Debates of June 12th, 1996

Federal-Provincial Relations

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I assume that my hon. colleague, the hon. member, is aware that the unemployment insurance fund, as it used to be known, is financed by all Canadians. Money is transferred from certain provinces to others. The Government of Canada has the responsibility of ensuring that these moneys are administered responsibly.

Moreover, the provinces are responsible for education, which is rather closely related to occupational training. It is, therefore, all these constitutional responsibilities which the Government of Canada, in conjunction with the provinces, will be better assuming, thank to the reform proposed by the minister.

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

Mr. Speaker, I trust that the Minister of Human Resources Development will educate his colleague, for he is barking up the wrong tree, absolutely.

With the statements made by the minister yesterday, is the government telling us that, when it is announced that the federal government is pulling out of some area of exclusively provincial jurisdiction, this will be only under its conditions, with the provinces having no say in the matter whatsoever?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member trying to say that unemployment insurance is not a federal responsibility? If so, he had better take a refresher course on the Constitution.

The Constitution

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, only a week ago the Prime Minister appeared on national television with the premier of Quebec saying that he was not going to discuss the Constitution at the first ministers conference in June. Now, a week later, the Prime Minister is insisting that the constitutional amending formula be on the agenda at that conference. Would the Prime Minister tell the House what made him change his mind?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the hon. member on being confirmed in his position.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

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

It was a very good weekend for the Reform Party and a very good weekend for the Liberal Party too.

I did not change my mind. If the hon. member would listen to the whole meeting with the press, Mr. Bouchard said himself:

"I am downplaying it a bit, because the Prime Minister says he will perhaps want to touch very briefly on the question of constitutional review, section 49 of the Constitution, but I understood that the Prime Minister would not spend a lot of time on it in any event".

I did not change my mind.

I said that we were to discuss section 49. As to how long we will take to discuss section 49, I say an hour.

The premier of Quebec told me that he does not want to talk about it and he does not want me to help with a veto for Quebec. Since we need unanimity, if one of the participants says no, the meeting will be very short.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

They said no in Charlottetown.

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

Yes. But I am for a veto for Quebec. I hope the Reform Party will be too. If the premier of Quebec is not interested in that, the meeting will be short because of Mr. Bouchard's desire not to get Quebec a veto from the rest of Canada.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if we could follow the logic in that answer, the Prime Minister appears to be arguing that section 49 of the Constitution requires this first ministers conference to discuss the amending formula. But there have been at least three major first ministers conferences at which the constitutional amending formula was discussed: the two Meech Lake discussions and the full-blown first ministers conference with respect to the Charlottetown accord in 1992.

Why does the Prime Minister insist that another meeting is required to discuss the constitutional amending formula when these three previous meetings satisfy that requirement?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, there is a debate about whether or not it was done in the proper framework.

If in reality we have talked two or three times about it, I do not think it will hurt to talk a fourth time. It will mean that we have met the requirements of the Constitution four times. Nobody will be in a position to say that we did not want to meet the obligations of section 49 if, according to the Reform Party leader, we will have talked about it four times while the Constitution requires only one time.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Charlottetown accord discussions of the amending formula went on for several days. They were preceded by consultations by officials. They resulted in formal proposals to amend the amending formula which were agreed to by 10 provinces and the federal government.

If that did not satisfy the section 49 requirement, what is it that makes the Prime Minister think a half hour discussion at this conference in June will satisfy that requirement?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I just explained that a lot of people including some lawyers have said there is a very specific need to have a meeting on it and we have called a meeting. In the agenda we stated clearly section 49 of the Constitution passed in 1982. We are officially meeting this requirement.

Some would argue that we do not need to do it. I want to be on the safe side. I am respecting the Constitution and I am being extremely prudent. That is why people vote for my party.

Kenworth Plant

[Paul Mercier, Bloc, Blainville—Deux-Montagnes, QC]

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

Last April 9, PACCAR announced that it was closing the Kenworth plant in Sainte-Thérèse, and this was confirmed in a letter that day to plant employees and the Quebec Minister of Labour. But yesterday the Department of Human Resources Development was still refusing to pay unemployment insurance benefits to laid off employees.

Does the minister find it acceptable that his department is depriving over 700 people of unemployment insurance benefits, when it is clear that PACCAR announced the closure of the Kenworth plant on April 9, 1996?

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

Mr. Speaker, the PACCAR issue is obviously a very difficult situation for workers and their families. I think we shared the hope of the hon. member and of many colleagues in this House that, perhaps, with the help of the Government of Quebec and the participation of the Government of Canada, together with employees and company directors, we could find a solution.

It is true that the closure was announced, but there was also a strike. In addition, there was also this hope that the industry could be started up again.

I can tell the hon. member today that it is with great regret that we see that it is finally true that PACCAR, as we knew it, is closed. As I said, it is a source of great regret, because we had always hoped that the industry could be started up again. Just today, in

fact, we have finally decided to accept the fact that the industry has closed its doors and that these people will be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits.

[Paul Mercier, Bloc, Blainville—Deux-Montagnes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about 700 people without resources for two months. It is my understanding that the minister recognizes that these people are now entitled to unemplyment insurance benefits.

Can he guarantee us that he will do everything in his power to speed up the payment process, now that they are entitled to these benefits?

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

Mr. Speaker, we are aware of course of the needs of these individuals and of their families. We have been following the situation closely. If we had accepted the fact that the plant had closed and that there was no possibility of starting it up again, I think that would not have been well received by most stakeholders.

Today, however, as I said in my reply to the hon. member's question, we are accepting our responsibilities in this situation, because we recognize, as does the union, the company, and especially the workers, that the end has now come. We are going to do everything we can to try to help these employees, who have been going through some very rough times for quite a while now. We will do everything we can to try to help them as quickly as possible.

Justice

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are really confused about the Airbus deal and whether there is something in the works behind the scenes to settle the $50 million libel suit regarding Brian Mulroney out of court. CBC and its sources say yes. Government lawyers say no.

I would like to ask the minister what he thinks about this and what he has to say. Is there a deal in the works with Brian Mulroney? Yes or no? Has the federal government ever offered to settle this matter out of court? Yes or no?

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

Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question of whether there is a deal in the offing is no.

I cannot take responsibility for what the CBC may have reported, nor can I explain why it reported what it did. However, I can tell the House in response to the hon. member's question that so far as I am aware there is no settlement imminent. Indeed, there is no concrete proposal on the table to settle it.

I remind the House that this litigation was commenced by the plaintiff. It is up to the plaintiff, if he chooses to do so, to instruct his solicitors to bring a proposal forward. That is well within his authority and he may choose to do so.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, regarding ministerial accountability, it may be that the minister does not know of any concrete proposal on the table, but regarding what we hear on the news, there certainly are some questions about it.

I understand the minister is busy with the Young Offenders Act, section 745 and the Airbus deal, but I am going to ask him again.

Contrary to what he is saying, that he knows there is no concrete proposal on the table, the Canadian taxpayer is going to have to pay the bill on this regardless of what the price is. I ask the minister one more time: Where is the cash going to come from when any settlement is ever arranged? Who is going to pay for the incompetence if there are federal bureaucrats involved and the justice minister's poor judgment on this? When is he going to accept ministerial responsibility?

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, this is dealing with a matter which I believe is before the courts right now. Therefore, I do not know that the question is in order.

The minister has not indicated whether or not he wants to answer. If the minister wishes to address himself to this problem, I will give him permission to do so.

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

Mr. Speaker, the matter is before the courts, but the hon. member raises the question of whether discussions are under way for the payment of any money. I can tell the hon. member that no matter what may have been reported last night, there is no proposal, there is no settlement imminent and there is no discussion of payment of money.

In the course of litigation-and I practised litigation law for 20 years-the parties are always exchanging feelers and that is appropriate. However, as I said, the plaintiff started this lawsuit. If the plaintiff wants to instruct his lawyers to come to us with a proposal, it is within his authority to do so.

I can tell the hon. member that there is no settlement imminent. That report to that extent was incorrect. There is no discussion at present of a settlement on those terms.

Railway Safety

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

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

CN employees responsible for repairing railroad track maintenance equipment at the Joffre station in Charny were told on Monday that their shop will be shut down. This means 100 or so jobs will be lost in Charny while the same number will be created in a shop in Winnipeg. By closing the only track maintenance equipment repair and overhaul facility in eastern Canada, CN could compromise the safety of rail transportation in the region.

How can the minister give the people of Quebec the assurance that railroad tracks will remain safe when these tracks will now be maintained by a shop located in Winnipeg?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, when I was questioned last week about the changes made by VIA Rail, involving the transfer of 63 or 65 employees to Montreal, the hon. member did not raise concerns about the safety of the people in other parts of the country.

The fact is that changes result from business decisions made by the major railway companies. We have a case here where my department is keeping a close eye on the safety issue. CN has an excellent safety reputation and record, and we at the department will continue to see to it that safety is not compromised by the way CN manages its operations.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Minister of Transport realizes that what is at stake is rail safety in all of eastern Canada.

Given that the minister has the duty, under the existing legislation, to ensure the safety of rail transportation, does he intend to impose a moratorium on the closure of the shop in Charny, pending an impact study by the National Transportation Agency?