Debates of Oct. 19th, 2004

Air Canada

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker]

The hon. Minister of Transport has the floor. I am sure he can continue despite the other comments.

Order, please.

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have decided—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

We know they are not interested in the French language and not interested in Quebec issues either.

The leader of the Bloc Québécois has a legitimate question. Yes, we want the Official Languages Act to be respected in Air Canada's new structure because we want to maintain the status quo for the protection of both official languages.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very welcome change, because the former Minister of Transport, now the House leader, told us there was no need to change the law when we submitted the same structures to him as has just seen the current minister.

When we talk about changing the law, do we mean Air Canada and all its subsidiaries providing service in French, and not only that, but also keeping the headquarters as it is, with the maintenance services and the 2,000 jobs in Montreal? We mean the whole package, not just a part.

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, in effect, the new structure of Air Canada makes it necessary for us to look at each element to make sure that the protection provided under the Official Languages Act throughout the entire structure will be respected, even regarding the headquarters and facilities. The legislative protection that existed in the past will be there in the new legislation.

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister must know that the restructuring of Air Canada is a source of very serious concern, particularly in the Montreal area, where the company is headquartered, but things could change considerably following this potential restructuring.

What assurances can the Minister of Transport give us that not only will the company's headquarters remain in Montreal but that it will not become another empty shell, its workforce and decision making power having been decentralized to subsidiaries outside Montreal?

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member is right to be concerned about a new structure that could change the situation. That is why we are currently reviewing every detail of this new structure, to ensure that vested rights are respected and that the effective headquarters remain in Montreal.

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Minister of Transport is prepared to ensure that the maintenance centre remains in Montreal, can he give us the assurance that it will be one as big as the current one, which provides some 2,000 jobs, so that we do not end up with five people left at this centre, while all the others are located outside Montreal?

What assurances can he give us?

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I imagine that the hon. member realizes that Air Canada is a private company. I have no intention of taking over the administration of the company and saying that x number of jobs, a minimum level of jobs, have to be guaranteed. No minimum level or increment was ever guaranteed.

It could be 3,000 workers. But we really have to trust the management of a private company. We can impose certain legal obligations, but we cannot run the company in their place. It is, after all, a private company.

Government Contracts

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today we learn that up to $50,000 in so-called fringe benefits were paid to former corporate lobbyists who are now working in the Prime Minister's Office. In fact, while still on the corporate payroll, one of these individuals was earning up to $91 an hour from the government at the same time, working apparently on the forest file.

Can the Prime Minister tell the tens of thousands of workers who have been thrown out of work and who used to earn $19 an hour why she was worth so much money?

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, this was funding by the department to FPAC, an independent group, and the decisions as to how they spent their money were determined by them. This is an industry that employs 250,000 Canadians. It is an $11 billion industry with $7 billion of that going to the United States. It is an industry which is absolutely critical to our future. This is why we will continue to fight the softwood issue.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the Prime Minister's Office is becoming a halfway house for recovering corporate lobbyists, and that's the truth of the matter.

The fact is that some of Canada's biggest polluters and biggest privatizers have made their way right inside the heart of the Prime Minister's Office and are now shaping public policy. Canadians do not appreciate that. They do not like government being run that way. Maybe the Prime Minister's campaign could be run that way, but the Government of Canada should not be.

Will the Prime Minister support, immediately, legislation that provides for a cooling off period for lobbyists coming into the government?

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, this was an industry-led effort. An audit was done and it was determined that the funds were spent in accordance with the agreement that was made with FPAC.

Sponsorship Program

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, before the election, the Prime Minister told whoever wanted to listen that anyone knowing something about the scandal should speak out against it or resign. It seems that the Prime Minister's own entourage did not hear his message very clearly.

In light of recent revelations, will the Prime Minister admit that he himself knew perfectly well what was going on in Mr. Gagliano's office?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important to respect the independence of the Gomery commission. We should not prejudice its work. I am looking forward to its report, but we must wait.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the shipping magnate, not the fridge magnet.

Material tabled at the Gomery commission was denied to the public accounts committee. The pre-election Prime Minister said, “the government will ensure that every single piece of information and every fact on this matter are made public as quickly as possible”.

The Gomery commission received the Bourgon memo, the Calcott complaint, the strategy to strengthen the Liberal Party in Quebec, documentation linking the Prime Minister's Office to the sponsorship scandal, all information withheld from the public commission. Why did the Prime Minister hide under his desk and not disclose this before the election?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is, the Prime Minister commissioned Gomery to do his work and gave Gomery a strong mandate and significant resources to complete the work. The only reason that hon. member can actually ask questions about today's testimony or yesterday's testimony or any testimony is the fact that our Prime Minister set up Gomery to do the right thing and get to the truth.

We in this party and in this government understand the importance of judicial independence and to support Justice Gomery and not to interfere with his work.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, setting up Gomery does not preclude this Prime Minister from standing up and telling the truth like he told Canadians he would do before the election.

Before the election the Prime Minister said he was going to reveal all. He was going to tell everybody everything that he knew, but now we have the lame excuse coming from the public works minister, saying that because the public accounts committee did not ask the right questions, that information was not forthcoming before the election campaign. That just does not cut it.

When is the Prime Minister going to be a leader and stand up and tell the truth?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the government has responded to and will continue to respond to all information requests both from the public accounts committee and from Justice Gomery's commission, commensurate with each body's authority and consistent with the laws of the land.

The fact is that this cooperation is one reason why the Information Commissioner has lauded our Prime Minister and has lauded the government for its openness and transparency with all the information.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, talk about drinking the Kool-Aid, I cannot believe how completely this minister has fallen in behind the Prime Minister. The truth is that this is a question that only the Prime Minister can answer. The Prime Minister made a commitment before the election campaign saying that he would leave no stone unturned and he would reveal all. This is his chance.

Can he tell us why exactly he did not tell us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about what he knew and when he knew it until well after the election campaign? In fact, he is not even telling us the truth today. Why?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Medicine Hat would not want to suggest that the Prime Minister has not said something. I do not know what the hon. member for Medicine Hat was referring to, but he knows that all hon. members tell the truth and there is no need to suggest otherwise. I am not going to ask him to rephrase his question. We will deal with it after question period and he will want to withdraw and contemplate in the meantime what he is doing.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, this Prime Minister has acted significantly, first of all, to end the sponsorship issue and, beyond that, to move swiftly with the Gomery commission to get to the truth. That is why the Information Commissioner says that there are early and positive signs that this government will be sufficiently self-confident, courageous and honest to beat the secrecy addiction to which other governments typically fall victim.

We are acting on this side of the House, in this party. We are not afraid of the truth and we would urge similar courage in that party.