Debates of June 14th, 1996

Airbus

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to ask the minister if he will acknowledge that his responses in the House for the past two days have been lacking in transparency, since he has repeatedly denied that there has been any offer and that, under the circumstances, it is really difficult to believe his repeated statements that he is not the one behind this investigation.

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

No, Mr. Speaker. I was asked on Monday or Tuesday of this week by a reporter, in fact I was told that a settlement of this case was imminent. I said that was not so, that indeed as far as I knew there was no concrete proposal on the table. I said that then and it was true. I have also said that the parties from time to time have feelers one toward the other. That is typical in litigation. There is nothing surprising about that.

We are in litigation. We are defending the action. We are proceeding and preparing for the next stage. I shall report significant developments to the House when they occur.

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

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

Yesterday morning, the Prime Minister denied in a CBC interview that there had been any negotiations to settle the Airbus affair out of court. Yet, in a report presented yesterday evening, the CBC contradicted his statement.

In this matter, which is taking on more and more the appearance of settling political scores and less and less that of a properly conducted court case, why under the circumstances has the Prime Minister denied that negotiations had been held toward reaching an out of court settlement of the Airbus affair, last Tuesday in Montreal?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has just given a response on this. It is a matter that is in the hands of lawyers, and lawyers do speak together. I am not aware of everything that the lawyers talk about.

This matter is the responsibility of the Minister of Justice. A plaintiff has instituted proceedings against against the government. Does he want to settle out of court? I do not know, and it is up to the lawyers to decide. Let them talk to each other.

I practiced law for a number of years. Lawyers speak together every day, and very often they may talk about whether or not they can put an end to a case, during these conversations.

I would add that we are the defendants in this case, not the plaintiffs, and the Minister of Justice has given an explanation. I am not a direct party to this case.

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in a matter where it is obvious that the government's lawyers have been ordered to use strong arm tactics on the former Prime Minister of Canada, does the present Prime Minister find it normal, in these politically charged circumstances, for the Minister of Justice to seemingly not have kept him informed of his meetings with the RCMP or of the possibility of an out of court settlement, which might cost the taxpayers of Canada several million dollars?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, this in an investigation which dates back several years now. The first time the police looked into the matter, we were not in government. It was during the days of the previous government. The investigation was reopened, and the plaintiff has instituted proceedings against the government. The Minister of Justice is acting as the government's solicitor, and he has delegated the case to a number of lawyers.

As for me, I do not get mixed up in police investigations. It is not appropriate for a Prime Minister to get involved in police business when an investigation is being carried out. I have neither asked for nor provided any instructions in this connection. It is, moreover, my duty as Prime Minister to ensure that police inquiries can be carried out without any political interference by anyone whatsoever.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Justice.

The minister said in response to questions from the member for Beaver River on Wednesday: "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". Furthermore he said: "I cannot take responsibility for what the CBC may have reported, nor can I explain why it reported what it did".

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, how can he make statements like that to the House when he knows that the day before his lawyers were discussing a settlement? How can he possibly say there is no explanation for the story, give the House that kind of information when his lawyers are sitting down and discussing a settlement?

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, when I was asked a question by a reporter from the CBC on Tuesday, I was told that a settlement was imminent. That was news to me. I said to the reporter that it was not right. The fact was that no settlement was imminent. There were not even concrete proposals on the table. That is what I said and that is the fact. There was no discussion of payment of money.

Whether the lawyers are in the course of discharging their duties, having conversations or not, that is a separate matter, something over which I have no control. It is entirely within the ordinary course of a lawyer's work in litigation. I practised litigation myself for 20 years and I know how common it is.

The hon. member should look at the facts. It was put to me that there was a settlement imminent. I responded that that was not so. I responded that there were no concrete proposals on the table and that remains the case.

Let us focus on the facts here. The facts are as I have disclosed them to the House.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that kind of hair-splitting could only be done by a lawyer.

I am citing an article in the Toronto Sun yesterday where it says that Globe and Mail managing editor Colin MacKenzie said that Rock approached parliamentary journalist Susan Delacourt for help in his behind the scenes probe of Mulroney one or two days after he first heard about allegations from another journalist.

My question is very simple. Going back to the beginning of this affair, why was the Minister of Justice conducting his own private investigation?

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

First, Mr. Speaker, it hardly behoves the hon. member to challenge the facts and then when the facts are explained to him to describe it as hair splitting. The facts are the facts whether the member likes them or not.

In so far as journalists are concerned, I have made it a matter of public record from the outset. I have been frank and direct in saying that I was fixed with information early on after I became Minister of Justice. In respect of that information, I sought advice. I consulted with the deputy minister. I consulted the solicitor general. On the basis of that consultation, I communicated the information to the authorities, discharging my moral obligation to do so, and for them to do with as they saw fit.

The police eventually reported that they had looked into what I had said, that there was no reason for further inquiry and that they were closing the file.

May I also say that is a practice that has been followed in the past. Indeed, it was revealed last week by John Turner that when he was minister of justice he followed exactly the same procedure.

I would like the hon. member to tell the House whether he thinks that if a Minister of Justice and Attorney General is told something

about allegations of serious wrongdoing that he ought not to pass it on to the authorities? That to me is a startling proposition.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, of course the Minister of Justice should pass on the information to the proper authorities.

Now will he answer my question and tell us why he made additional inquiries with journalists to get more information himself?

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

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the hon. member may have read in the newspapers, the fact is that I did no such thing. I have made it clear from the outset that two people provided me with information. I believe I acted entirely responsibly in the circumstances and provided the information to the authorities.

I am gratified to see that the hon. member agrees that was the correct thing to do.

Human Rights

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

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

Yesterday, a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal rendered a decision that will force the federal government to stop all discrimination against same sex couples by giving them the same benefits enjoyed by common law couples.

Could the Minister of Justice tell the House whether the Government of Canada intends to appeal this decision?

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

Mr. Speaker, this decision, made public yesterday morning at 9.30, contains some very complex points that will require a few days to untangle. We are not making any decision on the important issue of appeal until we have studied the consequences of the decision in detail.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the tribunal ordered the federal government to stop the use immediately, in a number of federal texts, of any definition of spouse that discriminates against same sex partners in a common law relationship.

Could the Minister of Justice tell us whether he intends to comply with the ruling of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal?

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

Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I have already said. The decision made public yesterday raises extremely complex points requiring detailed consideration and consultation, in particular with our lawyers, before we take any sort of a position.

Airbus Aircraft

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as a direct result of an investigation by the justice minister's department, it now appears that Canadians could be on the hook for millions of dollars. Now the justice minister is saying he is leaving it to the lawyers to negotiate a possible settlement in this case.

Is the minister seriously telling us that he is giving nameless departmental lawyers the authority to pay millions of dollars to Brian Mulroney in a possible settlement which he says he knows nothing about, or is he really aware of everything that is going on and he is just trying to hide it?

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

Mr. Speaker, in the first place, the member errs when he begins by saying that this was an investigation conducted by the justice department. This was a police investigation conducted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for whom the solicitor general reports to Parliament.

The role of the Department of Justice is also a matter of record. As happens 100 to 150 times a year, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police went to the International Assistance Group and asked it to communicate to a foreign government a request for assistance in pursuing the investigation. That was the role of the Department of Justice. This is not a justice department investigation.

As to settlement, the government has retained and instructed very competent lawyers to defend this litigation. We are preparing for the next stage of litigation. With respect to matters of settlement, if discussions for settlement occur they will be conducted by the lawyers who eventually will seek instructions. As I have said, I shall report to the House if there is anything of significance to report.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice continues to tell the House that he really is out of the picture on this whole thing. This is a not a two-bit case. This is a case of such magnitude that it is on the front page of the press every day.

The RCMP started this case before the Liberals came to power. They closed the case. When this government came to power and this minister was appointed, he initiated the opening of the case again, even though he may deny it. He talked to the reporter and he got the case going again.

At this time he is telling us that he is now out of it. One wonders, whether there is a case or not, how much money is at stake because of the incompetence of this minister and his government. Why is the minister telling Canadians on a daily basis that he really knows nothing about what is going on in this case and anything about a

settlement, when anyone and everyone with any kind of position on that government is talking about settlements on a daily basis?

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

Mr. Speaker, I assume there is a question there.

I can tell the hon. member that he is in grave error when he says that I initiated this investigation. The reality is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police makes its own mind up when it initiates investigations and when it stops them.

The hon. member will know from the answers I gave earlier this week in the House that there are just two principles involved here so the hon. member should follow them.

First, so long as I am Minister of Justice and Attorney General, if someone fixes me with knowledge of serious wrongdoing, after making consultation of experienced and capable people, including in this case the solicitor general, I will communicate that information to the police to do with as they might. That is principle number one and a colleague of the hon. member has already conceded that that is the proper course.

The second principle is that once that information is communicated it is up to the police to decide what to do. In this case they told me they were doing nothing after looking into it.

If they then start an investigation on their own, or into a different matter because that information does not relate to Airbus to my recollection, if they then decide to initiate an investigation that is up to the police. Politicians should not be involved in directing and controlling police investigations. That is the second important principle.

The hon. member will find that both of those principles were respected in this case.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

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

In their red book, the Liberals accused the Conservatives of weakening major cultural institutions such as the CBC by cutting off their funding. Yesterday, we learned that the CBC is preparing to have the French network assume part of the cost of Canadianizing its programming, estimated as some $27 million.

In view of the fact that this will further widen the gap in the amount of financial resources accorded the two networks, is the Prime Minister willing to accept this discrimination against francophones in Canada and Quebec?

[Guy Arseneault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, the CBC has a mandate to serve Canadians in both official languages. The hon. member should delight in the fact that 90 per cent of programming in prime time is Canadian. The network intends to increase that figure to 100 per cent.

Having said that, the CBC English network has already factored in those cuts and no other network will have to pay for the Canadianization of the English network.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, given that the French network of the CBC was already very hard hit by budget cuts and is having a hard time meeting the needs of francophones in Quebec and Canada, would the Prime Minister ensure that the English network assumes its own deficit and does not further weaken the French services of the CBC?

[Guy Arseneault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, that is what I have just said. The English network of the CBC will absorb its own cuts.

I would like to take this opportunity to draw attention to the spirit of co-operation between Radio-Canada and Radio-Quebec, which have just concluded an agreement ensuring maximum visibility for programs produced by Canadians for Canadians. In these times of budget cuts, this sort of innovative and creative partnership reflects judicious use of funds and promises more of the same.

Human Rights

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal said the government must extend to gay couples the same benefits it gives to heterosexual couples.

It said if discrimination is prohibited then benefits must be granted. However, in this House the justice minister said to us and to Canadians that his government was intent on fighting discrimination, not granting benefits.

Since the justice minister assured Canadians that the goal of the government was not to grant benefits, does he intend to stand by that commitment? How will he respond to the tribunal's decision?