Debates of Oct. 25th, 1995

Referendum Campaign

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, probably the member for the Bloc Quebecois made a mistake when she spoke of our Prime Minister as the prime minister of English Canada. As far as I know, our Prime Minister, a francophone from Shawinigan, is the Prime Minister of all Canadians.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Saint-Henri—Westmount, QC]

And as the Prime Minister of all Canadians, including Quebecers, it is his responsibility to make clear the seriousness of the choice awaiting us on October 30-the destruction of our country, Canada.

I repeat that this is not just any country in the world, it is a country which we are proud of and which we have grown and developed in. I can tell you that everyone who believes in this country will do everything they can so that everybody says no to separation on October 30.

Health

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Reformers in the provinces want the federal government to respect their jurisdiction in health. The minister has resisted this approach until now.

Will the health minister today commit to respect the provincial jurisdiction in health?

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons that Canada is the best country in the world is our medicare system.

The Canada Health Act respects the jurisdictions of the provinces and allows the provinces every flexibility in managing the system but does insist that they adhere to five principles to protect equal access for all Canadians in order that they receive the funds transferred from the federal government to the provinces. That has ensured that we are the best country in the world and that we have the best medicare system in the world.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the constructive changes the provinces want would be easy to achieve: stable, predictable funding along with legislation that puts the needs of patients ahead of the needs of bureaucrats.

Will the health minister today agree to meet with provinces that desperately want to have those constructive changes?

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I have met with provinces and will continue to meet with provinces. I will work with provinces in any way I can to ensure we have a system that meets the needs of Canadians that is not a two-tier system.

We know the agenda of the Reform Party. It wants a U.S. style two-tier system, one for the better off Canadians and one for the rest of Canadians. That is not the way we built our country and that is not what made the country great.

Referendum Campaign

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour.

In his speech yesterday, the Prime Minister indicated that he still favoured administrative agreements as a way to meet Quebec's demand that the federal government withdraw from Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.

Can the Minister of Labour tell us how Quebecers can trust the Prime Minister when he proposes administrative agreements, since the only time he proposed such an agreement-it was, may I remind you, in the area of manpower-, the minister, in solidarity with her former boss, Daniel Johnson, rejected it, calling it a third-rate agreement?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I will have to quote the Prime Minister's statement in extenso, since the member of the Bloc Quebecois omitted part of the sentence. He said, and I quote: "We will keep open all the other roads to change, including administrative and constitutional means".

I think the intent is quite clear: to keep open both administrative and constitutional roads to change. Throughout this country's history, we have found various ways to make changes, without necessarily reopening the constitution. At this time, we only have to look at the whole issue of immigration in Quebec and all the powers granted to Quebec to choose its immigrants and welcome them into Quebec society. All this was done by administrative means. So we should certainly not set aside this way of effecting changes.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in response to Liza Frulla, who, last Monday, called for the federal government's withdrawal from the area of culture, how can the Minister of Labour answer that a mere administrative agreement could be enough to solve the problem, and will she dare give the same answer to stakeholders in the cultural industry?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister stated very clearly that this country is on the road to change and that, in order to meet the challenges of the 21st century, Canada as a whole has no choice but to change because we now face international competitors that were not even on the scene 10 years ago.

We must question our ways of doing things. We must review the role of the various levels of government and this is what we in the federal government will work on after a No vote in the referendum.

Status Of Women

[Raymond Bonin, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at the recent women's conference in Beijing, Canada was awarded the global award by the International Federation of Business and Professional Women.

Can the hon. Secretary of State for the Status of Women explain to us what this award means and on what basis Canada was selected to receive this prestigious prize?

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism) (Status of Women)]

Mr. Speaker, Canada was indeed honoured with this prestigious prize, and this goes to show that Canada is a great place to live for everyone. This is something we should all be proud of. This government has furthered the cause of women: their equality, prosperity and safety throughout the country, including Quebec. Remarkable progress has been made, and the Quebec minister herself agreed with this and congratulated Canada for it.

The men and women who attended the rally in Verdun last night recognized the benefits of living in Canada, the standard of living we enjoy in this country, and stated that they wanted to live a strong Quebec within a united Canada. They said No to separation.

Training

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last night the Prime Minister admitted he is open to all paths for change to the administration of government. One area in which the provinces have long been seeking jurisdiction is training, which Reformers also have long advocated.

Will the Minister of Human Resources Development follow suit and commit to giving the provinces exclusive control over manpower training?

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

Mr. Speaker, the commitment the Prime Minister made last night about change is something on which we invited Canadians to join with us a year ago in an honest and forthright way to engage in a look at the social systems and the training systems of Canada.

We have had the largest participation of any initiative of that kind. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians participated and the message was clear. They want change. They want more flexibility. They want more collaboration and they want more decentralization.

I have sat down on several occasions with my provincial counterparts to talk about how we can achieve that collaboration. For example, we offered specifically to all provinces the right to take over responsibility for institutional training, all the training that takes place in the community college system.

We have had very positive responses. Unfortunately the minister of employment in the Government of Quebec refused to have a discussion. He refused to hear our plans for collaboration and would not engage in that important dialogue.

The most important way we can give real voice and real life to the aspirations Canadians expressed over the past year about the change they need is to have a vote of no on Monday and get on with the business with the provinces of making good changes to get people back to work.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the answer from the minister of human resources. I will take this one step further, responding to the opening of the door last night by the Prime Minister to change the status quo.

I ask the minister now to commit to a time and a place he will get the provincial ministers together so they can negotiate the decentralization of manpower training.

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

Mr. Speaker, over the last two or three months I have held at least eight or nine different meetings with provincial ministers to

the point of discussing how we might come together and get agreement.

In the member's province of Alberta we now have an agreement with the Government of Alberta to set up single delivery systems for young people to help them get back to work, particularly people who have long been out of work. We have in Lethbridge, Red Deer and Edmonton trial projects with the Government of Alberta.

Even in the province of Quebec we have come to an agreement in the city of Alma, the home of the Leader of the Opposition, to have a co-operative joint initiative by the federal and the provincial governments to help unemployed workers in Alma in a co-operative way.

The best way to ensure a speedy timetable of agreement so we can develop a job system relative to the 21st century is a no vote on Monday so we can get back to work as federal and provincial governments and design the best system possible for all Canadians.

Council For Canadian Unity

[Jean Landry, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. The Council for Canadian Unity is very active these days, since its mission is to promote Canadian unity.

How can the minister justify that, when making donations to the council, large Canadian corporations, including Alcan, Proctor and Gamble, Dow Chemical and Maclean Hunter, can obtain receipts for charitable donations and thus lower their tax liability?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, several months ago, I answered a similar question from the Bloc Quebecois. Canadian charities are only allowed to deliver receipts if 90 per cent of their activities are not of a political nature. In other words, only a small part of their activities can be of a political nature. The Council for Canadian Unity has been in existence for 29 years, and it may be that these large corporations received tax receipts. We will see if the 10 per cent limit was exceeded.

[Jean Landry, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how can the minister justify that the council is enjoying the status of a charity, considering that, in order to obtain this status, an organization must help alleviate the problem of poverty, or promote education or religion?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is forgetting the other criteria related to that status. Education is one of them. Moreover, the Council for

Canadian Unity, which was granted the right to deliver tax receipts, is 29 years old. It was established 29 years ago.

During those 29 years, the council has conducted educational campaigns in Canada. If there is a problem now, I ask the member to provide me with the facts. I will then conduct a review of that charity, and any other charity, if there are reasons to suspect wrongful conduct. If such review is conclusive, the charity will lose the right to deliver tax receipts. However, I need some specific information and details from the member.

Somalia Inquiry

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

Counsel from the justice department on Monday circulated a letter which sends a message of intimidation to all witnesses and potential witnesses of the Somalia inquiry. Justice department rules and Treasury Board regulations circumvent the openness of the Somalia inquiry and the protection of those giving evidence. Serving officers fear for their careers if they have to come forward.

Will the minister take some action to put a halt to this form of intimidation?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, this is a matter under the purview of my colleague, the Minister of Justice, who was just called from the Chamber.

However, the letter to which the hon. member referred, written by a Department of Justice official, reflects the longstanding practice reflective of professional conduct with respect to lawyers in that they do not deal with other people's clients without counsel's being informed. That is a basic principle which the Minister of Justice will address.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Mr. Speaker, minutes ago Justice Létourneau called this a matter of real concern.

The minister in March said in the House: "There would be no impediment to anyone coming forward with evidence". Monday's intimidating justice letter is a serious impediment.

What will the minister do to salvage the inquiry?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, we do not have to salvage the inquiry. The inquiry is doing extremely well under the leadership of three very prominent commissioners.

I am informed by the Minister of Justice that his officials have been discussing this matter with all concerned, including the commission, and perhaps more will be said on this tomorrow when my colleague returns to the House.