[Translation]
Quebec is backed in its demands by Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, which also find it unfair that this deal was only offered to the maritimes.
On the eve of his budget, does the federal finance minister intend to do anything about this unfair treatment of Quebec?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have provided the Government of Quebec with all the necessary information, the figures and how the calculation was arrived at. As the Leader of the Opposition well knows, the formula said that a province that lost more than 5 per cent of its revenues was entitled to compensation after the harmonization of sales tax.
The four Atlantic provinces and Manitoba and Saskatchewan are eligible, but Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia are not. Quebec has not lost any money; under harmonization, in fact, Quebec has made money.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance of Canada is considered a reliable authority on public finances, and he should hang on to his reputation.
Will the Minister of Finance of Canada admit that the losses incurred by the maritimes through harmonization with the GST are the result of fiscal decisions that, in the past, were made by those who set fiscal policy for these provinces, making it possible now, for example, for New Brunswick to woo Quebec businesses by offering much lower payroll taxes than in Quebec?
Will the Minister of Finance not admit that, in fact, the reason sales taxes are as high as they are in these provinces is because different fiscal decisions were made?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker. First of all, if we look at the formula, we see that Manitoba and Saskatchewan would have been eligible, and they still are. But their tax bases are very different from those in the Atlantic provinces.
So no, really, we looked at the financial ability of provinces; there is a formula, but it does not apply to Quebec, Ontario, Alberta or British Columbia.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what is unfortunate about the calculation of this compensation is that it only came to everyone's attention after Quebec demanded the same treatment as the maritimes. Then, the minister came up with might be called the McKenna formula.
But in refusing to grant Quebec fair treatment, despite the repeated demands of the provincial finance minister, is the federal finance minister not forcing Quebecers to foot the bill for Frank McKenna's poaching expedition, when he tried to woo Quebec businesses with the more advantageous tax situation in New Brunswick? Is the finance minister not forcing Quebecers to foot this bill?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the only consideration was the figures of the other provinces. We asked the other provinces if they had supplied them.
The formula, however, was known in advance. It is very simple. It says that if you lose more than 5 per cent of your revenues after harmonization, you are entitled to compensation. That is very clear. It does not take an accountant or an economist to work it out.
(1420)
There is no doubt that each province has its needs. When it comes to the various treatments given other provinces, the member is well aware that Quebec is receiving 45 per cent of federal equalization payments. At the same time, Quebec, with 25 or 24 per cent of the population, is receiving 31 per cent of federal transfer payments. I must say Quebec has been treated very fairly.
Again this morning, the newspapers were telling us that the Minister of Finance, thanks to the leeway provided by his exceeding his deficit reduction objectives, intends in tabling his budget tomorrow to announce measures-
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Loubier: If I were they, Mr. Speaker, I would hold my applause, for what is coming is not all that worthy of applause. Tomorrow, the minister intends to announce measures to combat child poverty and to improve the health care system.
Are we to understand that these measures the Minister of Finance is preparing to announce, in two areas of provincial jurisdiction, are intended to make us forget that the child poverty and health care situations have deteriorated as a result of his own cuts of $4.5 billion to social and health programs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, we have to look at what the government has done since it took office. For example, last year we announced the doubling of the income supplement for the children of the working poor. We raised this from $500 to $1000. This is money from the federal government to assist our country's families.
In Quebec alone, we inject $11 billion in federal funds yearly. Looking at the assistance to the aeronautical industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the way the federal government is striving relentlessly to assist Quebec small and medium size businesses, I believe the hon. member ought to be thanking us.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the Minister of Finance has cut $4.5 billion from social programs. There are 500,000 more poor children since he became finance minister. That is the reality.
How can he claim not to have money to give to the provinces through established social programs aimed at combatting poverty, and then announce tomorrow some stopgap measures, some campaign goodies?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what is the question?
An hon. member: He had so much to say.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): We will let him ask the question.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: It is a question about campaign goodies.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): In that case, Mr. Speaker, the answer is very easy. There are no campaign goodies on our side, only excellent government.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Under the old system Canadians paid 5.8 per cent of their paycheques for a $9,000 pension at the end of the day. Under the
new system they will now have to pay 9.9 per cent of their paycheques to receive the same $9,000.
Is this the government's primary response to the pension crisis: a $10 billion tax grab that will penalize young Canadians and kill jobs? No wonder we need a fresh start on pension reform.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the position of members of the Reform Party as far as the Canada pension plan is concerned is very clear. They want to blow it up. They want to see it destroyed. Under those circumstances it is perhaps understandable that the leader of the Reform Party deliberately misinterprets what has been done. Let me simply set him straight.
(1425)
Number one, this is not a tax grab; in fact, it is not a tax. Contributions to the Canada pension plan are akin to the contributions to a private pension plan. They are an investment in the future retirement needs of Canadians.
If the member wants to know what a tax grab is, then perhaps he ought to look at what the premier of British Columbia suggested, which was to increase the premiums but provide no value. That would have been a tax grab. What we have done here is we have increased the premiums and we have given value.
If the leader of the Reform Party does not want to accept my word for it, perhaps he is prepared to go into the election in Alberta and tell Grant Mitchell and Ralph Klein that what they have participated in is a tax grab. Let him tell Ralph Klein that he is overtaxing Albertans.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy of the minister's reply is not only an insult to every Reformer, but it is an insult to every senior citizen in the country.
Here is a well to do finance minister who himself qualifies for a fat MP pension and what does he do? He is clawing back old age security from thousands of seniors every month; he is gouging CPP contributors to the tune of a 70 per cent premium hike and he has his covetous eye on the RRSP savings as well. Then he has the nerve to stand in the House and pretend that he is taking care of seniors.
Will the minister not admit that the Canada pension plan is in trouble because of decades of Liberal and Tory mismanagement? If the minister had been the manager of a private pension plan and it had been mismanaged like the CPP has been, he and his colleagues would be making licence plates in some penitentiary instead of sitting in the House.
The Speaker: My colleagues, I would urge you to be very judicious in your choice of words. They sometimes give the wrong impression.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has stated on a number of occasions that if over the course of the last decade the previous federal government and provincial governments had taken the bull by the horns the way this government has done, then there would not have been a need for reform.
Let us understand what the hon. member is saying. He is not only saying the federal government is wrong, he is saying that his pal Ralph Klein is wrong, that his pal Mike Harris is wrong. He is saying that the eight out of ten provinces that had the courage to do what other provincial governments did not and the federal government which had the courage to do what other federal governments had to do were wrong. Well, we were not wrong. We were right. We saved the Canada pension plan.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when it comes to pensions, the government has a complete double standard.
Under the Canada pension plan Canadians will pay premiums of 9.9 per cent for a maximum pension of $9,000 a year. Under the Liberals' MP pension plan the premiums are roughly the same, around 9 per cent, but the returns are much, much greater. For his 9 per cent the leader of the federal Tories will receive $53,000 a year and for her 9 per cent, the Deputy Prime Minister will pocket $49,000 a year. That is a far cry from $9,000.
My question is one we are going to ask in every riding in the country: How can this government ask Canadians to pay 70 per cent more for a paltry pension of $9,000 a year when Liberal members opposite continue to qualify for an obscenely wealthy MP pension?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the government had not taken the action that was taken, the premiums would have risen not to 9.9 per cent and then been stable, but they would have gone to 14 per cent. As a result of our action, the premiums are down substantially.
(1430)
I will tell you what question we will be asking throughout the election campaign. Hon. members opposite have stood up and they have said that the increase from 5.8 per cent to 9.9 per cent is a tax grab. If the Reform Party put into effect what it has talked about, which is its super RRSP coupled with some kind of funding for the Canada pension plan, the premiums would have been substantially higher. Why do Reformers not tell Canadians that what they want to do is a massive tax grab but they do not have the guts to give Canadians the calculations.
The Speaker: I am sure no one's courage is being called into question in the House.
[Translation]
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is this government's real strategy not the one revealed by a senior Canadian official when he told us what the Prime Minister said to French president Jacques Chirac? He explained his strategy: in Canada, it was easy to cut health services because it was the federal government that made the decisions unilaterally, while the provinces had to make the cuts and pay the political price.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if we consider the situation in Quebec, the transfer payments the Canadian government made to the province of Quebec in 1966 totalled more than $11 billion, exactly the same amount that was transferred in 1993, when we formed the government.
When transfers for certain programs were cut, the slack was taken up by equalization payments for provinces that do not have the same per capita income as other provinces. The fact remains that during the past three years, the amounts transferred by the federal government to the provincial treasury in Quebec exceeded $11 billion, and they have not gone below that level.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the figures show that $1.3 billion was cut in transfer payments, and that there was a $40 million increase in equalization. Is the Prime Minister saying we are lucky to get more unemployment insurance? Maybe he should realize this is because there is more unemployment, and it shows his complete contempt for the situation. If there is more unemployment, the federal government's policies are to blame. Reality proves the government is wrong.
I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he will finally understand that he should no longer intervene in provincial jurisdictions such as health, education and youth training and that he should withdraw from these sectors, give the money to the provinces and let them deal with the needs of their citizens instead of making propaganda at the expense of the needy.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the Canadian government has a duty to ensure that the neediest in this country receive sufficient compensation to give them an adequate standard of living.
This government is certainly not going to apologize for having done what the provinces jointly asked us to do. After the meeting in June with the provincial premiers, it was said we would have to work on the problem of child poverty. All the provinces agreed, and I hope the Minister of Finance will be able to do something about child poverty tomorrow in his budget.
On May 3, 1994 the finance minister said right here in this House: ``Payroll taxes are a cancer on job creation''. Does the Minister of Finance believe today that payroll taxes are a cancer on job creation?
(1435)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, just because the Reform Party wants to destroy the Canada pension plan is no reason for the Reform Party to continue to misinterpret what Canada pension plan premiums are.
The fact is that workers compensation premiums are taxed. There are other forms of taxes at the provincial level, health levies and those kinds of things.
The hon. member, who is normally a fair person, knows full well that the Canada pension plan premiums are akin to contributions to private pension plans. They are an investment in the retirement of Canadians and should not be characterized in any other way.
It is really not incumbent upon the hon. member to scare Canadians or to mislead them. What he should be doing is explaining it to them. If he has a difference of opinion let him have it, but let us not misinterpret what is going on here.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, no matter how you dress it up, this is a pig. You can put any face you want on it but it is always going to be a tax. It is going to be an unfair tax and will be particularly onerous on younger Canadians at the expense of older Canadians. That is the way it is. It is going to be a particularly expensive and onerous tax on young Canadians.
The increase in payroll taxes paid by every employer and employee will be about the combined monthly car and mortgage payment or about half the tuition fee for someone in university. It
will suck $10 billion out of the paycheques of Canadians every year.
How many permanent jobs will be lost by taking this $10 billion out of the economy every single year?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is quite the opposite. There are going to be thousands of jobs created as a result of the confidence Canadians are going to have now that the Canada pension plan will be there for them. Not only that, but when the new investment fund is set up under independent management and is able to operate and invest in the enterprises of Canadians, it will be a very large player in creating jobs within this country.
The hon. member has said that we have preferred one generation to another. Is the hon. member saying that we should have cut the old age pensions currently? Is he saying that we should deindex the old age pensions? Is he saying we should engage in discriminatory action against senior Canadians? Let me tell this House that we will not do it.
Last Friday, the Minister of National Defence caused quite a stir by stating that the Somali killed in the events of March 4, 1993 was murdered. He thus contradicted the conclusions of the report of the military police and added to the complexity of the matter, because he spoke of several murders.
When he told the press that he considered the Somali killed on March 4, 1993 was murdered because he was shot in the back by Canadian soldiers, was the minister giving his personal opinion or was he revealing privileged information he had received from a high ranking army officer?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said last Friday, I clearly made a mistake by linking the incidents in Somalia and by describing the incident my hon. colleague is referring to as murder.
Obviously, murder was the conclusion reached in the case of the Somali killed following torture. In the case of the two Somalis who were shot, where one died, I apologize as I did Friday before this House for having mistakenly linked the two incidents.
I think it would be quite inappropriate for me today, just as it was on Friday, to make this sort of link until the whole issue has been examined and the conclusions of the Somalia inquiry are presented at the end of June.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister himself has added somewhat to the confusion in this matter, and, clearly, the commissioners will not be able to shed light on all the events of March 4, because they do not have time to hear any more witnesses.
Since the minister himself has said and repeated in this House that this question still needs to be resolved, what guarantee can he give us today that everything will be examined and that we will find out whether murder was committed on March 4, as he himself claimed on Friday, since we are no longer assured of getting this guarantee from the Somalia inquiry?
(1440)
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this question is very important, there is no doubt. When I make a mistake, I try to avoid making a second or a third one.
I do not want to prejudice or cause any prejudice to the inquiry based on the testimony it has already heard or on testimony it may hear in the future. I do, however, make a commitment to my hon. colleague and to all the members of this House that, once the commission is finished, and the conclusions and recommendations have been made, obviously, the government will have to look at the whole issue in order to decide how best to react.
I interfered in an area I had no business in, on Friday, but I do not intend to do so today.
Two years ago Liberals voted themselves the best pension plan that taxpayer money could buy, a gold plated MP pension plan. Under the plan the Conservative leader would receive $53,000 a year for his 9.9 per cent premium; the Deputy Prime Minister, $49,000 a year. Meanwhile regular Canadians would get $9,000 a year for their 9.9 per cent premium.
To be consistent, to be fair, will the minister announce an immediate 70 per cent increase in the premiums for the MP pension plan?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think what I would like to do is answer the question raised in the preamble.
If we take a look at the essential ingredient of a successful economy, we will see that it is confidence. It is confidence that health care is going to be there for the workers. It is confidence that old age pensions are going to be there for the workers. It is confidence by which the government is able to pursue a steady course, not simply the scorch and burn policies advocated by Reform and not simply ignoring the question as advocated by the
previous Conservative government and now by the NDP; but policies that give Canadians the confidence to know that basic government programs will be there for them.
That is what we have done with the Canada pension plan. The hon. member ought to understand that.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the finance minister is trying to brush the question off, but it is a fair question. People want to know why the double standard. We have the member for Beaver River who voluntarily gave up a pension worth $1.5 million because she believes in leadership by example.
Maybe the finance minister is well off and maybe it is not an issue for him, but ordinary Canadians do not think there should be a double standard between what Liberal government MPs give themselves and what they do for the rest of the country.
Why the double standard?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, when taking a look at the pensions of members of Parliament it will be recognized that the government has opted for one course while the Reform Party advocated a doubling of MPs' salaries. The fact is-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises the question of a double standard in the context of the increase of Canada pension plan premiums. I have asked the Reform Party to state what its model would increase premiums by.
I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, since the Reform Party will not. Compared to our 9.9 per cent, the model it advocates, which is chilling, has a 13 per cent premium. That is what the Reform Party would do.
Last weekend, we learned that Major Michel Prud'homme and Colonel R.G. Taylor, who are military officers at the Canadian embassy in Washington, had asked an official of the U.S Defence Intelligence Agency to spy on a Quebec diplomat working in the U.S. capital.
Will the Minister of National Defence confirm that the military staff at the Canadian embassy in Washington submitted such a request to the U.S. Defence Intelligence Agency?
(1445)
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no policy, no direction whatsoever that anybody in any embassy should spy on any member of any provincial government, in fact on anybody at all.
As a result, there is an absurd assertion which has no back-up or basis in fact.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have heard that line before, but we have not forgotten the barn burnings in Quebec, the PQ membership lists that were stolen, the bombs laid by the RCMP and the promotions given to reward those who had laid them, after the truth came out.
Will the minister give us, from his place, the solemn assurance that his department never asked any foreign government to spy on representatives of the Quebec government abroad?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I just said very clearly that there is absolutely no direction that anybody do any spying. The individual case was an official of the U.S. government who gave a speech at a conference in which he took a position directly opposed to that which was the official position of the United States government.
We simply made inquiries to determine what the difference was. He then made an assertion. The hon. member, a rational, thoughtful member of Parliament in this thing, would know an absurd statement when she hears one.
Farmers in western Canada are losing millions of dollars because of the dismal performance of rail companies. Rail companies are refusing to ship grain to the west coast.
Over the weekend I met with farmers in the Morris area of my riding who are tired of being held hostage by the rail companies. They need grain cars and they need them now.
Will the minister tell these farmers the results of his meetings over the weekend with stakeholders? Can he assure the farmers in my riding that grain cars will be provided and grain will start moving today?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the grain backlog in western Canada is obviously a serious and costly problem.
There was a very constructive meeting held last week in Calgary, which I called and which involved all the players involved in the logistics of grain transportation in western Canada. There was a very determined attitude at that meeting aimed at solutions and not at finger pointing.
We identified the next six to eight weeks as obviously a critically important time not only to meet basic shipment targets but to whittle away at that accumulated backlog.
Agreement was reached to try to simplify grain collection logistics in the countryside on a temporary basis to make the most efficient use of locomotive power and to speed car turnaround times.
There were a variety of other measures agreed to to augment locomotive power, to improve terminal operations and to explore some trucking programs that could also add to the capacity of our system.
It is also important to note-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt.
By Friday we reached the point where the minister admitted to misleading the House and he had to apologize. The minister is confused about what happened. The minister does not understand the Somalia file.
My question is for the Minister of National Defence. How can Canadians trust anything that this minister says? How many other times has he mislead Canadians?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that, as I said on Friday, I had made a mistake when I used the term murder in the plural to describe the situation that occurred in Somalia in March.
As a matter of fact, as a result of that mistake having been brought to my attention by the press after I left the House and not actually brought to my attention in this place, I returned.
I checked the first edition of the blues to make sure of exactly what I said. I understood that I had made a mistake. I came back to the House at the very first opportunity and made the clarification.
(1450 )
I want to welcome my hon. friend back to the House after what I know was a difficult period with his health. Just to make sure there is no confusion in my mind, I would like to make sure that the hon. member can explain to me why in April 1996 he was quoted as saying: ``There is now sufficient evidence of problems. The utility of the commission has been exhausted. The taxpayer's money should now be spent on a criminal investigation''.
What is the position of the hon. member with respect to the Somalia inquiry today?
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister is being very humble today, but it is far too late for the minister's apologies.
The minister continues to interfere with the Somalia commission. From the start his department has hindered this commission, refusing to release information. Now the minister's reckless statements are sabotaging its work.
Does the minister see that his actions demonstrate his total disregard for due process?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the due process the hon. member refers to was established in March 1995, had its mandate extended three times, the third time just recently by the government, asking the commission to report by June 30, a substantially longer period of time than was originally foreseen when the inquiry was put together.
What I am saying is that the government had to make a decision. We felt it was in the best interests of everyone concerned that we move on and deal with the specific issues facing the Canadian forces and the Department of National Defence.
The very due process that the hon. member now speaks so highly of is the one he said nearly a year ago should be ended because the utility of the commission had been exhausted.
I know it is difficult, and I did make a mistake last Friday, but at least I recognize when I make a mistake and I try to correct it. I urge the hon. member to do likewise when he recognizes that perhaps he has made a mistake.
On February 10, the Department of Foreign Affairs very quietly released its new guidelines on the funding of the arts. The new
policy provides that, in order to be sponsored by the Department of Foreign Affairs, cultural projects will have to promote national unity.
Given that the Department of Foreign Affairs is violating the freedom of expression of artists by restricting funding to cultural projects that promote Canada, will the minister pledge to transfer his department's cultural program to the Canada Council, which is an independent organization with no political ties whose mandate is precisely to manage support for artists?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, these changes were made to improve access for various groups, including young people and native people. These changes also seek to promote the interests and values of Canadians abroad.
This policy is an important tool to promote Canada's interests here at home, and to ensure that groups from across the country have access to the programs.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker, surely the minister must know that this program has been in place for several decades to de-politicize the funding process, and that Telefilm Canada and the Canada Council were set up precisely for that purpose.
Does the Minister of Foreign Affairs not realize that he is taking part in a witch hunt that was started the day after the referendum by the heritage committee, and that is being led by the ineffable Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has it all wrong. The whole point of the program which has been traditionally within the third pillar of our foreign policy is to ensure that we have an ability to engage the outside world in the important values of Canada.
To give an example, this is the year of Asia-Pacific. We are trying to get Canadians involved in the enormous opportunities developing in the Asia-Pacific rim. Part of the cultural program is to develop partnerships between Canadian and Asian groups to develop joint cultural interests both outside of Canada and inside Canada, and to invite groups here.
(1455 )
They are all judged on merit. They are all judged on artistic value. We make no reference to politics. We simply want to ensure that in the burgeoning area of the Asia-Pacific, Canadian culture and the values it represents will have an opportunity to be expressed.
How can the justice minister justify using Department of Justice money for purely partisan purposes?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing for which the hon. member for Crowfoot can be relied on, it is to get the facts wrong. Once again he has done just that.
In keeping with ordinary government practice, the Department of Justice entered into the usual competitive process and awarded a contract to an outside consultant in 1995. The usual rates were provided for in the contract. The contract was extended for a year and the services were used for a variety of legislative purposes, all in keeping with standard government practice.
It is true to say there was advice with respect to Airbus but that was one of the smallest aspects of the contract. The reality is this was the usual kind of advice provided to government departments and was well within accepted guidelines and practice.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, of course, $160,000 is a small portion of the $2 million that had to be paid out because of the bungling of the justice minister on the Airbus matter.
Seeing that all the money that was spent on the spin doctoring failed to make the justice minister look good, will he now demand a refund from his spin doctors?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is all in the eyes of the beholder. I can only imagine what my hon. friend must see from his distant perspective back there. But whatever it is, let me assure the hon. member and the House that everything in this matter was done entirely in accordance with appropriate government practice.
In recent days, officials of the Government of Rwanda have allegedly stated that it is was justifiable for them to redirect foreign aid money toward objectives of the government. Can the minister tell this House if our foreign aid money in Rwanda has been redirected to those other than the people who need it the most?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to report to the House that the Government of Rwanda does not receive any funding from the Canadian International Development Agency. All our aid in that country and in most other
countries is provided to Canadian and multilateral non-governmental organizations.
Therefore if no money goes to the Government of Rwanda, no money-at least no Canadian money-can be redirected by the Government of Rwanda.
Why did the minister pay for advice when it was not provided for under the contract? How much did he pay for advice on how he should handle himself in the Airbus affair while at the same time he was saying that he was uninvolved in the actual affair?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is remarkable how the hon. member seems prepared, indeed enthusiastic, about interpreting a contract he very likely has never seen which contains terms with which he is entirely unfamiliar and is using amounts he has picked up from the odd television report. It is remarkable how enthusiastic the member is.
(1500 )
The member will know because his question was already asked and answered, much more capably I might add. The amounts at issue were paid over legislative advice with respect to legislative initiatives and all services that were rendered were entirely within those contemplated properly by the contract.
During question period the Minister of Finance used two different phrases that I think have been ruled as unparliamentary language according to Beauchesne.
During question period the Minister of Finance referred to the leader of the third party and said ``that he has not got the guts''. Then he went to say ``that he should not be misleading people''.
Mr. Speaker, if you look on page 145 and 146 of Beauchesne they are both ruled as unparliamentary language. I would ask the minister to withdraw-
The Speaker: My colleague, as you well know and as all colleagues know, for the most part there are very few words that in and of themselves are not acceptable to the House but it does depend on the context in which they are used.
I quote you directly I believe with regard to using the term that one member ``does not have the guts''. I mentioned to you here in the House that no member of Parliament's courage-and that is what this refers to, this type of thing-is ever questioned in the House of Commons. I would hope that all hon. members would refrain from using words like that.
A far as the word ``misleading'', goes I listened to the words very carefully. I heard the word misleading used on both sides of the floor today. What I was looking for was in the tone, but on neither side did they say deliberately misleading. I would appeal to you not to use the word ``misleading'' because if it causes offence of any kind then we usually get a retaliation on the other side.
I appeal to you, my colleagues, that in the course of the question period and in the course of debate, we should refrain from using words like that. We are in an atmosphere where emotions are running very high and I would urge you to be very judicious in your choice of words. As far as these words today, I did not find them unparliamentary or I would have stated so.
I thank the hon. member for bringing this up as a point of order.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
This also arises out of question period today. It involves the finance minister who, in one of his answers, claimed that the leader of the Reform Party should not mislead the Canadian public. I take exception to his blatant misrepresentation.
(1505 )
The Speaker: Once again I encourage all hon. members not to use words like misleading in the House because we get one word and then a reaction from the other side.
I think the hon. member is getting into debate. He is welcome to join in any debate in the House. But I would judge this to be a point of debate rather than a point of order.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
The Speaker: Is this on the same point of order on which I just ruled?
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, it is on another point of order.
On another reply during question period, the finance minister said that the Reform's position on the MP pension plan was something. Our plan is to cancel-
The Speaker: Once again, I rule that this is debate.