House of Commons Hansard #125 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was penalties.
Grant Hill Reform Macleod, AB
Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister blurted out yesterday that the shredding of sensitive documents from the blood committee was wrong. Those documents happened to cover the period of time, 1982 to 1984, when the Liberal government was in power.
Victims of this tragedy want to know why the shredder was rewarded with a golden handshake instead of being punished, for surely wrong is wrong.
Joe Volpe LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health
Mr. Speaker, I wish the member would pay some attention to what the government has done to this point.
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
It is not a priority of the Reform Party to have members in government respect to due process. What the member will appreciate is that the department followed all the guidelines dictated by-
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
I gather you do not want the answer, but I am going to give it to you anyway. It may not come down all that well. The department has co-operated both with the inquiry and with the commissioner with respect to access to information and in all cases complied fully.
What the member will also want to appreciate is that the department had in its possession a preliminary report on December 3, which is incumbent on governments. Members will appreciate that kind of report has to satisfy the requirements under the Access to Information Act which says that all investigations must be conducted in private. Those under investigation have a right to have a normal lifestyle until there is a final report.
Grant Hill Reform Macleod, AB
Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary talks about co-operation with the inquiry. Listen to the story that comes out of the commissioner's attempt to get at the facts on the shredding.
The first thing the department did was try to block him in court with a legal challenge. The second thing the department did was lie to him to say that the documents did not even exist. Now the commissioner has to go back. He is inquiring about why it blocked him.
The victims simply ask one thing: why is this government continually blocking the truth for them, not for me but for them?
Joe Volpe LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the hon. member opposite would try to draw sympathy for a very tragic situation.
He will recall-and if he does not, other members will-that it was Liberal Party members on this side of the House who called for the Krever inquiry in the first place. Second, they insisted it have access to all the information. Third, the department did comply. The hon. Minister of Health ensured all information would come forward.
All the preliminary recommendations from the Krever inquiry were complied with immediately as they related to the federal government. The only questions that came out of the Krever inquiry led to this question. Once the Minister of Health received the final report he acted on it immediately. That was on January 21 and on January 30 he handed that final report to the solicitor general.
There is no cover-up. Wake up.
Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the deputy prime minister.
On the issue of the cancellation of the Pearson airport privatization deal, the transport minister confirmed that the government is ready to settle out of court with the Pearson developers. Also, we have learned that more than four tentative out of court settlements had been negotiated between the developers and the federal government but that, each time, the deal was rejected by the prime minister's office.
Will the government acknowledge that it is secretly negotiating with the Pearson developers an out of court settlement that could cost between $85 million and $100 million to Quebec and Canadian taxpayers?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is based on a number premises which in fact are totally speculative and in many cases wrong.
I can assure him that I have absolutely no knowledge of any negotiations currently taking place with Pearson airport's T1 and T2 corporation.
Obviously in any legal dispute there is the possibility of a settlement. As a general rule it is in the best interest of parties to arrange for settlement out of court. But I have absolutely no knowledge of any such discussions taking place at the present time. The question simply is based on false information and is inaccurate.
Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC
Mr. Speaker, will the minister acknowledge that the government's current strategy is to play for time before the next elections, even if that could cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars more?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why the Bloc which up to now has had a much more precise and specific approach to this question should now be adopting Reform Party tactics.
The assumption that there are hundreds of millions of dollars out there which are simply going to be picked up by this consortium is false. Were it true that the company is losing all this money it would obviously mean at the same time that the contract that was originally signed was not one in good faith, not one that should have been signed. The government in declaring that was against the public interest is entirely correct.
Monte Solberg Reform Medicine Hat, AB
Mr. Speaker, today's unemployment figures have exposed the appalling Liberal-Tory record on job creation. Every time these figures come out we hear the finance minister proclaim how well they are doing compared with the G-7. But the facts simply do not bear that out.
In fact, according to G-7 figures Japan, the U.S. and Britain all have far better records with respect to unemployment than Canada has. Canada's unemployment rate at 9.7 per cent today is much higher than the OECD average of 8.5 per cent.
For the 76th month in a row we have had unemployment well above 9 per cent. The Liberals have had three and a half years to fix this problem. How in the world can the finance minister explain the government's disastrous performance in keeping its promise of jobs, jobs, jobs?
Doug Peters LiberalSecretary of State (International Financial Institutions)
Mr. Speaker, the question the hon. member raises is one of extreme importance. Jobs are the priority for our government. The labour force survey that just came out which showed only an increase of 5,000 jobs in the last month was disappointing.
But let me add that there are some very positive items in that report. There were 32,000 full time jobs created last month. There have been 91,000 jobs created since last September, just in the last few months. Almost all the forecasters indicate that this year will be a strong job growth year, a strong economic growth year.
Monte Solberg Reform Medicine Hat, AB
Mr. Speaker, that is fine rhetoric, but frankly it does not pay the rent. I would suggest that the only jobs the minister is concerned about are Liberal jobs, which is why there is such a theme of cover-up in this place.
In three and a half years the government has raised taxes 35 times. It sucked up another $24 billion from taxpayers. That is the reality.
When is the finance minister going to get it through his head that the high tax policies in this country are killing Canadian jobs?
Doug Peters LiberalSecretary of State (International Financial Institutions)
Mr. Speaker, when are members of the Reform Party going to get it through through their heads that lowering taxes for the wealthy and increasing taxes for the poor is not going to create jobs. It is going to destroy jobs. That is the basis for the tax policy of the Reform Party.
The policies of the government have created almost 800,000 jobs in the past three years and that is a good record.
Andy Scott Liberal Fredericton—York—Sunbury, NB
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
One of the recommendations of the recent task force on disability issues calls on the Department of Human Resources Development to recommit itself to delivering mainstream programs in a way that includes Canadians with disabilities.
What actions have been or will be taken by the department to assure Canadians with disabilities that commitment will hold true throughout the department, throughout the regions and throughout local HRD offices across Canada.
Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has always taken a leadership role in addressing the interests of persons with disabilities. We had a very impressive task force on which the member for Fredericton-York-Sunbury has actually helped us. I thank him very much for his creativity and for his advice on this issue.
That is the reason why the vocational rehabilitation of disabled persons program received an extension until March 1998. We have made assisting persons with disabilities one of the key priorities of the work of the Ministerial Council on Social Policy Reform and Renewal in tasks that we are doing with the provinces as well.
In addition, I have tasked my senior officials to develop action plans for HRDC to ensure that we move forward and integrate the disability issues across all of our programs and all of businesses across the country.
Roger Pomerleau Bloc Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
The present Prime Minister, in referring to the privatization of Pearson airport during the last election campaign, said that the promoters would, and I quote, "initiate projects that would be worth up to $200 million annually". However, lawyers for the federal government are now in court to try and prove that the profits of private promoters at Pearson were in no way excessive, but their experts claim that the promoters could have lost as much as $180 million.
Are we to conclude from the government's defence in the Pearson saga that Ottawa cancelled an agreement that would have been profitable for Canadian taxpayers and for travellers, and all this simply to support the partisan commitments of the Prime Minister?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, this question and others from the Bloc Quebecois indicate that Bloc members fail to understand what the Pearson case is all about.
The previous government negotiated a less than perfect agreement on Pearson with a private company. As soon as it came to power, our government tried to repair the damage that was done by cancelling the agreement. We have just ceded Pearson to a non-profit airport authority, like the ones in Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton and other locations.
We have never stopped saying we will accept only a fair agreement between the complainants and the taxpayers.
Roger Pomerleau Bloc Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC
Mr. Speaker, we realize that all this may cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars, without ever getting at the truth of the matter, as in other cases now being pursued.
Why will the minister not admit that his government preferred to make some political hay out of attacking the Conservatives in this petty way instead of getting down to the bottom of all this and ordering a public inquiry, something the Bloc Quebecois has been demanding for more than three years? Is the present government afraid that a public inquiry would reveal cases of patronage among Liberals as well as Conservatives?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and his party still fail to understand the present situation. The complainants are more interested in obtaining compensation for what they see as foregone profits. Their demands are unreasonable.
The government twice introduced legislation to provide for an acceptable settlement, legislation that was defeated in the Senate with its Conservative majority.
I repeat that we do not intend to pay compensation for so-called profits that did not materialize and which are totally hypothetical.
Leon Benoit Reform Vegreville, AB
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of agriculture.
Grain movement on the prairies is at a standstill, causing farmers real hardship. The government removed the Crow subsidy on grain freight, more than doubling farmers' freight costs with a promise that things would work better. Does the agriculture minister believe that things are working better, as he promised?
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Speaker, obviously the linkage the hon. gentleman draws between the former Crow subsidy and the situation with grain movement currently on the prairies is not a valid or appropriate linkage at all.
As I indicated yesterday in the House in response to a question from the NDP, the facts are that we have had a very difficult winter season, with heavy snowfalls and particularly cold temperatures. I went on to observe that that in itself cannot be regarded as a valid excuse.
The railways have an obligation to provide sufficient locomotive power to pull the grain from the prairies through the Rockies to the port positions and also eastward to Thunder Bay. Obviously the level of performance in the last number of weeks has not been satisfactory and the railways are obliged to do a better job.
Leon Benoit Reform Vegreville, AB
Mr. Speaker, farmers and Reform MPs stressed the importance of dealing with the rail car allocation problem, removing fixed freight rates and making other changes to introduce competition into the system before removing the Crow benefit and before the new transportation act was signed.
The minister refused to do this and must be held accountable. Every day grain does not move farmers pay dearly. What will the minister do to fix this mess that his government has imposed on farmers? What is he going to do to get grain moving again?