Debates of June 1st, 1998

Government Contracts

[The Speaker]

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is wrong again. He is listing subcontractors and we are talking about the prime contractor.

Rules were broken. The 14 day advertisement rule was broken and it could only have been bypassed by a cabinet decision.

How long is the Minister of Public Works going to sit there and say nothing? This is his department and his regulations were broken.

We ask the question again. Whose decision was it to bypass the rules? Was it the decision of the minister or the Prime Minister?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to have a tough time understanding that no rules in fact were broken. This was a government decision and it was the right decision to make in view of the timing. Otherwise we would have lost the opportunity. We would have had to close the base. Would the member opposite like to have the base at Moose Jaw closed with the resulting loss of jobs in that area?

We have saved those jobs. Ninety percent of $1 billion in industrial regional benefits will be in western Canada, with over 5,000 person years of employment. It is a good deal. It is one in which the private sector will carry the risk and we will get training for our pilots. It will amount to a saving of $200 million over 20 years.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the simple fact is that the 14 day requirement to publicly advertise a sole source contract was not kept. If that rule was not kept, it could only be because of a decision by cabinet to override it.

Now I will ask for the fourth time: Was that decision the decision of the Minister of Public Works who is responsible for procurement or was it the decision of the Prime Minister himself?

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of National Defence already answered that it was a cabinet decision. This is a very unique and modern project that will allow the private sector to work co-operatively with the government.

Let me inform the House that this project was announced in November. The Reform Party has just woken up now because of a newspaper story. My department and my officials offered the Reform critic the opportunity to view all the books to see how this was done. This is a new concept and everything was done in an open manner.

Alliance Quebec

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

Mr. Speaker, on the radio this morning, I heard the new president of Alliance Quebec, William Johnson, state that he had many friends in the Liberal Party of Canada.

He even said that the Prime Minister once called him to congratulate him on some of his positions.

My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister, who is apparently an admirer of Alliance Quebec's new president, tell us whether the government supports Mr. Johnson's positions, which were adopted last weekend and which in effect have become Alliance Quebec's platform?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the new president of Alliance Quebec is contemplating court challenges which seem pointless to us and are probably doomed to fail anyway because, for one thing, under section 59 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the National Assembly or the Government of Quebec may limit access to English-speaking schools to preserve French.

Also, in a 1988 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a policy of making the French language predominant on commercial signs was justified. The president of Alliance Quebec would be much better off working together with all Quebeckers, both French- and English-speaking.

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

Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs just spoke in favour of Bill 101, and I congratulate him on this.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

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

I would therefore ask this government if, in any future court challenge involving the expenditure of public funds by the federal government, it will refuse to award any grants to Alliance Quebec for this purpose.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, there are two sources of funding involved. First, there is the community component of the official languages support program, which benefits 90% of francophones outside Quebec. In this case, the Government of Canada could withdraw its grant should the mandate not be fulfilled. This remedy has never been used so far, but we have never ruled it out.

There is also a court challenges program, but it is only for challenges concerning the Charter. It apparently does not apply to the president of Alliance Quebec, as he does not seem to understand that, on the contrary, the Charter safeguards the possibility of limiting access to English-speaking schools for as long as necessary to protect the French language in North America.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, despite what the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has just said, the new president of Alliance Quebec says he was assured by a Treasury Board official on the weekend that there would be no problem for the grant from Ottawa.

Given this assurance, are we to understand that the case has in fact already been heard and that, regardless of Alliance Quebec's activities—including partition, which the minister did not mention, civil disobedience, and a court challenge of Bill 101—the grant is in the bag?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, just as the Government of Quebec does not cancel a grant to a sovereignist group that implies that the right to vote could be dependent on the French language, so the mere fact of electing a president does not mean the cancellation of a grant.

If this were the approach, all organizations in Canada, whether in the field of language or not, would rise up and ask what kind of world they were living in.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's answer is far from satisfactory. I will give the minister another chance.

Does the minister think the Government of Canada should provide up to 90% of the funding of an organization that is proposing civil disobedience and the partition of Quebec? Does he think that a 90% funding level is appropriate?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, in that case, the majority of Quebeckers would be wrong, because a poll of Quebeckers indicates that a majority feel that regions wanting to remain within Canada should be allowed to do so.

No one in this country would even be thinking about carving up Quebec's territory if certain people had not begun actively promoting the breakup of the country.

Hepatitis C

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, while the health minister stalls and blunders on hepatitis C compensation lawyers line up to feed on victims' insecurities.

In Manitoba we now have evidence that victims are being coaxed to give up 25% of their compensation in exchange for legal representation.

Can the minister not see that his stalling is driving victims into the arms of lawyers only too willing to take a hefty cut out of their compensation?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, as the leader of the party knows, there is a working group in place which is meeting this very week in Edmonton with representatives of the Hepatitis C Society and others to examine a whole range of options available to better deal with the interests of all those who acquired hepatitis C through the blood system. I think it is best for us to let them get on with their work so we can approach a solution with a national consensus.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, today's hepatitis C negotiations in Edmonton will be a complete waste of time unless the federal government puts money on the table.

It is simple: the feds put money on the table and negotiations go forward, or the feds do nothing and victims are doomed to an endless shuffle between doctors' offices and the law courts. What is it going to be?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the member would do well to recall that it is precisely to spare people unnecessary litigation that the government initiated a process which resulted in the offer to some 22,000 people who were infected between 1986 and 1990.

As to the rest, the member would have us put the cart before the horse. We prefer to do the homework first, and that is why all interested parties are at work this week on the working group to find a solution for which there is a national consensus.

Foreign Affairs

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a powder keg smouldering in south Asia right now.

Team Canada went to China to make money. We know that the government cares more about money than it does about regional security.

I ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps Canada has taken to condemn China, since it is now evident that it was China which transferred technology to Pakistan and made last week's nuclear blast possible, or is Canadian foreign policy for sale?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I reject the premise of the hon. member's question. Canadian foreign policy is not for sale.

We have strongly condemned the most recent Pakistani nuclear tests. We have imposed the same sanctions on Pakistan in this regard as we have on India.

Our foreign minister intends to take part in the meeting of G-8 foreign ministers on June 12. We have a strong statement through our foreign minister out of the NATO ministerial council. We are clearly acting together with our allies on this important matter.

Certainly, with respect to the hon. member's comments, I think we better check the facts as to what he is talking about.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of allies, President Clinton went against the advice of the state department, his defence department, the CIA and the department of justice to give sensitive missile technology to the Chinese.

Will the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister commit today to discuss Canada's deep concern with President Clinton's role in this unstable and dangerous situation between Pakistan and India before the president goes to China this month?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, first I think we should check the factual basis for my hon. friend's allegations.

Certainly we are in close contact with the United States. We want to work with them to help assure the stability of the region in the interest of the people of the region and the entire world.

Government Contracts

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a $2.85 billion contract was dumped into the lap of Bombardier by the Liberal cabinet.

With all the political connections, the large donations to the Liberal Party and the fact that there was no competition in this award, it is obvious that cabinet bent the rules.

Who decided to bypass all the competition rules? Was it the public works minister or was it the Prime Minister?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I noted that the hon. member and his colleagues supported our purchases of submarines. They never complained about the fact that we did not go out for tender calls, proposal calls in that case, because it obviously did not make sense. There happened to be some slightly used ones available.

Every case has to be examined on its merits. This case was examined on its merits and it was determined that this was the best possible direction to go in. There was really no other choice.

The timing was such that cabinet decided if we did not get this bid in we would have lost the jobs in Moose Jaw. We would have lost all our opportunities and we would not have saved the money we are saving.