Debates of Sept. 23rd, 1996

The Canadian Armed Forces

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, we have answered these questions for what I think is the sixth day in a row.

There is a commission of inquiry. The inquiry will look at all the facts of concern to the hon. member. When the inquiry finishes its work, which is expected to be in March of next year, the government will respond. At that time, I am sure the hon. member's concerns will be allayed on a number of fronts.

Job Creation

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

Mr. Speaker, in a study published last week, Royal Bank analysts estimated that using part of the surplus of the unemployment insurance fund to lower premium rates would create tens of thousands of jobs in Canada. It will be recalled that the surplus in the unemployment insurance fund will reach five billion dollars this year.

My question is for the Prime Minister. When will the Prime Minister announce a reduction in premium rates in order to create thousands of new jobs, instead of using the money of workers and companies solely to lower his deficit?

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

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the unemployment insurance premiums are set in the fall in conjunction with the Minister of Finance and the Minister for Human Resources Development. That will be announced when the decision has been made.

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

Mr. Speaker, bureaucratic explanations are not what we want, we want to see the government doing something to create jobs. Here is a golden opportunity to lower premium rates, lower payroll taxes, which do nothing but kill jobs, and create these jobs. Instead of that, I get a bureaucratic answer. In the 1994 budget, the Minister of Finance said himself that lowering unemployment insurance premiums by 7 per cent would result in the creation of 40,000 jobs.

I put the question to the Deputy Prime Minister, to the government, or to whomever is at the helm: When are you going to take action?

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

Mr. Speaker, the question of jobs is an interesting one. We have already had some 669,000 new jobs since this government took office. We have already dropped unemployment insurance premiums from over $3 at the time we were elected to the present level which is substantially below that.

We already have those job creation schemes. There have been some 766,000 new jobs in the private sector alone since we were elected, some 80,000 jobs last month. Job creation is this government's job and we are doing it.

Somalia Inquiry

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

Mr. Speaker, we hope the defence minister has had the weekend to study up on ministerial responsibility.

On Friday the minister stated: "The ministers elected by the people are responsible for the actions within their departments".

This particular minister's department has lied to the military police. It has allowed preferential treatment. It has shredded, withheld, destroyed and altered documents. It has also broken the spirit of the access to information act.

Does the Minister of National Defence plan to take responsibility for these actions, or will he simply act like General Boyle and blame everybody else?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that we on this side of the House have taken our responsibility in the management of this issue. It has been a very difficult issue for the country, for the government and for the Canadian Armed Forces.

My party in opposition in April 1993 took its responsibility by calling for a public inquiry. In office, at the earliest opportunity after the courts martial were convened and concluded, we took our responsibility by appointing three independent commissioners for the public inquiry.

This government will continue to take its responsibility when the inquiry reports next year and we will respond to the inquiry's findings.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister should know that you cannot take accountability only when it suits you.

The defence department has lied to the military police. It allowed preferential treatment. It shredded, withheld, destroyed and altered documents and it broke the spirit of the Access to Information Act.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister hold the Minister of National Defence accountable and fire the minister?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I think I have answered the question with respect to ministerial responsibility. However, if that is not good enough, I believe I have been responsible for a number of things in the last three years.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[David Collenette, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

I see the hon. member rising. Perhaps he is somewhat excited because I was about to say that I will take responsibility for bringing in a white paper, for helping to rationalize the infrastructure of the armed forces, for downsizing, delayering and reducing headquarters, for bringing private sector techniques into purchasing and management of the armed forces. That is responsibility and I am proud of it.

Air Transport

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

Mr. Speaker, since the Liberals returned to power, the government has been shameless in its favouritism in dealing with the carrier Canadian. The Minister of Transport, after blocking Air Canada's access to the Asian market, did a repeat this summer by taking away its route to the Czech Republic and giving it to its competitor, Canadian.

Air Canada's traditional market, Europe and the United States, becomes more and more accessible to Canadian, and meanwhile, the Canadian government keeps Air Canada away from the most lucrative routes on the Asian market: the old double standard.

Does the minister realize that favouring Canadian over Air Canada means 7,000 Air Canada jobs in Quebec are in jeopardy?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the policy of the government with respect to our two major carriers is one of even-handedness. Air Canada for example, the company the hon. member is concerned about, is flying to Asia, Hong Kong and Japan for the first time as a result of decisions by this government.

I would remind the hon. member, with respect to the route to Hong Kong he mentioned, we negotiated with the Hong Kong authorities who agreed with exactly the number of flights per week that Air Canada asked for. The result was that when Air Canada established its route shortly after we had been dealing with the Hong Kong government and the Hong Kong authorities, it now wishes to have a change. The trouble is that Hong Kong has many things on its mind at the present time, including the establishment of a brand new facility on Lan Tao Island which will indeed be the world's most modern airport when it is opened.

We cannot constantly go back to every one of the 2,000 to 3,000 air bilateral agreements we have whenever one airline or another-

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup.

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

Mr. Speaker, let them compete without interference, and you will see the results.

Does the government realize that because of its favouritism vis-à-vis Canadian, it is actually supporting a quasi-subsidiary of American Airlines at the expense of a Canadian-controlled company?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the policy of the government is and has been to have even-handed treatment of both major airlines.

I certainly agree with the hon. member there are links that American Airlines has with Canadian. In fact, British Airways also has links with it. However, Air Canada has links with Lufthansa and Continental. If we were to stop giving anything to Air Canada because of its links with Lufthansa because it may benefit Lufthansa or some German provider of services, I think that would be absurd.

Obviously in the world of aviation today all our major companies will have links with other major international companies. Both our airline companies are operating in that environment and both are operating competitively. I would prefer to have our airlines try to improve service rather than spend their time on political battles in this House.

Department Of National Defence

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister says he is responsible for the actions of his department, but in our parliamentary system the essence of ministerial responsibility can be summed up in one word, confidence. Once you lose the confidence of the people you must resign. That is true of governments and it is also true of individual ministers.

This minister and his chief of defence staff have lost the confidence of the rank and file in his own department. He has lost the confidence of the Canadian people and, as evidenced by boards this weekend, he has lost the confidence from even his own general staff. When will he resign?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister asked me to be Minister of Defence he said it was going to be a tough four year slog. I think I can now agree with him.

When you take on a challenge in life you do not back down when things get tough. As long as I have the confidence of the Prime Minister and my colleagues I will see this through and in the end we will have a better armed forces for it.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day in the development of our military. The minister has created a culture of fear in his own department, ordinary rank and file are afraid to speak out and they are afraid they will be court marshalled on the way to the inquiry. Top generals are told by the Prime Minister if they do not like it they should quit and get out.

When will the minister realize that he cannot run a department on fear? He has lost the confidence of the people who work underneath him. It is time for him to leave. When will he resign?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know who he has been talking to in the department but the last thing they will say is that I have been running the department on fear. We have a good working relationship at that department despite all the problems, despite the lack of understanding of the opposition.

We are working together collaboratively to change a very proud institution that has served its country well, that is having a very difficult time adapting to some of the challenges of the day with respect to budget downsizing, delayering, reduction of personnel and the coming to grips with the norms and values of modern society.

The men and women of the department are working with me every day in a collegial, friendly and responsible way that will get results.

Family Trusts

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister's unqualified support for the finance committee's report on the family trusts scandal, and his inaction, means that the Prime Minister refuses to close a tax loophole that has allowed billions of dollars in capital to leave Canada tax free. Every day the Prime Minister refuses to act, he condones the massive exodus of capital from Canada.

What guarantee does the Prime Minister have to offer that no one, not yesterday, not today and not next week, will be able to use this tax loophole to get his money out of Canada without paying income tax like the rest of us?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to this question because I have not had the opportunity to thank the members of the finance committee for their fine work on this very difficult file.

In addition to providing the Minister of Finance with recommendations on the issue of taxable Canadian property, they have provided to me as minister of revenue some very direct and specific recommendations when it comes to the administration of my department.

I believe the department should act in a way that is transparent, that our decisions should be consistent and that our documentation must be clear and available to Canadians. Those are things that we have already taken to task and they will ameliorate the deficiencies that were part of the administration under our former government.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is appears that some people have a bigger stake in trusts than the average taxpayer.

Who does the government want to protect in its willingness to pay this kind of political price for refusing to do away with this tax loophole? Who?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, what I find passing strange about this question is that the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues were taken to task in the public press in Le Devoir saying: ``How do you substantiate these claims?''

They have not been able to substantiate these claims, yet they come to the House and continue to talk about family trusts when what we are talking about is the tax position of migrants. They continue to talk about the effectiveness of my officials when there was in fact no indications either from the auditor general or the assistant auditor general that there were problems with the integrity of the department.

They continue to talk about the erosion of the tax base when in fact, as the committee reported and made clear, there are no clear examples of the tax base being eroded.

Finally, they perpetuate this myth that this legislation only applicable to rich and wealthy Canadians when in fact it applies to all of us who may for example want to retire to a warmer climate and have a small business or a family farm, which we want to deal with appropriately.

Sydney Tar Ponds

[Russell MacLellan, Liberal, Cape Breton—The Sydneys, NS]

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

The Sydney tar ponds are Canada's worst environmental problem. I know the minister shares my concern in cleaning up this mess and has stated so publicly. He has also been reported to have said he is in favour of fencing in the tar ponds.

Could the minister please clarify the government's position with respect to cleaning up the Sydney tar ponds?