Debates of Sept. 26th, 1996

Referendums

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I should begin by commending the government and the minister for finally taking this belated action in referring this matter to the Supreme Court. We also note the strong support the government has received from the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

Even as other governments in the world are becoming concerned about the rule of law in Canada, some in Quebec who call themselves federalists have made it clear that they reject any attempt to defend the rule of law in the courts and to defend Canada's right to self-determination.

Supporting a unilateral right of the PQ to self-determination is unacceptable to ordinary loyal Canadians across the country. What steps is the government taking to persuade these Quebecers of the importance of supporting this effort to assert Canadian sovereignty?

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

Mr. Speaker, I very much hope that our federalist allies in Quebec will see the value of clearly determining these questions that have now been put at issue.

As to what we are doing about it, we are expressing our position as forcefully and in as straightforward a manner as we can. We have framed questions that I think captured clearly what is really at issue here. Indeed, I wrote to one Quebecer this morning, Paul Bégin, the attorney general of Quebec, to invite him to participate with me in the Supreme Court of Canada.

I think it is very important for the attorney general of Quebec to participate in this exercise before the court.

The fact of the matter is he and I have divergent views on these important legal questions. What Canadians do when they have divergent views on important questions is they put them before the court for resolution. I have invited him to join me in the court so that we can get his views there and get a judgment from the highest court in the land.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to explore whether this action represents the totality of the government's plan or whether it has further plans.

Yesterday at a congressional hearing in Washington, Christopher Sands of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies speculated that there has been talk that the federal government plans to put a secession clause in the Constitution after the next election and that it would raise once again the issue of a national referendum on this issue.

Is the federal government prepared to go further and to say that all Canadians must have a say in their constitutional future and the future of their country, and that such a policy would include a national referendum?

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

Mr. Speaker, we expressed our commitment clearly in the speech from the throne, indeed in language very close to that used by the hon. member.

We said that if there is to be another referendum, that the process must be democratic, that we would ensure that the question is clear, that all the facts are on the table, that the consequences are well understood and that all Canadians would have a say in the future of their country.

The step we took today is intended to address the most fundamental legal question, namely, do we operate within the rule of law or outside it? I am confident that the court will see that the Constitution and the rule of law must prevail.

As to the hon. member's question specifically, I can say that we shall take whatever steps are necessary in the months ahead to comply with the commitment we gave in the speech from the throne.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on the nature of that commitment.

Gordon Robertson, the former clerk of the Privy Council, has said that the government needs contingency legislation to deal with the possibility of an attempt at secession. The minister will know that Patrick Monahan of Osgoode Hall has said the same thing.

Is the minister prepared to go further and to table a bill in the House providing a legislative framework for any attempt by a province at secession?

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

Mr. Speaker, for the present we are going to pursue the fundamental issues that will now be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada. I do reiterate that we are going to fulfil our commitment expressed in the throne speech.

The hon. member has referred to two instances where responsible Canadians have spoken out to raise approaches to these difficult issues. That is going on all across the country. Canadians are looking at these issues, they are producing constructive responses and that is a very valuable process. We encourage and support it.

We are listening carefully. We shall cull from that process the best of the proposals. We shall bring them here for discussion. In the fullness of time we shall embark upon a course to enable us to fulfil the commitments we made in the speech from the throne.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice, in answer to a question from a member of the Reform Party, said that he would consider the possibility of having a national referendum on the future of Quebec, like the referendum on conscription or on Charlottetown.

My question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Does he or does he not intend to call a national referendum to determine the future of Quebecers?

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

Mr. Speaker, we are focusing now on the fundamental legal issues raised by the attorney general of Quebec.

The questions referred to the Supreme Court of Canada today must be answered because the attorney general of Quebec has taken a position that is unacceptable under Canadian law. We intend to take this opportunity to deal with this very important matter. We will start with these questions and later, during the months to come, we will meet our other commitments.

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

In his reply, the Minister of Justice started by referring to a national referendum and now mentions he has other commitments, so could he put all his cards on the table and tell us whether he intends to have a national referendum with his "rule of law" in which everyone outside Quebec will be able to determine the future of Quebec? We had conscription, and we had Meech. Is this going to be another example of so-called democracy?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know that it was the hon. member from the Reform Party who raised the cross-Canada referendum; it was not something which I mentioned.

The hon. member opposite likes to pretend that anyone who relies on the rule of law is speaking against the democratic expression by the population of Quebec of its will. That is simply not so. The people of Quebec have every right to express themselves democratically in a consultative referendum.

Where my hon. friend goes wrong and where the attorney general of Quebec goes wrong is to say that from that result they can proceed unilaterally to walk away from the contract, just leave the table. That is the crux of the issue.

Let us not confuse the issue. We respect the right of the population of Quebec to express itself democratically, but we must insist that there be no unilateral action, that we keep in mind that this issue affects the interests of all Canadians and it will only be resolved in accordance with principles that provide for its orderly disposition.

Government Contracts

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister supports the defence minister's sleazy pork barrelling. Let me remind-

[The Speaker]

We are coming very close to unparliamentary language. I will permit the hon. member to rephrase the question without using the words "sleazy pork barrelling". Would the hon. member please proceed.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me remind the Prime Minister of his conflict of interest code which states in black and white that a public office holder shall not accord preferential treatment in relation to any official matter to friends or to any organization in which they have an interest.

Thornley is a friend of the Liberal Party and he received preferential treatment.

Will the Prime Minister show some leadership, enforce his own code of conduct and put an end to this patronage contract?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say as I said yesterday that these are within the guidelines which apply to the spending of public money by a minister.

For example, I know of a certain Stephen Green who has worked for two years for the Reform Party. He is paid with public money. He is a friend of the leader of the party. There is a very nice lady,

Line Maheux, who ran and got clobbered in the election but she was rewarded by the Reform Party with a job which she still holds today.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is scandalous what is happening in the House today. The Prime Minister is willing to follow Mr. Mulroney's guidelines but refuses to follow his own guidelines. This Liberal government and ethics continue to have a long distance feeling.

The defence minister's pork barrelling clearly breaks the Prime Minister's conflict of interest guidelines and the Prime Minister refuses to do anything about it.

Will the Prime Minister show some leadership today and live up to his own ethical guidelines and cancel this contract?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

No, Mr. Speaker. We are satisfied that the guidelines were followed, that the person is competent to do the job which the minister asked him to do and that it is within the budget approved by the House for the operation of the office of the minister. I just gave an example of people who have been rewarded. I think they must be competent. I hope they are competent because this party needs a bit of competence around. We are not complaining, because they are doing their jobs. But they were rewarded. They were not known until they ran for the Reform Party.

I think that in this case the minister really has the option to do that. It is all within the guidelines, the rules for ministers and members of Parliament. Everything is above board.

Revenue Canada

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. The report tabled today by the auditor general confirms once again that Revenue Canada has become a real sieve. After the family trust scandal, we learned today that Revenue Canada lost up to $630 million to tax evasion in the area of excise taxes for 1994-95 alone.

How can the minister explain to taxpayers the fact that Revenue Canada's carelessness allows the big oil companies and the tobacco industry in particular to avoid paying up to $630 million in taxes?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I welcomed the report of the auditor general. As an officer of the House he provides me, as a minister, with information, advice and examples of where I can continuously improve the activities and the working of my department.

I note that in this report he has identified many areas where Revenue Canada has evolved and actually made improvements. He has also identified areas where we can continue to improve. I am glad to say that we have tabled action plans in all of those areas which he has accepted and endorsed.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is incredible, this is a scandal. The minister is trying to downplay the preferential treatment given large corporations that make billions of dollars in profits. This is incredible.

Instead of boasting, could the minister tell us what concrete measures she will take to recover the amounts owed and stop these abuses?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely. Let us put the auditor general's report into context. I prefer to suggest that the glass is two-thirds full instead of one-third empty in the area of commodity taxes.

In his report, he says that in 1993-94 there was tax evasion in the area of commodity taxes, cigarette smuggling, to the tune of $1.5 billion. One year later that has been reduced to $500 million, a reduction of two-thirds.

When we are talking about commodity taxes we are talking about the criminal element, about people who do not have books that we can go in and audit. The department is working very effectively with the Solicitor General of Canada, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Finance to work out a comprehensive strategy.

The auditor general has indicated that within one year it has worked very effectively. I would like to say that we will continue the great effort and commitment to reduce that $500 million to zero.

Somalia Inquiry

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Kyle Brown, a private in the airborne regiment in Somalia was jailed for five years and released from the military for his role in the Somalia affair. He was tried, convicted and sentenced appropriately.

By turning over the film of the atrocity Kyle Brown incriminated himself but he prevented a cover-up.

How is it that the lowest ranking member of the military, who prevented a cover-up, did not have military defence counsel while

the chief of the defence staff has the best counsel that money can buy to try to absolve him of his role in the cover-up?

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

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the question from the hon. member. Because of the detail of that question, I will take it under advisement.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would advise the parliamentary secretary that Private Kyle Brown is still paying off the bank loan that he had to take out to pay for his defence while he was in Somalia.

Sergeant Mark Boland was arrested, taken from his home by the military police, tried, convicted and sentenced to one year in jail and discharged from the military for his role in the Somalia affair.

Although he was off duty and asleep when the events took place, Sergeant Boland was held accountable because the atrocity took place during his watch. He should have known and he was held accountable.

My question is for the Prime Minister. What kind of leadership example is set for Canadians when the chief of the defence staff is able to pass off responsibility for events that occurred under his watch, yet he continues to enjoy the support of the Prime Minister, the minister of defence and of the government?

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

Mr. Speaker, because of the nature and the detail required, had I been given advance notice of that question, I would have answered it. I will take it under advisement.

Revenue Canada

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago, the Minister of National Revenue hid behind criminal enterprises to say that their books cannot be audited. The oil companies are legitimate businesses whose books must be audited. The minister has no excuse.

Furthermore, while wealthy taxpayers were able to receive services from Revenue Canada on December 23, 1991, the auditor general revealed today that, nine times out of ten, ordinary taxpayers cannot get telephone access to Revenue Canada's services.

How can the minister justify the preferential treatment given to the rich by her department when ordinary taxpayers cannot even reach Revenue Canada by phone?