Debates of May 31st, 1996

Manpower Training

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the offer made to all of the provinces and territories of Canada is as follows. We wanted to ensure that there was some element of certainty, if ever we were able, as I hope we will be, to reach some agreement that would last a minimum of three years. We wanted to be sure that it lasted at least three years. That is not the maximum, nor the set duration.

In this way, we hope to be able to show our good faith, our desire to find a new way of doing things, assuring the provinces and territories that any agreement concluded would last at least three years. This is not merely a question of revision; for as long as agreement continues thereafter, once the three years are over, we ought to be able to continue these agreements for an indefinite period.

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

Mr. Speaker, it would also be worthwhile to set some guidelines, as in the case of the agreement on immigration, because the agreement I am talking about has not always proved entirely successful.

For the last ten years as well, the federal government has been paying $130 million to Quebec from the consolidated fund. Yesterday the minister admitted that his government would be withdrawing from the manpower field within three years, with no compensation.

Will the federal government continue to invest in this sector the funds it was previously paying to the provinces, such as the $130 million Quebec was, and still is, receiving under the 1989 agreement? If so, is this not proof of its continuing to be involved in this area, despite its avowed intention to withdraw?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to suggest that we will not manage to sign any agreements, but even if it happened that no agreement was reached, we are already committed to withdrawing from the field of manpower training. Our decision in that connection was made months ago. As far as the estimates and appropriations earmarked for manpower training are concerned, it was our intention, and continues to be our commitment, to withdraw totally from manpower training.

This means the budgets will drop to zero. We will not be getting back into that area again; we have absolutely no intention of doing so.

As for the agreements we hope to negotiate, however, there is no doubt that for active measures, if the provinces so desire-and it will be of their own choosing-they will no doubt be able to do certain things in the occupational training sector which they consider to be legitimate and worthwhile.

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

Mr. Speaker, there would appear to be a number of clarifications needed in this area; we have been told that the federal government is headed toward elimination of the funding allocated to the provinces. There is reference to a zero budget within three years.

The money itself will not, however, disappear. It will not go to the provinces, but neither will it disappear.

What we need to know is what the federal government intends to do with that money. This strikes me as a good question, and one that we will certainly be getting back to, for at some point I would like to have a response.

Taking a different tack on this same subject, in his recent budget the Minister of Finance announced that he would be freeing up $315 million over three years for the young people of Quebec and Canada, to help them break into the work force.

Can the Minister of Human Resources Development indicate to us why this vital program is not part of the proposal made to the provinces, since it is quite obviously a manpower program? Even more important, it involves not only today's work force, but tomorrow's as well, the work force of the future.

Why not integrate this project announced a few weeks ago by the Minister of Finance with the offer made to the provinces?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a highly complex matter, this entire area of training and active measures.

The hon. member is right, there are other departments in addition to my own with responsibility in these sectors with which we have long been involved. I wish to assure my hon. colleague, and particularly the governments with which we are going to negotiate, of our desire to ensure that these active measures, tailored to the specific needs of the provinces, are delivered by them.

As far as our withdrawal from manpower is concerned, the hon. member indicated that the money we do not spend on training will still be there somewhere, but that is not the case. As you know, despite the valiant efforts of the Minister of Finance, we still have a deficit in Canada.

It is not as if there were money left over somewhere. When budgets are cut, or when we pull out of one or another sector, the unspent moneys are reflected in the government's overall financial plan, and it is in that context that we have already committed ourselves to decreasing our expenditures year after year. This has, moreover, already been done already for some time; when we are no longer involved in manpower training, the budgets will have been totally used up as well.

Justice

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

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

Yesterday, in responding to a question in the House, he refused to say whether he would make public the report on the inquiry sought by his department on the assistant deputy attorney general's interference with the chief justice of the federal court. The minister agreed to make public only the action he would be taking at the end of the inquiry.

Why is the minister refusing to make public the complete report of the inquiry by Mr. Dubin on such a serious case of undue interference in the legal system?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry my position was not made clear yesterday. In response to the hon. member's question, I intend to table Mr. Dubin's report when it is finished.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, such a serious error by a senior public servant demands quick action on the part of the government.

Is the minister prepared to table the report of the inquiry sought by his department by the end of the present session and not in the summer when no one is here?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have only one hesitation in committing myself to that. I will table Mr. Dubin's letter to me or his report, whatever he produces. The House should see that. He has expressed concern about doing that before the motion pending in front of Mr. Justice Cullen is resolved.

Mr. Justice Cullen of the Federal Court has a motion before him to stay these three revocation cases. Mr. Dubin is concerned that producing his findings and his advice in advance of Mr. Justice Cullen coming to a conclusion might not be proper.

There is no question that I will make the advice of Mr. Dubin available to the House. My only hesitation in saying that I will do it as soon as I receive it is that the matter may soon be pending before Mr. Justice Cullen. If it arises after the House adjourns, I will mail a copy to my friend as soon as I properly can.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Assistant Deputy Minister Ted Thompson's letter to Chief Justice Isaac, dated March 1 states: "Further to our meeting this morning in which I advised that the Attorney General of Canada is being asked to consider taking a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada to determine some preliminary points of law, primarily because the Federal Court trial division is unable or unwilling to proceed with the subject cases expeditiously".

Who asked the justice minister and what was the basis on which the minister was asked to consider taking these revocation cases from the hands of Justice Jerome and referring them to the Supreme Court of Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice is organized in such a way that recommendations would come from what is called a litigation committee. Senior litigation lawyers in the department meet regularly to consider the conduct of cases that are before the courts.

At the time the letter was written, it is my understanding that the litigation committee was considering whether to recommend to me that these issues be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada so that they could be moved along more quickly. They had not yet come to a conclusion and I had not by that date received any recommendation.

In fact, I spoke about this matter with Mr. Dubin yesterday. He interviewed me over the luncheon hour. I have every expectation that the report or the advice he eventually provides will deal with the chronology of events. He is interviewing all the relevant people, so I hope all these matters will be matters of record when he completes his work.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the justice minister was asked if he was prepared to lay a complaint against Chief Justice Isaac with the Canadian Judicial Council. He said no, claiming it was not up to him to order the council to investigate the irresponsible actions of the chief justice.

Section 69(1) of the Judges Act explicitly gives the federal Minister of Justice the responsibility and the authority to order an inquiry by the judicial council into inappropriate behaviour by a federally appointed judge.

Why did the minister not fulfil his responsibility by following the appropriate course of action? Why did he not order the inquiry by the judicial council?

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

Mr. Speaker, subject to being corrected, I think it is section 63(1) that provides-

[An hon. member]

It is 69(1).

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

All right, it is 69(1), that provides that I may direct an inquiry to be held under the Judges Act. However, on the facts as I know them, at least at present, I do not believe this is a case that warrants that kind of inquiry. We had one in the case of Judge Bienvenue which is now before the judicial council.

The other thing that is important is the judicial council has already acted in relation to this matter. I told the House yesterday of the information that I have, that the judge who chairs the judicial conduct committee of the council, Chief Justice McEachern of British Columbia, has invited Chief Justice Isaac to explain what happened so that the committee can consider it and decide whether further action is warranted.

It is not as though nothing is happening on that front. The council is looking at the conduct and will respon appropriately.At least in my judgment at this time, on the basis of the facts as I know them, I do not believe it is an appropriate case for the kind of formal inquiry that is contemplated by the section to which my hon. friend has referred.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that the justice minister is not considering this to be an important issue.

Yesterday the Ottawa Citizen stated: ``Judge Isaac's actions constitute one of the most serious erosions of judicial independence in Canadian history''.

My final supplementary question is this. The Minister of Justice admitted yesterday that he learned of the judicial interference involving his deputy assistant one week after the March 1 meeting. Why did he wait almost three months to make a ministerial statement in the House? Why did the minister not immediately reveal to the House and Canadians the inappropriate actions of Ted Thompson and Chief Justice Isaac.

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

Mr. Speaker, first in relation to the extent to which I consider this matter serious, when I spoke on Monday, I made it clear that I consider this a very serious matter and that I take it seriously. It is for that reason that I brought in a person of the stature and independence of former Chief Justice Dubin to look at the facts and provide advice on what should happen.

Second, as to what happened after March 1, I believe when Mr. Dubin recounts the chronology, it will disclose that within a week or two after March 1, this incident came to light within the department. Ted Thompson acted on his own initiative in having the meeting and in having the correspondence. Then it came to the light of people in the department.

As soon as that happened, we ensured that copies of the correspondence and particulars of the meeting were put in the hands of the lawyers acting for the three parties in the Federal Court. Then they brought motions in the court based on that correspondence.

These events were the subject of news reports in April. The matter was entirely in the open. We did not try to hide or cover up anything at all.

As to my ministerial statement being made last Monday and not in March, our first focus was on the court cases and responding to motions brought to stay those three cases because we believe they should go forward. After that was in hand, I then turned to internal matters in the department. I took advice from the deputy. We involved Mr. Dubin and I made my statement.

The chronology speaks for itself. The matter is now in the hands of an independent party to look at the facts. I have already told the House that I will put his advice before the House for its information.

Goods And Services Tax

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.

Yesterday, when Mr. Harris and Mr. Bouchard, the premiers of Ontario and Quebec, met, they together asked the federal government to include compensation for the harmonization of the GST on the agenda of the conference on June 20 and 21. On May 27, the Minister of Finance relegated the issue to a meeting with his colleagues.

Will the Acting Prime Minister confirm, given the importance accorded this particular issue by the premiers of the two largest provinces, that he will put the GST on the agenda of the June 20 and 21 meeting?

[Doug Peters, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister has already mentioned that it will be part of the agenda of the finance ministers' meetings some time next month.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member did not understand my question and has certainly not understood the request by the premiers of Canada's two largest provinces that this be included on the agenda of the meeting of June 20 and 21.

In response to the consensus forming among the provinces swindled by this agreement, will the Acting Prime Minister suspend all agreements and negotiations with the maritime provinces?

[Doug Peters, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, this question is clearly part of the finance minister's meetings. It is a matter that the finance ministers will discuss at their meetings, which will very likely be next month. That is the appropriate place for discussions to take place.

I would like to remind the hon. member that the agenda for the first ministers' conference has not been released yet, therefore I cannot comment on that.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as has been pointed out, the premiers of the two largest provinces have said that they are opposed to the new Liberal GST.

They are looking for a 1.5 per cent reduction in taxes in Ontario and Quebec to compensate for the $1 billion payoff to Liberal premiers in Atlantic Canada. They believe that Quebec deserves compensation for harmonizing its provincial sales tax in 1992. Alberta has made similar requests.

Will the government be acting on these requests? Will it continue to have one policy for its friends, the Liberal premiers of Atlantic Canada, and another policy for the other provinces?

[Doug Peters, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that the GST deal with the Atlantic provinces is available to all provinces that lost funds on that.

It is interesting to look at the results from Quebec. Quebec benefited from harmonization. If one looks at the first year alone of harmonization, Quebec tax revenues increased by something like 20 per cent after harmonization.

Since harmonization, Quebec has benefited by about $2.5 billion to $3 billion. Maybe we should be looking at that $2.5 billion to $3 billion in increased revenues that Quebec gained from harmonization. Maybe Ontario should be looking at that as an opportunity for a better revenue performance of its own.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is trying to take credit for some economic growth and trying to pretend that there is not one set of arrangements for some provinces and one for others.

This ill-conceived plan for harmonizing the GST has at least managed to bring about some national unity. We have had the uniting of the premiers of Ontario and Quebec, not to mention the Governments of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan in opposition to the federal government.

Premiers Harris and Bouchard, who are not finance ministers, they are premiers, want the issue of GST harmonization, compensation and reduction on the table at the upcoming first ministers' conference. Will the GST be on the agenda of the first ministers at their meetings in June?

[Doug Peters, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that I would be happy to take credit for the growth in the GNP in the early nineties. Unfortunately this party was not the government at that time. However, there was not very much growth if he will recall that time.

As far as this being on the agenda for the first ministers' conference, as I mentioned a few minutes ago, the agenda has not

been set up yet. The finance minister has already stated it will be on the agenda and surely that is enough to satisfy the member's question right now.