Debates of April 10th, 2008

Canadian Multiculturalism Act

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate the bill introduced by the hon. member for Joliette. This bill aims, among other things, to exempt Quebec from the Canadian Multiculturalism Act.

The concerns of Quebeckers in the area of immigration and the integration of newcomers are shared by the rest of Canada.

Statistics from the 2006 census, recently published by Statistics Canada, indicate that there are now more than 215 different ethnic origins represented in the country, 11 of which have surpassed the one million mark in population.

Canada's ethnocultural portrait has never been so diverse. Clearly, this means new challenges will arise and we must be able to overcome them together. Immigration plays, and will continue to play, a crucial role in Canada's development, today and tomorrow. Canada's multiculturalism policies must constantly adapt to our changing social realities.

Canada is recognized around the world for its multicultural and human rights principles. Our approach allows us to create an inclusive society that values differences and promotes a feeling of belonging.

Nevertheless, according to the hon. member for Joliette, the Canadian multiculturalism model creates confusion among newcomers and completely contradicts the Quebec model based on interculturalism.

However, when looking at the two systems in place, it is the similarities that stand out, more so than the differences.

The primary functions of the Quebec department of immigration and cultural communities are to support cultural communities by promoting their full participation in Quebec society, to encourage openness to pluralism within society and to facilitate intercultural ties among Quebeckers.

These functions are clearly completely in line with the priorities of our government's multiculturalism program, which aims to support the economic, social, and cultural integration of new Canadians and cultural communities, to facilitate programs for at-risk cultural youth, and to promote inter-cultural understanding and Canadian values.

The Quebec government's Programme d'appui aux relations civiques et interculturelles, or PARCI, aims to “develop knowledge and understanding of Quebec's history, values and democratic institutions among immigrants and members of cultural communities.”

Clearly, this objective is very similar to that of our multiculturalism program, which aims to “promote inter-cultural understanding and Canadian values (democracy, freedom, human rights and rule of law)”.

The irreconcilable nature of the two models, as suggested by my Bloc Québécois colleague, was contradicted in the consultation paper prepared by the Bouchard-Taylor Commission which states, “Over time, it might be said that they have evolved in a convergent manner and the difference between them has faded.”

You will note that this convergence of views is also reflected in the priority given to the fight against racism put forward by both programs.

PARCI speaks of “preventing and fighting prejudice, discrimination, intolerance, racism and exclusion”, whereas the multiculturalism program seeks to help “communities and the broad public engage in informed dialogue and sustained action to combat racism”.

The words are different but the message is the same: a Canada that is proud of and respectful toward its cultural diversity.

Given these great similarities, it is not surprising that a number of initiatives and projects financed by the Government of Canada through the multiculturalism program have the support of the Government of Quebec.

Action Week Against Racism, supported by both levels of government, is one of the most important activities in the fight against racism and in bringing cultures together in Quebec.

There is also the travelling exhibit, “Québec interculturelle depuis 400 ans déjà”, which highlights the contributions of Canadians of diverse backgrounds to the growth and development of Quebec City.

Similarly, projects initiated in Quebec and supported by the Governments of Quebec and Canada have been used as models elsewhere in the country. Such is the case for the Equitas International Centre for Human Rights Education, which teaches young people about human rights and intercultural relations through a day camp program. This initiative, which began in Montreal, is now used in Vancouver, Toronto, Winnipeg, Moncton, Dieppe, and Fredericton.

If our priorities and objectives were so different, would such collaborations be possible? The answer seems obvious: of course not.

When 82% of Canadians agree that Canada's multicultural composition is one of the best things about this country, we have to believe that, although it is not perfect, the Canadian model is working. This success is seen equally in Quebec, where 75% of new arrivals who settled in the province between 2001 and 2006 have chosen French as their primary language.

Upon reading the recent report from the Office québécoise de la langue française, we also see that in the area of culture, there is a marked increase in the consumption of French cultural products. The percentage of allophones who watch productions in French has gone from 27% to 54.5%. What is more, the percentage of those who read newspapers in French only has reached 51.8%.

It seems clear to me that the multiculturalism and interculturalism models, beyond the inherent differences in the specific context of Quebec, have one and the same goal: to promote the full participation of all Canadians in society. In light of this fact, it seems obvious that Quebec has everything to gain by staying. It is with one voice that Canada wants to welcome immigrants who choose this land as their home.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to participate in the debate on Bill C-505 from the Bloc Québécois, which I, and the official opposition multiculturalism critic, the member for Brampton West, both oppose.

I have a lot of respect for the work done by Bloc members on human rights issues, but I think Canada's multiculturalism policy should remain a policy that protects human rights—particularly the right to equality and the right to be protected against discrimination—a policy that promotes and protects both diversity and the uniqueness of Quebec, and that is enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We must appreciate the transformative impact the charter has had, and that it has enabled us to change from a parliamentary democracy to a constitutional democracy, where individuals and groups, including those in Quebec, have access to a panoply of rights and remedies that were not available before.

The transformative impact of the charter is not limited to the effects of the provision providing for equality before and under the law—“equal protection and equal benefit of the law ”—; the charter also provides for the preservation of cultural heritage. Section 27 states:

This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.

This includes Quebeckers.

It is not just that this principle is indivisible, but it is an important part of a celebration of equality and diversity as parts of the same general charter. This makes me wonder how in Quebec—and I do this myself as a Quebecker—we can invoke the charter, as we should, to protect legal and equality rights, but at the same time, declare that we want to invalidate the meaning and application of the multiculturalism principles and policies within the province of Quebec? The charter also effectively protects the values of Quebec.

In fact, I have several questions about the content of the Bloc proposal. Why would the Bloc object to—and want to invalidate—the application of a policy intended to “promote the full and equitable participation of individuals and communities of all origins in the continuing evolution...and assist them in the elimination of any barrier to such participation” and “ensure that all individuals receive equal treatment and equal protection under the law, while respecting and valuing their diversity”? Is that not part of Quebec's values?

Why would the Bloc want to invalidate the application of a policy intended to “promote the understanding and creativity that arise from the interaction between individuals and communities of different origins”? Is that not part of Quebec's values?

Why would the Bloc want to invalidate the application in Quebec of a policy, in fact, a basic principle, to “recognize the existence of communities whose members share a common origin and their historic contribution to Canadian society, and enhance their development”? Is that not part of Quebec's values?

Why would the Bloc want to invalidate the application in Quebec of a policy intended to “strengthen the status and use of the official languages”? Does the Bloc really want to eliminate the application in Quebec of a law designed to “preserve and enhance” the official languages, including French?

In short, the Bloc Québécois bill does not take into account the fact that multiculturalism is an integral part of the charter, in general, and also an integral part of promoting and protecting the principle of equality, in particular, as well as a basic value in Quebec and a fundamental characteristic of Quebec society.

In 1993, when the Bloc formed the official opposition, the Bloc members did not oppose the amendments to the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, when the act was amended to recognize the creation of the territory of Nunavut. Why did the Bloc vote to broaden the application of this act to Nunavut when today it does not want the act to apply to Quebec?

It seems to me that the real reason the Bloc is opposed to the multiculturalism policy, which carries with it the right to equality, is that it is opposed to federalism. The Bloc will therefore not support the concept of a Quebec nation within Canada, as I do, but only the concept of a Quebec nation outside Canada.

In conclusion, equality, multiculturalism, diversity, uniqueness and the uniqueness of a distinct Quebec society are concepts that can coexist in harmony. It is important to understand why the Bloc introduced this bill today. Although the House adopted a motion saying that Quebeckers form a nation, the Bloc does not like the words that come after that statement, the words “within Canada”.

Business of the House

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken place between all parties and I believe that you would find consent for the following motion. I move:

That during debate scheduled for later this day on the motion to concur in the third report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, no dilatory motions, quorum calls or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair and at the conclusion of this debate, the motion to concur in the third report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics shall be deemed carried without amendment on division.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Galipeau), Royal Galipeau]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-505, An Act to amend the Canadian Multiculturalism Act (non-application in Quebec), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canadian Multiculturalism Act

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the bill by the member for Joliette which proposes in part that the Canadian Multiculturalism Act does not apply in Quebec.

Before I speak directly to the bill, I want to point out to the members of the House that the NDP has already worked in the interest of Quebeckers in a number of areas. We did so when we showed support for the recognition of Quebec as a nation. We in the NDP have supported better protection for francophone workers. We have proposed bills that included asymmetry on child care and education.

In addition to our own initiatives, the NDP has supported bills by the Bloc in the past, but we believe Bill C-505 proposes to make changes that have broad implications for Quebec that Quebeckers themselves would question. On this one we think the Bloc's proposition goes too far and as a result, our members will not be supporting this bill.

Often in this House the Bloc members suggest that they alone can represent the interests and aspirations of Quebeckers, but we do not think that is true. For instance the NDP believes that in order to build on the distinctiveness of Quebec, we do not need to tear down the positive effects of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act.

Canada was the first country in the world to pass a national multiculturalism law. I would submit that the province of Quebec and many of its communities have benefited in a significant way from the Canadian Multiculturalism Act of 1988. The act acknowledges multiculturalism as a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society with an integral role in the decision making process of the federal government.

It was directed toward the preservation and enhancement of multiculturalism in Canada. The Canadian Multiculturalism Act sought to assist in the preservation of culture and language, which would include the French language and the French culture. The act also sought to reduce discrimination, to enhance cultural awareness and understanding, and to promote culturally sensitive institutional change at the federal level that was required at the time and continues to be.

I believe that the very nature of the act works in the interest of all Quebeckers and all Canadians. The act states that it will work to: encourage and assist the business community, labour organizations, voluntary and other private organizations, as well as public institutions, in ensuring full participation in Canadian society, including the social and economic aspects of individuals of all origins and their communities, and in promoting respect and appreciation for the multicultural reality of Canada; and provide support to individuals and groups or organizations for the purpose of preserving, enhancing and promoting multiculturalism in Canada; and undertake such other projects or programs in respect of multiculturalism, not by law assigned to any other federal institution, as are designed to promote the multiculturalism policy of Canada.

As I alluded to earlier, many multicultural groups and municipalities in Quebec, including the city of Montreal, receive funding for certain cultural events and programs which is provided by Canadian heritage under its multiculturalism program.

By passing the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, Canada became the first country in the world to pass a national multiculturalism law clearly reaffirming multiculturalism as a fundamental value of Canadian society.

Today if we ask Canadians to describe Canada, 85% describe Canada as being a multicultural society. For many Canadians, multiculturalism refers to the presence and persistence of diverse racial and ethnic minorities who define themselves as different and who wish to remain so, their own nation, so to speak.

Ideologically multiculturalism consists of a relatively coherent set of ideas and ideals pertaining to the celebration of Canada's cultural diversity.

Multiculturalism at the policy level is structured around the management of diversity through formal initiatives in the federal, provincial and municipal domains.

Finally, multiculturalism is the process by which racial and ethnic minorities compete to obtain support from central authorities for the achievement of certain goals and aspirations. Canada's cultural diversity is manifest at the level of ethnic and immigrant composition.

At this point, I would reiterate that the new multiculturalism policy, which came into effect in 1988, offered a clearer sense of purpose and direction. The act acknowledged multiculturalism as a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society with an integral role in the decision making process of the federal government.

In seeking a balance between cultural distinctiveness and equality, the act specified the right of all to identify with the cultural heritage of their choice, yet retain full and equitable participation in all aspects of Canadian society.

In effect, the act sought to preserve, enhance and incorporate cultural differences into the functioning of Canadian society, while ensuring equal access and full participation for all Canadians in the social, political and economic spheres.

A crucially important focus of the act was on the eradication of racism and removal of discriminatory barriers as being incompatible with Canada's commitment to human rights. I would suggest that multiculturalism serves as a positive instrument for change.

I understand that some Quebeckers have expressed unease about the federal multiculturalism policy since its inception, but I would say that the efforts of Quebec to protect and promote its language and culture are not contradictory with multiculturalism.

We in the NDP do not see the relationship between Quebec and Canada being win-lose situations all the time like the Bloc seems to. We like to think in terms of creating win-win situations. We salute Quebec's effort in many regards, but that does not mean we have to throw out the law on multiculturalism.

It is important for those involved in this debate, no matter which side they come from, to realize that there is still a special contract between the two founding nations of Canada. That contract is intact but challenged from time to time in this rapidly changing world.

Some critics hold the opinion that the multiculturalism policy has promoted too much diversity in recent years because it emphasizes the differences of Canadians rather than the values of Quebeckers and Canadians. On the other hand, defenders of Canada's multiculturalism argue that it encourages integration by telling immigrants they do not have to choose between preserving their cultural heritage and participating in Canadian society. Rather, they can do both. Also, many have come to the conclusion that ultimately our multiculturalism policy has actually helped integration.

There is so much more that can be said in defence of the value of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, but I am sure other points will arise in the course of this debate.

I will close by saying that when it comes to preserving their language and culture, the NDP supports the aspirations of Quebeckers. We in the NDP view the Canadian Multiculturalism Act as an important tool that is not in contradiction with those aspirations.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise here this evening to debate the bill put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Joliette, that is, Bill C-505, which aims to exempt Quebec from the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. I would first like to congratulate my colleague from Joliette for introducing a bill that is so important for the Quebec nation of course, but also for Quebec and Canada.

When the House of Commons passed a motion in November 2006 recognizing the existence of the Quebec nation, everyone wondered what this recognition actually meant or would mean. From the very beginning, we were of course in favour of Canada's recognition of this notion of nationhood. Quebeckers have known for a very long time that they form a nation, but to see that recognized by the House of Commons is quite meaningful.

However, since that time, we have been asking the government to tell us how it intends to concretely bring forward initiatives that would incorporate into everyday actions, government actions, the notion of the Quebec nation.

The Bloc Québécois did not wait for the government to take action. It decided to make some suggestions for all parliamentarians to give the concept of the Quebec nation a tangible and effective meaning. Nationally, internally, we decided to issue a number of ideas.

In order for the Quebec National Assembly to have all the tools or means necessary to make choices for the nation, we first have to agree on what is meant by resolving the fiscal imbalance. This is one of the paths the Bloc Québécois is proposing to the government, to truly and effectively resolve the fiscal imbalance.

Of course, there is the entire issue related to culture. As a member of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, it is clear that when I sit in that committee, I would like to hear my colleagues from all political parties and from the government say that the Quebec nation can express itself differently when it comes to culture and can also have all the tools it needs to promote its culture. Until now, we have to admit that the Minister of Canadian Heritage does not, in fact, want this notion of Quebec culture to be entrenched. The proof is that she still refuses to admit that Quebec has its own film industry.

There is also the issue of Quebec's place in the world. How can the Quebec nation recognized by this House express itself on the international stage? We know very well that what was proposed by the current government for Quebec, that is a seat at UNESCO if and only if Quebec agreed with Canada, means nothing. In light of the recognition of Quebec, you would expect that Quebeckers would be recognized as a nation and that it would have a certain number of extended powers in terms of Quebec's representation internationally.

A little earlier, I heard the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek say that the Bloc Québécois is going too far with this bill. I wonder why. Basically, we are just identifying in a clear, distinct and precise manner the way in which the Quebec nation can express itself by showing that in Quebec, interculturalism is a way of life. Canada, on the other hand, has adopted the multiculturalism model.

The member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek was saying that he expected to find a win-win situation. In my opinion, if Canada wishes to continue with multiculturalism and if Quebec, for its part, wholeheartedly embraces interculturalism then that is a win-win situation. At present, as he mentioned, Quebeckers do not identify with multiculturalism.

The Bloc Québécois has introduced a set of proposals expressly in order to put forward a certain number of elements so that the Quebec nation has a status that is more than just the simple recognition of the nation in empty words. These elements would foster a win-win situation for the nation of Canada and the nation of Quebec.

Earlier, the member for Beauport—Limoilou seemed to be saying that immigrants who settle in Quebec do not really experience confusion. I disagree with that point of view. A document published by the Secretary of State of Canada entitled, “How to Become a Canadian Citizen”, says that in Canada, there is no official culture. As an ardent defender of Quebec culture, reading that kind of thing scares me a lot. Everyone knows that in Quebec, there is a culture, a strong culture as expressed by our artists, our artisans, our film, our dance, our television, our way of creating pictorial art. All of these things describe our Quebec culture.

So when an immigrant arrives in Quebec and reads an official document from the Canadian government that says there is no official culture, that person might be surprised to see us defend the existence of the Quebec culture so fiercely because that immigrant no doubt does not realize that there is a difference between Quebec and Canada.

Earlier, my colleague from Joliette very eloquently pointed out that language policies in Quebec and Canada are completely different. Canada has bilingualism, the two official languages policy, while in Quebec, the official language is French. From the outset, we have to make it clear to people who settle in Quebec that there is a common language: not English, but French.

In that respect, the Bloc Québécois also made another legislative proposal through our colleague from Drummond, to entrench French as the common language of work in Quebec. This is yet another proposal that arises from our desire to give shape to the notion passed by the House of Commons to recognize the existence of a nation for Quebeckers.

That is why the bill introduced by my colleague from Joliette is absolutely relevant and, in my opinion, should be adopted by all parliamentarians. It would enable the Canadian and Quebec nations to find common ground that would allow each to develop in its own way, as they see fit, and in the best interest of the citizens living within their respective borders.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary for Official Languages has the floor. Although he has ten minutes, he will only get six tonight. He will have the other four when debate resumes.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today in the House to speak to Bill C-505.

This is a very important debate. If this bill were to pass, the Canadian Multiculturalism Act would no longer apply to the province of Quebec. That would be an appalling situation because everyone benefits from multiculturalism, including the people of Quebec.

The Canadian Multiculturalism Act is a pillar of the Canadian legal system that promotes diversity. In addition to the Canadian Bill of Rights, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and other such documents, the Canadian Multiculturalism Act helps to strengthen and reinforce our pluralistic society.

The Canadian Multiculturalism Act provides many benefits and applies to all Canadians, including the people of Quebec. For example, it states that multiculturalism is a core value of Canadian society. It also encourages federal institutions to adhere to such values as respect and equity and equality for the members of various groups. We expect these institutions, including those that serve Quebeckers of course, to respond to the needs of all Canadians of all origins through their programs, policies and services.

Finally, I should mention that the Canadian Multiculturalism Act helps protect the rights of all Canadians and encourages all members of society to participate fully. The act celebrates Canada’s diverse heritage and recognizes the contributions made by all Canadians, regardless of their ethnic, cultural, racial, religious or linguistic origins.

In view of the positive effects of this act, it is hardly surprising that so many Canadians from all across our marvellous country are deeply and unfailingly attached to the principle of multiculturalism. Surveys have shown that 68% of Canadians believe that our multicultural society helps to prevent extremist opinions and acts from posing a serious problem. In addition, 75% of Canadians agree that it is better for Canada to have a variety of people practising different religions. What is even more impressive is that 42% of Canadians think that Canada’s multicultural composition is one of its best features.

Of course, even though so many Canadians appreciate our country's multicultural composition, we still face some challenges. For example, the social and economic integration of new Canadians is not what it should be. Studies have shown that there is a 15% difference in income between visible minorities and other Canadians. Furthermore, 37% of visible minorities have low incomes, compared to 16% of the rest of the population. That is unacceptable. We must work even harder to ensure that immigrants and their children can fully achieve the Canadian dream.

We must also strive to build communities that truly reflect our country's diversity and avoid the predominance of ethnic enclaves. We must encourage more civic involvement by providing better education for our citizens and more in-depth knowledge about Canada for all Canadians. We must find the right balance between protecting public safety and individual freedoms.

We must also ensure that immigrants do not bring conflicts that originated in foreign countries to Canada, and we must prevent the radicalization of the most vulnerable members of new cultural communities.

At the same time, we must find the right balance between respecting the customs of new communities and recognizing well-established Canadian values.

In the interest of tackling these challenges and encouraging an even more inclusive citizenship, the multiculturalism program has defined a set of clear and distinct priorities. For example, the program will support the economic, social and cultural integration of new Canadians and cultural communities.

I will continue my speech next time.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper. When we resume consideration of this bill, the parliamentary secretary will have four minutes to complete his remarks.

The House resumed from March 14 consideration of the motion.

Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my riding of Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert consists of two magnificent communities located right next to each other on Montreal's south shore. I would like to take this opportunity to say that and to salute the people in my riding.

I would like to go back to what I said on March 15, and by that, I mean “revisit”, not “start over”. I want to go back to the point I was discussing. As everyone knows, I have been given 10 short minutes to follow up on a speech I started on March 15. Today is April 10, so it has been nearly a month. I should therefore situate my listeners.

First of all, as everyone knows, we are talking about the Mulroney-Schreiber affair. On March 15, I started sketching a broad outline of the Bloc Québécois' supplementary opinion, which we added to the report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. Of course, we approve of the main part of the report, but we also prepared a supplementary opinion. Although I went into great detail last time, I would like to revisit two or three of the points in the supplementary opinion so that the people listening and watching will understand where we are going with this.

First, I asked why Brian Mulroney made the mistake of accepting cash and why he then publicly apologized. Was it because he needed the money? He said no. Was it out of greed? That is a question he should be asked during a public inquiry. Of course, Mr. Mulroney tried to prove that he did nothing illegal, instead of trying to correct the negative perception of what he did.

We have to understand—and that is one of the main reasons the Bloc Québécois wants there to be a public inquiry with as broad a mandate as possible—that the transaction that was discovered at the last minute, 15 years after the fait accompli, was truly questionable. A former prime minister, who was in fact still a member of the House of Commons, received one hundred $1,000 bills in a hotel room without a written contract, without a receipt, without having to report it to anyone. He took that money and instead of depositing it in a bank, as any normal person would do in a legal transaction when there was nothing to hide, he put it into a safe. Did he do that once? No, he did it twice, even three times.

Mr. Schreiber gave him that money for so-called lobbying work, the terms of which are absolutely unclear. As far as that lobbying work is concerned, neither Mr. Mulroney's nor Mr. Schreiber's version is credible. Neither version makes any sense nor was corroborated by other witnesses to prove that Mr. Mulroney was seen promoting Thyssen's armoured vehicles to Chinese representatives. No one has confirmed that. No witness anywhere in the world has been found to testify to Mr. Mulroney's lobbying work. No one was found to corroborate Mr. Schreiber's version either, in other words, that he asked Mr. Mulroney to lobby Canada and Quebec to set up a Thyssen plant in Nova Scotia or Quebec.

When the public learns that a former prime minister, who had been the most influential politician for eight years, received $225,000 or $300,000—even the actual amount of money is not clear—from a powerful lobbyist, a businessman who obtained contracts of at least $2 billion from that prime minister's government and collected for himself or his friends some $225 million, it comes as no surprise that the public thinks that money was paid for services rendered, as a thank you and perhaps for future considerations.

That is what I said on March 15, 2008. I talked a little bit about the mysterious contract. As I said earlier, no one is sure about the exact amounts and, regarding the mandate, neither version is credible.

If that transaction were a bribe, Brian Mulroney and Karlheinz Schreiber would not have acted any differently. That is why a public commission of inquiry is needed. It is needed to shed some light on the entire situation, to clean up this mess, to be sure there is nothing to this. For many years now, books have been published and articles printed in newspapers on this. No less than four books have been written about it in English Canada. They have never been translated into French. Perhaps that explains why Quebeckers do not know as much about this affair. These four books written in English in Canada were published, distributed and enthusiastically reviewed, yet no one has been able to shed any more light.

So, once and for all, let us shed some light on this. Let us go through everything from A to Z. A public inquiry, with a commissioner, should hear witnesses and shed some light, once and for all.

Since March 15, all we have seen is the report from the Conservative Prime Minister's special adviser. He appointed a special adviser, as though he could no longer make his own decisions. This special adviser suggested a limited mandate, even though the majority of the members of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics recommended a broad mandate for the inquiry.

Oddly enough, the Conservative Prime Minister always said that the government should heed the democratic decisions of this House and that the opinion of the House was paramount. He said that when he was in opposition. Yet now that he has a choice between the opinion of a special adviser he appointed and a committee of the House, he is choosing the opinion of the special adviser. It seems clear that the Conservative Prime Minister should be more inclined to heed the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

The special adviser, David Johnston, is recommending confidential interviews. This is not what the committee or the public wants. If we really want to shed light on this affair once and for all, then we should do nothing behind the scenes, nothing in secret. Let us be clear and transparent. It is true that this Conservative government pretended to be transparent at the very start of its mandate. Since then, we have discovered more and more layers and opacity in its actions.

This time, because a committee of the House has made a recommendation, the government should be very attentive and responsive to our recommendations and set up a commission of inquiry with the broadest mandate possible, but it should do so quickly and not conduct confidential interviews. It should make the inquiry completely public. That is what the public wants.

The Prime Minister's special adviser acknowledges that the hands of the future commissioner must not be tied. That is obvious.

As I am being signalled that I have only two minutes left, I will be brief. There is another important point. The Prime Minister gave a statement on January 11 of this year, and not January 11 two or three years ago. This statement, as we speak, can be found on his Internet site under “Statements”. He said he would appoint a commissioner once the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics finished its hearings. He did not speak of the work of the committee but of its hearings. Conservative members of this house have tricked those listening to us by saying that he said when their work was completed. That is not true. The Prime Minister said once the hearings were finished.

The committee finished its hearings on February 25, with the last witness Elmer MacKay. The report was tabled in the House on April 2. Therefore, on February 26, he should have appointed his commissioner and set up the public inquiry because we finished on February 25. It is now April 10. The hearings of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics have been completed. We tabled our report in this House on April 2. That was eight days ago and there is no commissioner or commission of public inquiry on the horizon. That is unacceptable.

This government boasts too much about keeping its promises and following through. Well I can say that this commission of public inquiry is another example—and there are many more—of a promise broken by the Prime Minister and by this government.

On January 11 he said—

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I regret that I must interrupt the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, but I had given her warning.

The member for Burlington now has the floor for questions and comments.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague from the Bloc, with whom I have spent many hours sitting through the ethics committee meetings on, as the report calls it, “The Mulroney-Schreiber Affair—Our case for a full public inquiry”.

I must take some exception to the Bloc member's view of how things are going. Out of respect for Mr. Johnston, he was asked to do a job, in terms of coming up with some preliminary concepts. He did that. Then he was asked to come up with a set of recommendations, in terms of what the inquiry's scope would be. He is a fully qualified, independent commentator on this issue.

If the Prime Minister had done it without an independent individual, and I have not heard from any side of the House, from any party, that Mr. Johnston was not qualified, the opposition would have said, “Look at the bias. The Prime Minister is trying to hide something”, because that is kind of approach it likes to take about the integrity of the Prime Minister.

First, there was a call for an inquiry from all parties, and that is what he committed to. To be clear and to be fair to not only everybody in this House but to all Canadians, he asked an independent adviser to work on the terms of reference. That is exactly what he did.

The Bloc's approach tonight is an attempt to bring some sort of cloak-and-dagger attitude toward the issue. That is totally opposite. It is completely transparent. The member may not like what the special adviser has submitted, but that is what happened.

At committee, the Bloc member was very keen on getting a report to the House so that Mr. Johnston could get started on his activity and get back to the Prime Minister so we could get started on it. That is what happened. Then tonight I heard her complaining that we did not have enough time to finish, that our recommendations were not included in what he looked at, that he had it out the next day.

Is she not satisfied that the inquiry is going to begin and that there are a set of recommendations from an independent adviser that this Parliament and Canadians trust?

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not quite understand the question asked by my colleague in the Conservative Party. However, I must say that in terms of how the situation has developed, it is very clear to me. This Conservative government tries, every time, to postpone the decision to establish a public commission of inquiry. These are all just excuses. When it appointed a special adviser in December and gave him two months to submit his response and make recommendations, that was an excuse for doing nothing.

On January 11, when he said he was going to appoint a commission of inquiry when the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics concluded its work, this was another excuse. When he saw that the work was going to conclude too soon for his taste, he claimed he had not been talking about the hearings, but about the work. Then, when he saw that was still going too quickly, he assigned the special adviser a second job. I have never understood why he gave him a second job, other than, once again, to push back his decision to create a public commission of inquiry.

That is the only reason why he is making all these decisions. He assigns someone else a job to make sure that it will take more time. And I do not know what he is going to hand us now, but he has no reasons left for not appointing a commissioner who will immediately chair this public commission of inquiry. I am expecting it any minute, because the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics submitted its report to the House 10 days ago now. It is clear, it is concrete, and it is not complicated.

I am expecting the Prime Minister to announce as soon as possible that a commissioner has been chosen and the public commission of inquiry will be starting. I have to say that there have been so many delays that journalists in Quebec are starting to make suggestions for him. This morning, La Presse made the actually quite interesting suggestion that Louise Arbour be appointed to head the public commission of inquiry. I am therefore impatiently awaiting this Prime Minister's decision and I am hopeful that he will not find yet another excuse for pushing his decision back and gaining more time.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the member’s speech and her work on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

I have one brief question regarding Mr. Mulroney’s lawsuit against the Government of Canada, which was settled using the information that the government had at that time. The information is clear: Mr. Mulroney denied his alleged connections with Mr. Schreiber.

We now know that in the testimony at the preliminary inquiry in Montreal, Mr. Mulroney did not tell the whole truth in answer to the questions put to him by the government’s lawyers. He denied that there was a connection and there had been meetings with Mr. Schreiber. We know that was false. And yet it was the basis of the settlement. Mr. Rock’s testimony was clear: that if he had had knowledge of those facts, there would not have been a $2.1 million settlement. That is money that came from Canadians.

Very simply, I would like to know whether the member agrees with Mr. Johnston’s report, which very clearly concludes that it is not in the public interest to have an inquiry into the settlement of Mr. Mulroney’s lawsuit. In my view, and the view of this side of the House, it is appalling that there will be no testimony in that regard. I would ask the member for her opinion and the opinion of the Bloc on that question.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Liberal colleague for his excellent question. This is indeed an aspect that I did not address in my speech.

I have to say that Mr. Mulroney did in fact sue the Canadian government, claiming that he had been unfairly accused. In the statements he made at the examinations for discovery, he did not tell the lawyers everything. The decision to give him $2.1 million in compensation was made on the basis of his statements, which were incomplete.

One of the questions he was asked was about his business dealings with Karlheinz Schreiber, and he denied them. He did not report that he had received $300,000. He did not report that he had been retained—perhaps also because he was not—or report his business dealings with Karlheinz Schreiber.

And so the former Minister of Justice, Allan Rock, who appeared before our committee and who acted in good faith when he gave him the compensation—or rather when he, as Minister of Justice at the time, allowed him to be given compensation—told the committee, and subsequently said it publicly, that if he had known, the negotiations would have been handled differently.

If we have the common sense of the public, who are listening to us, the common sense of the people, the voters, who are also taxpayers, we can assume that if everyone had known this in 1999 or 2000 when the action was settled and the compensation paid, and if Brian Mulroney had been candid about his dealings with Karlheinz Schreiber, there would have been no compensation.

That being said, the commissioner who is to hold a public inquiry will have to examine this question. I think that he will inevitably come to the conclusion that the settlement will have to be revisited.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to speak to the concurrence motion. Tonight I wish talk about the report that has been generated by the committee where I and my Conservative colleagues sat through every single meeting. We made sure we were well prepared. There was a tremendous amount of reading material provided to us as members of the committee to prepare for each and every witness.

I want to put on the record what our perspective was regarding the study, as the report would call it, “The Mulroney-Schreiber Affair: Our Case for a Full Public Inquiry”. The motion that got us there stated in part:

--in order to examine whether there were violations of ethical and code of conduct standards by any office holder, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics review matters relating to the Mulroney Airbus settlement, including any and all new evidence, testimony and information not available at the time of settlement and including allegations relating to the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney made by Karlheinz Schreiber and, in particular, the handling of allegations by the present government including the circulation of relevant correspondence in the Privy Council Office and Prime Ministers Office; that Karlheinz Schreiber be called to be a witness before the committee without delay; and that the committee report to the House its findings, conclusions and recommendations thereon.

That is the actual motion that got the committee started. As committee members we went through all those hearings. They were virtually all on television. Many Canadians tuned in and by the end of it many Canadians tuned out because they realized what it was about.

I am not here tonight to support one side or the other. I think the motion was to look at what happened around the Airbus settlement and that was part of the work that was done. Let us be frank, based on the witnesses we called, from chefs at 24 Sussex to a number of former lobbyists here in Ottawa, the actual hearings or study went a lot further than what the actual motion said. But that is fair. Members of the committee had the opportunity to call witnesses and they did, and we heard them all. We asked them all very good questions.

The report that we have in front of us, entitled “What We Heard”, basically has, at the end of the day, one recommendation. The report is a review of what witnesses told us, quotes from them, and the direction they were taking. For 99.9% of it our committee supported that because it is what we heard.

The staff from the Library of Parliament did an absolutely fabulous job in putting together a synopsis of the issues that we had talked about, what the witnesses came to tell and the responses. In the end there was one recommendation and I think that should be clear to everybody, that there was only one recommendation from what we found. It was that the government appoint a commissioner of inquiry pursuant to part I of the Inquiries Act at the earliest possible date and that the commission be granted a broad mandate to inquire into the Mulroney-Schreiber affair.

This report was sent to Dr. Johnston in order to assist him in evaluating what the terms of reference should be for an inquiry and he took that under consideration. He has, as was mentioned before, sent his second report for the independent adviser on what he thinks based on the testimony he heard. Another analysis that he has done is on where the inquiry should go.

At no time did we, as Conservative members of the committee, advocate that there should be no inquiry. The Prime Minister had committed to one. The evidence indicated that there were some questions and I think it became obvious that dealing with this kind of item at a parliamentary committee might not be the wisest way to go, but we did the work that we were required to do and made sure we did the best job we could in terms of asking appropriate questions.

Attached to the report, to which all parties are entitled, is a supplementary report or, as some people call it, a minority report. Each party's position might not be exactly what is in the body of the report, but we all had an opportunity to say what we wanted to do.

One of the things we were very diligent about, based on the motion that brought us there, was we wanted our work to be done in a non-partisan manner, which is very difficult at the committee level, let us be frank. We did our best and asked basically the same set of questions to get the same sort of response from all witnesses in order to be consistent. We wanted a consistent approach to the responses to the questions we asked.

We heard 10 full hours of personal testimony and saw 100 pages of documents from Mr. Schreiber in addition to the testimony of Mr. Mulroney and a number of other witnesses. We asked the question over and over again and everyone answered the same way, that there was no evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of Mr. Mulroney was ever produced. I think the member who spoke previously said the exact same thing in her speech, that there was no real evidence of any wrongdoing on Mr. Mulroney's part.

The real issue we were there for was the Airbus libel case. From my understanding at the time, the Liberal government had sent a letter to Switzerland, which not only accused the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney of wrongdoing, but had already found him guilty. He found that offensive and sued the Liberal government. My understanding is the Liberal government settled.

The Hon. Allan Rock appeared before the committee. He had been the minister of justice at the time and had made the decision. In his testimony, he speculated, that if he had known the information, it may have changed the position he recommended to the then Liberal government in its settlement. However, he admitted to me and all committee members that it was speculation and, from the committee's perspective, it could not clearly say yes or no that it would have changed things.

I am not a lawyer, though I know a number of my colleagues on the committee are. I do not know if we could legitimately say that we knew for sure what the material difference would have been in a lawsuit process, or whether he did or did not have dealings, or whether information was missing, when it came to the actual wording in the letter in this lawsuit. From the Airbus perspective and the reason why this committee was charged with the study, we could not find any conclusive evidence that would have made a difference in the Airbus settlement.

I will get to the recommendations in a few minutes, but in our the conclusions we clearly outlined that the language used was the essential harm and that was the reason the government apologized and paid a cost. The committee was following what Mr. Rock had said. There had been a decade long RCMP investigation into the Airbus purchase and, from the committee's perspective, we could not find anything that would have made a difference in the Airbus settlement.

As for the public inquiry, which we all called for and the Prime Minister committed to, in his second report Mr. Johnston indicates that has been looked after and there may be other issues at which we may need to look. Those are possibilities that the inquiry can follow up on and review. The fact is the Airbus issue is what drove us to this committee, it drove the study and we could not find a single witness to tell us that there was some sort of connection.

On the first day of Mr. Schreiber's testimony he said “absolutely not”. The next day he was not sure, but he would provide us more information. He sent me two binders full of news articles he had photocopied out of newspaper articles and so on. His testimony in front of us was less than credible, confusing and often contradictory over the number of times we saw him. Maybe, and let us hope so, a public inquiry with a lawyer system and a research team behind it will be able to find the truth if that is possible from Mr. Schreiber.

However, we could not find any evidence of wrongdoing from anybody in terms of testimony. There was speculation from some about other issues. There is no doubt that we go into other issues. It was not just about Airbus. We got into other projects that Mr. Schreiber was trying to bring to Canada. We got into the issues of a private deal between Mr. Schreiber and Mr. Mulroney. There were no facts. It was “he said, he said”. Who knows what the actual truth is? We certainly were not equipped to do that.

On the correspondence branch and how it handled Mr. Schreiber's correspondence, once we saw Mr. Schreiber's correspondence, there were really no witnesses to the issue and it did not become the issue that some people thought it might.

There was the discussion of the transfer of cash and whether it was an appropriate code of conduct for a member of Parliament, a former prime minister. The timing was a big issue and if he had left office as prime minister. If members read Mr. Johnston's report, those are the kinds of allegations that probably we could use a little more investigation from a public inquiry. Maybe out of the public inquiry will come the need for changes to the code of conduct for members of Parliament and public office-holders and that those changes and improvements will be made. I hope the public inquiry will accomplish that.

We did have some recommendations at the end of our report. Let me just read the recommendations on the record so people understand. They are:

Therefore, given:

The lack of any evidence of wrongdoing

That it is unlikely that any substantial new evidence will be produced...

We asked Mr. Schreiber to come and tell us more, but he would not produce anything more or anything that was even remotely useful, unless people like reading articles from the newspaper about pizza-making machines. We could not find anybody who had any more evidence, so there was no new or substantial evidence of any wrongdoing.

Therefore, we recommended:

—that, should the Government deem an inquiry necessary, the terms of reference for the inquiry should be restricted to examining those questions that will lead to recommendations designed to guide the decisions made by public office holders after they have left office.

As I was involved with the committee for months, the people often called me, or emailed me. They asked me what we were doing. It became obvious to them that this was not the appropriate forum. We did the work as we were asked to do, but at the end of the day, people asked whether we should have the public inquiry or not. I am a firm believer, as our Prime Minister has outlined, that we need a public inquiry.

I do not deny the fact that there are still some questions to be answered. None of my colleagues on the Conservative side deny that. Some issues were identified through this study on how public-office holders, and in my view members of Parliament, deal with their business after leaving office to ensure there is a transparent, ethical approach to their life after leaving office and that the public can be confident that there is a set of rules, a code of conduct that will be followed by members of Parliament upon leaving office.

At the end of the day, it was a good experience for us as a Parliament to go through and to understand what was needed in this kind of study. It was not like a study in any other committee that I have been on thus far. I have not been here that long, but I have been on a number of committees where experts can be called to talk about the issues, where we can get opposing sides to the issue. We have people who do the research, we have time to look at these issues and then come up with recommendations and report. We may not get everyone on side around the committee table, but hopefully there is some consensus to make improvements to the operation of government and to the development of policy and of the laws of our country.

In this case, the type of inquiry did not add a whole lot of value to policy. It did not add anything to the legislative branch in terms of what we wanted to do legislatively. It was a learning experience for parliamentarians. We were concerned this kind of inquiry would be a political football, with people trying to make political points. At the end of the day, this showed it did not work, that this was not the right forum for that. A public inquiry is the right forum, so that is the direction we will be heading.

To summarize, we came together to look at all the issues such as why the Liberal government settled on the libel suit on Airbus. We found no evidence that pointed to any issue in that area. We had no evidence of any wrongdoing of any public-office holder. This Conservative government believes there should be an inquiry. There are still a number of questions to be answered, which came out during the meetings, and we have committed to do that.

With respect to my former colleague, the Prime Minister made the right decision by getting a third party to prepare the terms of reference so Canadians could not accuse us of bias in how we set this up or what the inquiry would undertake. That is the whole purpose of having an independent adviser to do that. Nobody criticized the individual's credentials. I never heard it once. We are taking his advice. We will have a public inquiry and we will get answers to the questions that are still unanswered from our public study at the ethics committee.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to have been chosen over all the distinguished members in the House this evening, wishing for the floor to ask the member for Burlington a question on his presentation.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Provided the hon. member will give us the score.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Habs, les porteurs du tricolore, les Glorieux, in short, Montreal, are leading 2-0. I ask all ladies and gentlemen not to touch the dial. We will give reports regularly on CPAC for viewers following the debates of the House of Commons.

I want to thank the member for his presentation and also for his participation on committee. He was there throughout this thing. It was difficult at a parliamentary committee to deal with something this sensitive. He correctly pointed out that this is not really what parliamentary committees are set up to do. Parliamentary committees are not the best way to do this.

However, my colleague may remember that I was the one in this House of Commons and in an interview who said that this matter should not go to committee when there was a movement by the NDP to have it there. I was asking for a public inquiry. I said that the only way we could deal with it properly was through a public inquiry, but at the time the Prime Minister refused. Plus, he was threatening to extradite Karlheinz Schreiber, with the Minister of Justice telling us he could not keep him in the country.

Only after the committee was preparing to start its work did the Prime Minister go ahead on that fatal Friday night when Mulroney said that he should have a public inquiry. He was forced to announce one. It was only when the signed affidavit by Karlheinz Schreiber implicating the Prime Minister came out that he said there would be a public inquiry, but we still had no guarantee that Mr. Schreiber would be in the country to participate. We agreed and this matter went to committee. That is the reason it went to committee. It is the same thing that we had with the public accounts committee in the Parliament before the member joined the House, when we dealt with the sponsorship issue. It was equally difficult.

Parliamentary committees are meant to hear from constituents on matters before Parliament and to hear from experts to guide us in the establishment of laws or reviews of programs. They are not necessarily meant to do investigations of this type. On that, I agree with my colleague.

Here is where I part from agreement with my colleague, although I also must say to his credit that he did a pretty good job in committee. He asked questions. Sometimes when people associated with Mr. Mulroney were on the stand he even asked questions that surprised them. Sometimes I think he missed the preparatory meetings beforehand.

However, my colleague talked about the bipartisan approach that his side took on this issue. I failed to see that. Today he was at the ethics committee, as I was. Some members may remember reading in the press that Brian Mulroney took exception to things that I said in an interview. He threatened a lawsuit against me, which he eventually filed.

Before that lawsuit was filed, before I was threatened, the member for Dufferin—Caledon asked the ethics commissioner to review the matter and also made the motion that I not be on the committee. I found out today at the ethics committee that a full two months before I saw the statement of claim the member of the Conservative Party had a copy of the statement of claim. He gave it to the ethics commissioner fully two months before I was aware of it, yet I was the party being sued.

If someone told me that was not a set-up by the Conservative Party, I would have to tell them that I find that difficult to believe. I think there were a lot of links between Mr. Mulroney, Mr. Mulroney's communications team, Mr. Mulroney's legal team and the committee.

I will give the House one further instance. In the Chronicle Herald, after Professor Johnston came out with his recommendations, the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, who also served on committee, stated that it was a brilliant report. As a matter of fact, it was exactly the same as the minority report that the Conservatives attached to the committee report. That is not a surprise. I believe it was written by the same people.