the coming months with respect to the general incidents that occurred in Somalia.

Everything, I assure members, will be answered. That is why the terms of reference were crafted in that way. No one outside of selected members of the opposition have criticized the terms of reference. Most people realize they are broad, that they are all-encompassing and that they will get at the truth.

The government wants to get at the truth. Canadians want to get at the truth.

Goods And Services Tax

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in chapter 6 of the red book, "Governing with Integrity", the Liberals promised to restore the quality of our democratic institutions, end arrogance in political leadership and improve their accountability with Canadian voters. That rings pretty hollow today.

In the last election the Liberals campaigned on a promise to kill, scrap and abolish the GST. They know it. The voters of York-South Weston, the voters of Broadview-Greenwood and in fact all Canadians know it.

How many billions of dollars is the Prime Minister willing to give to the Atlantic Liberal provinces and how may of his own MPs is he willing to sacrifice to come across on his broken GST promise?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, page 22 of the red book is very clear:

A Liberal government will replace the GST with a system that generates equivalent revenues, is fairer to the consumers and to small business, minimizes disruption to small business, and promotes federal-provincial fiscal co-operation and harmonization.

That is exactly what the Minister of Finance is trying to do at this time.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen on parallel here that instead of replacing the GST he will harmonize it. He is now replacing MPs. It is as simple as that. He has gone back on a promise and those people who campaigned in the last election know full when what they campaigned on.

By his heavy handed actions today, the Prime Minister has shown complete disregard for the democratic process and that his precious red book means absolutely precious little. The Prime Minister has placed party and politics ahead of principles and people. The message is clear. If you want to keep your election promises, you cannot do it in the Liberal caucus.

Is it really worth it? Is saving face on the broken GST promise worth the billions the government plans to spend on harmonization? It is worth punishing MPs whose only crime is standing up for their constituents?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, every Liberal MP campaigned on the red book. It is very clear this phrase is part of the red book and everybody knew it. It is exactly what we are doing at this time.

I remember the days when the member was in the House advocating and supporting the concept of the GST and flip-flopped a couple of times. We said it. We put it in writing and it is very clear.

Some members of Parliament voted against the government on some bills. We have acted accordingly. When a member of Parliament clearly votes non-confidence in the government it is because he does not want to support the government. He wants to be independent and he will sit as an independent member of Parliament. I wish him good luck getting elected as an independent candidate.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, with all respect and in supporting the member for York South-Weston, he did not want to support the government. "You got that right" is what he would say to the government and to the Canadian people. He knew what he had campaigned on in 1993.

The Deputy Prime Minister, who campaigned to resign if the GST were not scrapped, is still here. The Liberal member for York South-Weston, who was merely living up to the campaign promises in the red book, got the boot.

The government can hide the GST. It can spend billions trying to harmonize the GST. It can ditch all the anti-GST Liberals it wants. However, Canadians will not be fooled. They know these people campaigned on scrapping, abolishing and killing the GST.

Why does the Prime Minister not simply admit he has no intention of keeping his election promise? Why does he not simply tell Canadians not to believe a word they read in the red book?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. member to read the promises. She should listen:

A Liberal government will replace the GST with a system that generates equivalent revenues, is fairer to the consumers and to small business, minimizes disruption to small business, and promotes federal-provincial fiscal co-operation and harmonization.

That is exactly what the Minister of Finance is doing at this time. We are keeping our promises. That is why the member is so frustrated.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Finance did not deny that replacing provincial sales taxes and the GST with a new GST hidden in the sales price would involve federal compensation of $1 billion to the Atlantic provinces, to come out of the pockets of all Canadians.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister confirm that the agreement his government is preparing to announce with the Atlantic provinces does not constitute the removal of the GST as he had promised, but an expensive camouflage of a new 15 per cent GST in the price of goods and services?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I have just read the Liberal Party's promise in the red book twice. I do not need to repeat it. We said that we wanted to harmonize with the provincial governments so that there would be a single tax, so that businesses had only one sales tax report to do, and so that we would have a system that was the same for all Canadians, simplifying everyone's operations. That is exactly what the Minister of Finance is in the process of doing.

When the agreements are concluded, the Minister of Finance will have no trouble expressing himself, and indeed is rarely hard put to do so in this House.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to refresh the Prime Minister's memory ever so slightly. He said, during the 1995 election campaign, that he would abolish the GST. He made a solemn promise to abolish the GST and, as with the numerous defence department scandals, we have it on tape.

Not only is the Prime Minister telling us that he will not abolish the GST, but he is confirming that by hiding the new GST in the price of goods, the federal government will more easily be able to increase it, unbeknownst to the public. Is that correct?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, once again, they are trying to scare people. It is not a question of increasing the GST. It is a question of changing the GST, of putting in place a national tax that will apply to everyone. There will be more work to do outside Quebec, because the tax is already harmonized in Quebec.

Right now, the Minister of Finance wants the same taxation level for all Canadians who pay a federal and provincial tax, and that is what he is working out with the provincial governments, who will, over the years, have to forgo a certain amount of revenue. As always, as we have done in other cases, we will help the provincial governments, especially those having the most trouble, the poorest provinces, to adapt to the new national system.

It is a question of being fair to all Canadians and that is what we are aiming for: a clear, simple and fair system for everyone.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is absolutely unbelievable. By sacrificing a caucus member because he had the nerve to hold the Prime Minister accountable for his own promise to kill the GST, the Prime Minister has made a mockery of parliamentary democracy and a mockery of this place.

The Prime Minister has betrayed the member for York South-Weston, who was only attempting to hold him accountable and give him a chance to fulfil his promises and the principles he ran on and won the election on. That is a fact.

Why has the Prime Minister abandoned the promise to bring about parliamentary reform?

[The Speaker]

A little while ago I asked all hon. members to please direct their questions to the administrative responsibilities of the minister or ministers involved.

In my view the way this question is framed, we are dealing with party matters as opposed to government matters.

I will permit the hon. member to rephrase the question, not the preamble, and put his question to whomever he likes.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, why has the Prime Minister flagrantly broken his promise to bring about parliamentary reform?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, for the first time when private members' bills come before the House we are allowing ministers and members of our party to vote the way they want. That has never happened before in the history of Parliament. It is working. It is a reform that has been appreciated but not noted.

Unlike the member, I have been here for a few years and it is a big departure from what existed before. Members of Parliament voted on private members' bills according to the party line. We have given that freedom. It is a step in the right direction.

However, we live in a system in which we have a responsible government. When the government is defeated on a question of confidence it has no choice but to call an election. When it is a matter of voting non-confidence in the government, it is a question that one does not belong to the party that forms the government. That is all.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister would not know parliamentary democracy if he grabbed it by the throat. That is a fact.

A few years ago former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney kicked an MP out of caucus for voting according to their constituents' wishes. At that time the current Prime Minister welcomed that principled member into his own caucus. What a great irony. The Prime Minister said they would be a lot better than the hated Tories. What a farce that turned out to be.

Why oh why is the Prime Minister breaking his promise on the GST and parliamentary reform and why is it not the Deputy Prime Minister being forced to resign instead of the member for York South-Weston?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, my oh my, this member of Parliament cannot read four lines of the red book. I repeat for him: "A Liberal government-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

He does not want me to repeat it. He has heard it enough. Fine. Read the red book. This is the commitment of this party and we are delivering on it.