Debates of May 28th, 1996

Employment

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the leader of the third party what I said. I have the transcript. I said that in the last two and a half years we have seen unemployment go down, although not enough to my liking. I have said that many times in the House of Commons. I will not be happy until all people who want to find work find it.

In January 1994 we were at 11.5 per cent and now we are down to 9.4 per cent. The economy has created 636,000 new jobs in two and a half years, a record unmatched anywhere in the world.

Germany and France together have not created as many jobs as Canada was able to create in the last two and a half years. I wish we had created more. That is why we had this budget. It is why we managed to reduce the interest rate to four points below what it was a year ago so that there would be more jobs created.

As long as there are Canadians who want to work, the government will work to create jobs. We have not done too badly, 636,000 new jobs in the last two and a half years.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the number of jobs the government claims to have created, even if it were taken at face value, is completely inadequate in relation to the millions of jobs required.

If we subtract the number of jobs lost over the last three years, if we subtract the number of temporary jobs and if we subtract the number of Canadians who have given up looking for work, the government's job creation record is simply atrocious.

The government professes to have firm targets for deficit reduction. What is the government's target for reducing the unemployment rate and when will it be achieved?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, in the statistics published by Statistics Canada, it is very clear these jobs are after the deduction of the loss of other jobs. The net figures are 636,000 new jobs.

It is a very good record and we will keep working on it, as we are doing now. That is why we said we would reduce the level of unemployment. We went from 11.5 per cent to 9.4 per cent. With the policies of the Minister of Finance, approved by the government, we are doing better than any other country in the western hemisphere on that score.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, these answers are simply not enough for the 1.4 million unemployed, for the underemployed and for the one out of four Canadians worried about their jobs.

On the 1993 campaign trail the Prime Minister slammed Kim Campbell for saying unemployment would not substantially improve until the year 2000. He called it an admission of failure. Then after only two and a half years in office he turns around and says almost exactly the same thing, and all this after promising job creation heaven on pages 11, 15, 16 and 20 of the now discredited red book.

Did the Prime Minister ever intend to keep this election promise of jobs, jobs, jobs or was it, like the GST, simply another cynical political ploy to get undeserving Liberals elected?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the record of the government on job creation: 636,000 jobs. We have done it while reducing the deficit in relation to GDP from 6.2 per cent to 3 per cent this year.

On Monday in the Globe and Mail there was a big article saying people are running to buy Canadian bonds because they think it is the best investment they can make. Only a year and a half ago we had to explain to people abroad that Canada wanted to solve its problems. Now people recognize we are on the right track and they are running to buy new Canadian bonds.

The way the Minister of Finance is doing that, in two or three years from now there will be no more new cash requirements. It is better for them to rush to buy Canadian bonds.

Minister Of Human Resources Development

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development, a government minister, has made a statement that is fraught with consequences for the future. All new Canadians are concerned, and rightly so, about a government minister stating that they must share the government's political views because they chose Canada and because Canada gave them Canadian citizenship.

The Prime Minister said essentially the same thing. My question is very clear: Does the Prime Minister, by refusing to dissociate himself from his minister's statement, support the comments made

by his Minister of Human Resources Development, yes or no? That is what we want to know.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I repeated what the minister had said. He was referring to a comment about the fact that the hon. member for Bourassa is a new Canadian who came here, I imagine, as a refugee and was then granted Canadian citizenship. He is now exercising his democratic right to try to break up Canada. This did not please either the minister or myself, but he has a right to do so. Those are the rights given to those who become Canadian citizens. They have the right to espouse any cause they want.

I think that such freedoms are allowed in a country like Canada, and I am very happy to see that several other new Canadians from Quebec are sitting in this House, most of whom are on our side.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister should be careful with majorities as they may disappear quickly in certain circumstances.

Is the Prime Minister, by sticking to the comments made by the Minister of Human Resources Development, who urged the hon. member for Bourassa to choose another country, implementing plan B as a political expedient aimed at the rest of Canada, and taking members of cultural communities hostage by demanding that they share his political views if they want to become Canadian citizens?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, that is always the rhetoric, talking about hostages, talking about prisons.

It is always the same thing. They are trying to frighten people. What happened in this House? What happened is that, like his colleagues, a separatist member of Parliament did not have the courage to say he is a separatist, preferring to call himself a sovereignist.

[The Speaker]

My dear colleague, again, you are asked not to question the courage of any member. If the Prime Minister has something to add to his answer, he may do so now.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to see that the members of the Bloc Quebecois now want immigrants to be welcome in Quebec. I am very happy to hear this. I would have preferred that they not attack the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration who, during the referendum, wanted them to have the same freedom of speech as that enjoyed by the hon. member for Bourassa.

The people who criticized us for allowing new immigrants to vote in the referendum are now complaining that both sides of the House can now express themselves freely. In the opinion of Acadians, those who, upon becoming citizens of all of Canada, regained the freedom they had lost in their native countries should not try to break up Canada.

Canadian Security Intelligence Service

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, CSIS has arrested and charged two agents of the Russian FSB, formerly known and the KGB, for the firebombing of a Toronto home owned by a Russian businessman. Apparently this Canadian resident owed money to a Russian bank. This is a grave and serious matter of internal security and external diplomacy.

If the solicitor general determines, as it is reported, that these were active KGB-FSB agents, will he and the external affairs minister immediately expel some or all Russian diplomats in Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, as the House is aware, the Canadian government has undertaken a review of the two individuals alleged to be with the Russian security service operating under false identities.

These people are under investigation by the appropriate authorities. Under the Immigration Act there are proceedings underway that will determine whether they should be deported.

As this case is before the courts, and I believe the hearings will be tomorrow, it would be imprudent for me to make any further comments on the case.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the answer given by the parliamentary secretary is appropriate for this grave and serious situation.

I ask again, if these agents who firebombed a house in Toronto are determined to be active members of the KGB-FSB, will the government expel some or all Russian diplomats today?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the person who is confused here is the hon. member because the two members he is questioning regarding the firebombing in Toronto are not the two that are related.

In any event, if any person in this country is here acting illegally appropriate actions will be taken.

Family Trusts

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.

It is now official, we have learned this morning that the ruling made by Revenue Canada in 1991, which allowed one of the wealthiest families in Canada to transfer $2 billion in assets to the United States without paying a cent in taxes, may actually have created a precedent. This morning, the deputy minister of revenue stated that hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars may well have evaded and still be evading taxes.

Is the minister of revenue prepared to admit today that, contrary to what she said two weeks ago, the situation does require urgent attention and that the time to act is not sometime next fall, but right now?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, as the House knows very well, my department took the report of the auditor general very seriously and responded immediately. He was concerned about documentation of rulings, and we have responded to that. He was concerned about whether rulings were made public, and we have responded to that.

We have also responded by making sure that these very important points of law are reviewed by the finance committee. While this important review is going on, out of respect for the work of the committee, we will suspend any further rulings that have to do with this particular aspect of income tax law.

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

Mr. Speaker, the situation has evolved over the past two weeks. Two weeks ago, the minister said it was not urgent to act in this matter but, just this morning, her deputy minister indicated that, since December 31, 1991, when an advance ruling was made by officials of her department, there may have been further instances of flights of capital like the $2 billion that were transferred to the U.S. without a cent being collected in taxes.

The government did not act. The only way to go is to immediately suspend the 1991 advance ruling, preventing it from being extended to other families. That is what the government should do. Will the minister undertake before this House to take this action immediately?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the deputy minister indicated he had no clear understanding that there were any tax rulings which preceded or came after 1991. I would recognize again, as the hon. member points out, that 1991 was a time previous to our government and we are taking action to deal with this very critical aspect of income tax law right now.

The hon. member has a very good opportunity to listen to the witnesses who come before the finance committee to understand the complexities of this part of the Income Tax Act. It is complex. It does affect all Canadians. I would encourage him to listen closely to the testimony and be part of a good and fulsome recommendation to the Minister of Finance.

Government Contracts

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the defence minister has abused his budget and now the President of the Treasury Board is in a conflict of interest trying to cover it up for him. I have seen the contracts. They are an example of contract splitting at its worst. The minister knows this and is condoning the practice.

Why does the President of the Treasury Board think it is acceptable for the defence minister to engineer contracts rewarding his campaign pals through Treasury Board guidelines?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I said yesterday. Department of National Defence and Treasury Board officials checked the contracts and found them to be in compliance with the guidelines regarding ministerial office budgets. I would add that we have exempt staff budgets which have different rules because there is some advice that is given which is of a partisan nature. There is a difference between these two types of budgets for that reason.

In this case advice was solicited by the Minister of National Defence. It was for advice which he judged to be necessary. Once again, it was done in compliance with Treasury Board guidelines for these budgets.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the Canadian public will be happy to hear that we now have patronage budgets for ministers.

The President of the Treasury Board keeps saying that he conducted a thorough investigation into these contracts. The investigation was a joke. Whom did he ask? He asked Department of National Defence officials if they followed Treasury Board guidelines and to everyone's surprise, they said yes. It is like asking the fox to mind the chicken coup.

Given these blatant abuses and conflicts of interest, why has the ethics counsellor not been called in to look at this matter?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, the member should recognize that he too has a political budget. If he looks at his budget as a member of Parliament, the secretary he hires and the people who are hired to give him advice under that budget are usually picked because they are of a certain political colour. Every member of Parliament and every minister has an exempt staff budget.

The member talks about patronage. He is trying to use loaded words. He does not recognize the fact that these budgets are term exempt staff budgets because they usually employ people who give advice of a partisan nature.

Foreign Affairs

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

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

We just learned about the incredible fate of four Romanian stowaways, three of whom are said to have thrown overboard by the captain of the cargo ship they were aboard.

Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs provide details on the circumstances surrounding this horrible tragedy?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I would explain to the hon. member that because the alleged transgression took place on the international high seas, Canada has no legal standing. The only countries that can take action are those that are party to the dispute, the flagship nation Taiwan, the Romanians or in this case the Philippines because of the crew involved.

We have offered every co-operation we can to those authorities. There have been discussions with the Romanian authorities. My officials met with the Romanian chargé d'affaires to offer our full co-operation. We are prepared to do anything we possibly can.

The Minister of Transport has said that the ship is still being held in the harbour. The Minister of Justice is working on potential extradition questions with the Romanians. Canada will co-operate in any way we possibly can to deal with this very serious misdeed.