Debates of Nov. 2nd, 1994

Ethics

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, need I remind the Prime Minister that Mr. Wilson himself admitted that he had not informed the Prime Minister of his situation before being appointed ethics counsellor in June, thus making it impossible for the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the third party to find out about the situation which Mr. Wilson was involved in.

How can the Prime Minister continue to trust Mr. Wilson, who hid his suspension when his first duty was to inform the Prime Minister of his background at the time of his appointment?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the man in question was not suspended. He kept his position. It was an administrative matter as to whether he had authority or whether he should keep it. It was found appropriate to give him back the authority he had before.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, October 27, the Prime Minister said regarding the heritage minister affair: "I consulted the government's ethics counsellor and confirmed that I had made the right decision in this matter". On Friday in the House he said: "I did not speak to Mr. Wilson myself but I asked that he be consulted". Today we find out that in fact no one, neither the Prime Minister nor his staff, asked the ethics counsellor to rule specifically on the heritage minister's letter to the CRTC.

The ethics counsellor's revelations on national television this morning contradict every version of events that the Prime Minister has given us. I ask the Prime Minister: How does he explain his previous comments to the House?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I explained clearly that I had asked people to call the ethics counsellor and they called him. He gave me an opinion that did not lead me to change my mind.

The leader of the Reform Party should know that whatever advice a minister or a Prime Minister receives, that advice is for him or her. As I said, he is the one who takes full responsibility for the decision. I cannot get up in the House and say to somebody here: "I made that decision because somebody told me to do that". That is not the way it works. The Prime Minister is the one who is fully responsible. I am fully responsible for the decision I have made and I will stand by it.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we are asking the Prime Minister to accept responsibility for comments that he made to the House.

The Prime Minister clearly declared that the ethics counsellor had been consulted and said nothing that changed the Prime Minister's mind about his decision to retain the heritage minister. In fact, the ethics counsellor was not asked to give a ruling on that matter so how could he have provided advice to the Prime Minister on that subject?

Could the Prime Minister explain this contradiction between his own comments and the comments of the ethics counsellor?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that we seek advice. The ruling is the decision of the Prime Minister and this Prime Minister makes decisions. He was not called upon to rule. He has no right to rule. I have the right to rule and I made a decision.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this whole affair from the letter writing to the Prime Minister's comments is either an example of gross stupidity or unethical conduct, or both.

[The Speaker]

We are getting very close to language that is not acceptable. I wonder if I could ask the hon. leader of the Reform Party to rephrase his question.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this whole affair is either an example of a grave error in judgment or unethical conduct, or both.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

I thank the hon. member for changing his wording on the first part. I would invite him to do the same on the second part.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this whole affair is either an example of a gross error in judgment or in conduct unbecoming to a minister or a Prime Minister, or both. It has also made a mockery of the office of the ethics counsellor.

Will the Prime Minister allow the ethics counsellor to report directly to Parliament on the conduct of the Prime Minister's own office in this affair?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I am responsible to the people of Canada.

I appreciate the frustration of the leader of the Reform Party. He and his party are out fishing and catching no fish. That is their problem. However I do not want to get mad.

When the member for Beaver River yesterday made an accusation in relation to me she forgot to tell the nation in the accusation she made in the House today that the judge apologized to me and the Globe and Mail apologized to me. Not only that, the Globe and Mail paid me money because they had made an error.

Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. On Monday, we were stunned to learn that a young man who is unemployed was threatened with losing his UI benefits because he intends to participate in the job-search program set up by Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi. This is an agency whose federal contribution was just cut and which has now been taken over by the Quebec government and the city of Gatineau.

How can the minister justify such blackmail on the part of his civil servants when young jobless people want to use the services provided by Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi to improve their lot?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, it is a judgment by employment counsellors as to the advice they give to clients of our employment centres as to the services that can be provided.

In this particular case, the employment counsellor referred the young man in question to the project La Relance. It has an almost 75 per cent success rate in ensuring that employment is gained under these circumstances.

We believe very strongly that we have to ensure there is discussion and decision making at the local level. Therefore that kind of authority is given to local employment counsellors. I am sure when they make a judgment that a reference to the group Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi is appropriate and helpful they will make references to that group as well.

It is a little strange that a member of Parliament in this case is second guessing the judgment of an employment counsellor when he was not there. He does not know the case and he does not know the individual. It is up to the employment counsellor who is dealing with the case individually to make the best judgment that can be made.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister recognize that this deplorable situation demonstrates once again the scope of the current mess in manpower training, with federal and provincial civil servants wrestling with each other, at the expense of the unemployed?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure exactly what question the hon. member has.

I would like to point out to him that in the case of the Carrefour Jeunesse the federal government provides an annual contribution of $550,000 which compares with the $100,000 from the province of Quebec. It would seem to me that we are doing our proper job in contributing to help the unemployed in

that area by that contribution at a five to one ratio to the province.

Ethics

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have pages from a document from the Privy Council Office called "Guidance for Ministers", marked confidential.

I will read the Prime Minister a quote from pages 23 and 24 of that document:

Parliament has gone to special lengths to protect the independent mandate and powers of certain other agencies such as granting bodies or tribunals. You are advised to take very special care to avoid intervening, or appearing to intervene in cases under consideration by quasi-judicial bodies.

In light of this, will the Prime Minister do the only honourable thing that is available and ask the heritage minister to resign?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I have asked the minister to be careful but there is no accompanying prohibition for ministers. We have tabled in the House some letters by ministers in support of cases from their constituents. We have debated in the House the problem of members of Parliament who become ministers remaining members of Parliament in our system.

I have asked the ethics counsellor to work on some guidelines so that members who are ministers can serve their constituents at the same time as serving the government. The guidelines will be ready in a couple of weeks.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, these guidelines are absolutely clear.

Is the Prime Minister's version of responsibility that he has no responsibility for his own guidelines, no responsibility for his ministers, no responsibility for his own statements? Is it the Mulroney version of responsibility: "to heck with the facts, I will wait until the next election"? Is that his version of responsibility?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we are looking at the next election anxiously because a lot of you guys will not be there.

We have been in government for a year and Canadians are quite happy with the government. Never has the confidence in the nation been as high as it is today. We have growth in the economy and the mood of the country is very good. I can see why the Reform Party is going fishing when it dropped in the polls from 19 to 11.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Human Resources Development.

The federal government's decision, as a result of which unemployment insurance benefits may be cut off to young people who do not use the services of La Relance, a centre subsidized by the federal government, is starting to look like some kind of retaliation or tit for tat, just because the Government of Quebec and the City of Gatineau have decided to support Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi.

Does the minister realize that by supporting La Relance as opposed to Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi, his public servants are contradicting the very essence of the minister's social security reform, which includes substantial flexibility in the way young people will be helped?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, as I have just explained, the federal government funds the Carrefour Jeunesse to the tune of $550,000.

It shows that there is a very clear commitment to that organization to conduct a variety of services. At the same time we made it very clear that the judgment of the employment counsellor as to what is the best reference and the best service should be left to that counsellor and not be second guessed here in the House of Commons.

We are not cutting the UI benefits to the young man. That is a false statement. The hon. member should withdraw that statement. It is simply not a fact. He should recognize that we have many good public servants working in the province of Quebec giving major help to a lot of young people. They should not be second guessed by the hon. member.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we do not deny the competence of the employment counsellors, but we do deny that the federal government has jurisdiction over manpower training.

Does the minister not realize that this is just one more pitiful example of the federal system's failure to function where manpower training is concerned, which merely strengthens the broad consensus that exists in Quebec in this respect?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's statement is really not logical, nor does it make much sense.

The presence of the federal government is through the people we have as our public servants who represent the federal government who are doing an effective job in giving good advice. In this specific case, as I just stated, we provide funding of over half a million dollars to the Carrefour Jeunesse. We have

also provided funding for projet La Relance, but we have made some division of responsibility so that we can get more efficiency and more effectiveness out of it. That was a choice that was made very much within the local region.

I believe that trying to turn this into some kind of great abstract argument of the role of the federal government in Quebec simply makes no sense at all. The federal government, as the member well knows, is highly committed to the employment of people in Quebec because we are doing something about it. That is why we have created close to 100,000 jobs in that province in the past 11 months.