Debates of June 20th, 1996

The Economy

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, York North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is taking charge of its future. Through effective deficit reduction, industry deregulation, the lowering of internal trade barriers, Team Canada trade missions abroad and a tremendous effort by all members of the Liberal government, it has succeeded in creating a healthy economic environment for jobs and growth.

The OECD today pointed to Canada to lead the way in economic growth. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development predicts that Canada will have the fastest growing economy in the industrial world.

Thanks to a concerted focus on trade and lower interest rates, Canada's economic growth is projected to average 3.5 per cent over the next 18 months. The unemployment rate is expected to continue its downward course, averaging 9 per cent in 1997.

Canadians are a hard working, determined, results oriented people and so too is the government.

Lévis Gas Pipeline

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the premier of Quebec and the Prime Minister of Canada pledged to extend the gas pipeline from Lévis, in Quebec, to Nova Scotia, through New Brunswick. A similar commitment is expected from the New Brunswick premier.

This project will maximize spinoffs within the Canadian economy. Natural gas is an environmentally friendly source of energy. Making it available to businesses in the lower St. Lawrence, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia regions will promote their economic growth.

For eastern Quebec, this project will make it possible to set up several businesses that will be competitive thanks to this initiative. The Bloc Quebecois will work to ensure that the project becomes a reality, since it will be a mutually profitable economic partnership for Quebec and Canada.

Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, June 24, French speaking Canadians will celebrate Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day.

All over the country, including in Quebec, French Canadians will be honoured for their contribution to the greatest country in the world, Canada.

Back home, in Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, thousands of francophones and francophiles will get together in Alfred, Ontario, to celebrate the village's 125th anniversary, as well as Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day.

On Sunday, we will welcome the Deputy Prime Minister, Sheila Copps, who will come to our riding to celebrate the Saint-Jean with all French Canadians, and also with those who will honour their contribution to our country.

National Defence

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

Mr. Speaker, the military police, having been forced to reopen the investigation after the appearance of documents implicating General Boyle in the cover-up operation, have just released their report.

It concludes that the chief of defence staff not only made a false statement to his own military police, but also was aware of the cover-up, and categorically refused to reply to questions by the military police.

My question is a straightforward one to the Acting Prime Minister. What credibility does the chief of staff of the Canadian Armed Forces have, when it is now known that he lied to his own military police, that he refuses to be cross-examined, that he was aware of the cover-up of the Somalia affair? Will the government insist on his resignation, or will it not?

[John Richardson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has covered this issue a number of times. The fact that I will not comment on any evidence to be presented to the commission of inquiry is firm.

The commission was established to examine all aspects of the deployment to Somalia. Let the commission take its course.

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

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Minister of National Defence has said the same thing very often, that he refuses to budge. That we know.

If I understand the response correctly, the government tolerates its chief of defence staff lying with impunity to his own military police and, what is more, refusing to submit to any cross-examination. We also learned that he had the support of five officers-the Canadian Army camouflage brigade no doubt-in preparing his testimony before the inquiry, while the other witnesses had no such services available to them.

Can the government tolerate such a practice? Is this not utterly shameful?

[John Richardson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the commission of inquiry is the proper forum for this kind of debate, not the floor of the House of Commons. Let the commission do its job.

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

Mr. Speaker, the commission is doing its job, despite every effort to block it from so doing by the chief of defence staff. The one not doing its job is the government, that is the problem. I had hoped for more than a pre-recorded message in response.

The chief of defence staff will appear before the inquiry only in mid-August.

Meanwhile, he has lost all credibility, not only in the eyes of Quebecers and Canadians, but also in the eyes of Canada's allies. Who can have any confidence in him when he meets with other chiefs of defence staff? Does the government not realize that it is the entire credibility of Canada that is at stake, the credibility of the Canadian Armed Forces as a whole, as long as this general is left in charge?

[John Richardson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I repeat, the minister has covered this issue a number of times. The minister will not comment on this because the evidence is presented to the commission of inquiry. Let the commission do its job.

Pearson International Airport

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

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

The other House definitively signed the death warrant for the bill on the Pearson airport yesterday. The government is now faced with damage suits, and the Liberals' blunders could cost taxpayers up to $662 million. All because the government has been refusing for the past two years to listen to the official opposition and to hold a public hearing to bring this whole political and financial scandal to light.

Rather than submit yet again to another partisan study behind closed doors, and because the government is in a tight spot, is it the minister's intention, finally, to hold a real public hearing into this whole matter?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the contradiction between one member of the Bloc's not wanting to have a commission of inquiry proceed but to have it discussed on the floor of the House and the next question coming from a member who would prefer to have a commission rather than discuss it on the floor of the House is very striking.

I agree with him that we have a concern here. The government will not allow the Conservative senators to put the Canadian taxpayer at risk to the tune of some $600 million of unearned and undeserved profits.

That is why the bill was introduced in the first place. We are now examining our options for our next steps. We are looking at all options before us. None is ruled out. There is one consideration paramount, that we protect the Canadian taxpayer from this attempt of the Conservative senators to provide $600 million or more of unearned profits to the developers.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is just as irresponsible as the Senate. We have been calling for a commission of inquiry for two years, not since yesterday.

The Government Leader in the Senate said, following the vote yesterday, that they would do everything in their power to ensure no Conservative interest group would benefit from the agreement.

What assurance do we have from the minister that Liberal interest groups will not benefit from this agreement either?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the government's position has been put many times in the House and elsewhere, not just since this government was formed but also during the election campaign when this infamous deal was signed by the previous government 10 days before the election date.

We wish to protect the Canadian taxpayers by all the means we have available. I assure the hon. member we will make available to him and to other members of the House our decision in due course as to how we will proceed.

All I can say further is that what happened last night by the Mulroney appointed senators, unelected members, was a vote in favour of granting hundreds of millions of dollars of unearned and undeserved profits in an unacceptable deal done in the dying days of a federal campaign.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, during the last election campaign the Liberals, not the Conservatives, made a number of ill conceived promises that are now costing taxpayers billions.

First it was the GST, then it was the EH-101 helicopter cancellation and now it is the Pearson airport development deal.

The Pearson deal cancellation was politically motivated in the first place. The attempt to keep it out of the courts was politically motivated, and now Canadian taxpayers could be on the hook for $662 million and counting.

Who will take responsibility for this mess, the former transport minister, the present transport minister or the Prime Minister who made the wrong decision in the first place?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot in recent days about the right getting together, but there is something thoroughly unpleasant in the way

the Reform Party is cosying up to a group of people in the other place trying to provide the developers of this proposal with money they have not earned.

This party should recognize that in its efforts to get the right together, it is perhaps cosying up to the wrong people.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy of the minister pretending to protect taxpayers' interests. The way to protect taxpayers' interests would have been to have made the right decision in the first place, not to try to shield a wrong decision from the courts.

Nothing the government says can change the fact that this government cancelled the Pearson deal in the first place, that this government compounded the problem by trying to deny access to the court to affected parties and that this government will leave taxpayers on the hook for $662 million or more.

What will be done to undo the damage of this politically motivated decision and action?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the third party, the fourth party-Reformers must thank their lucky stars the Bloc Quebecois did not run a candidate in Hamilton or they would have been fifth.

The position of the government is clear. The contracts were entered into in the middle of an election campaign when it was indicated by one of the major political parties that if we were elected the appropriateness of the contract would be reviewed. It is appropriate to compensate the parties for their out of pocket expenses but not for profits they have not earned. That is our position and we will do whatever we can in the future.

The hon. member can stay tuned for our decision in the future and he will find we will be taking further steps to protect the Canadian taxpayer, whom he from time to time seems to have some concern for.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what we have here is a huge infrastructure project of vital importance to Ontario and to Canada knocked completely off the rails by political interference.

In the Airbus case we have the Liberals trying to use the justice department to go after a political opponent. In this case we have the Liberals trying to deny both their friends and their political opponents access to the courts. This is political corruption of the sleaziest kind, and Canadians want resignations-

[The Speaker]

Although no particular member was named, I find the words "political corruption" to be very strong. I wonder if the hon. leader of the Reform Party would consider withdrawing the words "political corruption". Following the withdrawal would he put his question directly.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the words but we continue to worry about why the words offend the House but what they represent do not.

[The Speaker]

My colleague, a simple withdrawal. Would the hon. member please just make the withdrawal of the words?

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

I withdraw the words, Mr. Speaker.

Where are the resignations, not the excuses, that will convince Canadians that political interference in infrastructure development, in purchasing and in due process will stop and stop now?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the attempts to unify the right are reaching new lows. What groups should he be asking for resignations from, those attempting to protect taxpayers' interests or those that would assist the lobbyists and the developers get unearned income?

I suggest the hon. member from Calgary read the May 15 Hansard of the other place, read the changes that were made to the bill, read the statements made by the chief witness of the Conservative Party in that place, Professor Monahan, where we met all the objections with the exception of the issue of lobbyist fees and unearned profit.

Atomic Energy Of Canada Limited

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

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

Earlier this week, the minister tried to convince the House that decisions by Atomic Energy of Canada did not involve her. It did not prevent her from claiming that this crown corporation would provide Quebec with $100 million in economic benefits with each sale of a CANDU-6, a figure strongly contested by those responsible for marketing this equipment.

Will the minister acknowledge that, if Atomic Energy of Canada moves from Montreal to Toronto, the businesses she listed the day before yesterday are very likely to transfer part of their operations to Toronto as well to be close to the source of their contracts? Will she recognize this?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, let me clarify to the hon. member that I did not say I was not interested in AECL and the restructuring that it is forced to go through like every other company, be it a crown corporation or a private corporation in this country.

What I said was that the government has an arm's length relationship with crown corporations such as AECL and we do not involve ourselves in the day to day running or management of AECL.