Debates of March 20th, 1996

Human Rights

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in its annual report, the Canadian Human Rights Commission issues a warning with respect to a Supreme Court ruling that, under certain circumstances, persons charged with sexual assault should have the right to consult the therapeutic records of victims.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Given that the Criminal Code has already been amended to prevent accused from cross-examining victims on their sexual past, is it not appropriate to follow this up and bring in legislation making it illegal to consult the medical and therapeutic records of sexual assault victims?

[Gordon Kirkby, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. This is an issue that has come before the courts in a number of court decisions.

The Minister of Justice in his capacity as attorney general has intervened on these issues. This is a matter now under consultation and review to see if legislative clarification is needed in light of Supreme Court decisions on these disclosures.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am talking about decisions already handed down, not those to come. Since the Minister of Justice always relies on the courts to make the law for him, does the Prime Minister not think that by holding up the passage of effective legislation, he is creating a category of victims that will be forced to choose between disclosing their

therapeutic records and accusing their attacker, or keeping their records confidential and dropping their complaint?

[Gordon Kirkby, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, the Minister of Justice continues consultations in this regard with different individuals and groups interested in this question.

He is reviewing this for possible legislative change. Certainly it is a very difficult issue. One must on one hand balance the rights of the accused to a full answer and defence while on the other hand ensure victims are properly protected in the trauma of trials they need to go through.

This is a matter under review. An answer will be forthcoming.

The Economy

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, while federal ministers have been jetting around the country trying to convince Canadians of the virtues of a $30 billion deficit, the separatist government in Quebec has embraced the need for deficit elimination.

Mr. Bouchard is apparently committing himself to eliminating the provincial deficit by 1999 or earlier, after consultation with business leaders, labour leaders, federalists and separatists, all of whom have told him this is necessary for a Quebec economic recovery.

Will the Prime Minister be convening a get together, a summit meeting of Canadian economic leaders to establish a firm date and a plan for eliminating the federal deficit and strengthening the Canadian economy?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we have a plan in the red book which was approved by the Canadian people in the last election. We are right on target.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have the spectacle of the federal government's being now the only senior government left in Canada not committed to deficit elimination.

This is not just embarrassing to the House, it is a national disgrace and it is also dangerous to the cause of national unity. Once again the federal government is letting Quebec separatists get out in front on an issue, this time fiscal responsibility, which effects the attractiveness of federalism and national unity.

When will the Prime Minister set a firm date for deficit elimination? Is he prepared to let this slide and play catch-up with the separatist Government of Quebec?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. leader of the third party should read the newspapers. Since the budget the Minister of Finance produced the Reform Party has had virtually nothing to say against the budget.

The market has reacted very well. Because we are following our target and not trying to talk about the year 2010 and so on, we have a goal of 3 per cent for this fiscal year. The interest rate went down by three points during the last year.

The Minister of Finance had set a target of 2 per cent for the year before and as usual he will do better than his target.

I think the question of managing the finances of the country is handled pretty well by this government.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am really talking about the connection between the fiscal position of the Government of Canada and the unity issue. Once again the Prime Minister is not looking far ahead.

In order to win the next contest with the separatists the federal government must be, not appear to be, fiscally stronger and more fiscally responsible than the separatist Government of Quebec. It should be ahead on deficit elimination, it should be ahead on debt reduction and it must be ahead on tax relief if it is to win that contest.

Does the Prime Minister not realize that by dragging his feet on these three issues he is weakening the federalist position even before the next contest with the separatists begins?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, if we were to rely on the leader of the third party to keep Canada united we would not be very secure.

I am amazed when I listen to the leader of the third party talk about presenting a budget and meeting our target. We heard some months ago that the third party was to present its own budget before ours but it chickened out.

Manpower Training

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister said, and I quote:

As confirmed in the Canadian Constitution, we intend to leave manpower training to the provincial government and to pay for those who will receive this training without imposing, as Mrs. Harel herself admitted yesterday, any conditions with respect to the training itself.

Is the Prime Minister prepared to make a commitment in this House to have the active manpower training measures and the relevant budgets transferred to Quebec within three months, as

requested by Mrs. Harel and all the stakeholders currently gathered in Quebec?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we said, and I said that the funds allocated to manpower training, earmarked for manpower training, will be transferred to any provincial government as soon as an agreement can be negotiated.

Regarding all the active measures developed by the federal government to create jobs across the country, using the UI fund or government funds, these are federal programs under the Canadian Constitution and they will remain under our control. But as far as manpower training is concerned, I am prepared to sign it over tomorrow morning. The problem is that, any time we give an inch, they want a mile.

Just yesterday, the president of the Conseil du patronat, which is part of the consensus, indicated that the consensus was about manpower training. We respect the consensus and we are prepared to transfer responsibility for manpower training to the provinces tomorrow morning, provided the funds really go to providing training to the unemployed.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister should be better informed. All morning, participants at the conference have been saying very clearly that what Quebec is asking for is control over all active measures. I therefore ask my question again.

Is the Prime Minister prepared to make a commitment to recognize the Quebec consensus and negotiate the transfer of all active manpower training policies and relevant budgets accordingly?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, they might as well ask for the transfer of the UI fund while they are at it. It is an active measure aimed at the unemployed. As I said, as far as manpower training is concerned-the bone of contention that has been used in this House for months now-we are prepared to transfer the related funds to the provinces, and we are waiting for them to come forward.

Immigration Red Book

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when the current environment minister was in charge of immigration he spent $20,000 of taxpayers' money producing a booklet that could best be described as the Liberal red book, part two.

This booklet quotes from the red book on at least 43 separate occasions and is even entitled "Creating Opportunity". The only difference between this booklet and the red book is that the taxpayers had to pay for this copy.

Does the Prime Minister believe that having the taxpayers pay for the red book, part two, is an example of the honesty and integrity he promised to bring to government in the red book, part one?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, they use the red book in the House of Commons in every second question. I guess it is a good document.

I have nothing to add to what the minister of immigration said yesterday about this.

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the former minister of immigration produced this booklet despite objections of the bureaucrats in his department. It was destroyed by the current minister of immigration because in her words it was inappropriate.

Will the Prime Minister live up to the promise of the red book, the original version, and restore a little honesty and integrity to government by instructing the Liberal Party of Canada to reimburse Canadian taxpayers for the cost of this Liberal propaganda exercise?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the minister replied to this question yesterday. When she joined the department she decided she wanted to change some policies in the department, as happens when there is a change of ministers. New ministers approach problems in different fashions. She made a decision and the decision will stand.

Canadian Coast Guard

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Yesterday, the minister stated in this House that consultations were under way on the setting of marine service fees. But yesterday in Montreal, the commissioner of the coast guard was intransigent in refusing to make any changes to his new proposal.

Since the commissioner showed no intention of listening to the concerns of St. Lawrence stakeholders and simply defended his own fee setting plan, does the minister recognize that the commissioner of the coast guard is not holding a real consultation?

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, this issue has to be taken in its overall context.

I think everybody in the House would agree this is not a simple business of deciding on a maritime service fee for all of the country.

There are a number of options. One was to consider a port specific fee structure, but that would not work. Another was to consider a national system, but that would not work either.

The system we have now considered in this iteration of the consultation really looks at three regions: the Pacific, the Atlantic and the inland and Laurentian region.

If the hon. member says the commissioner of the coast guard was not responsive to suggestions, I have to remind him that no fewer than 300 people and parties were listened to. The marine advisory board has regular consultations with him. He is going on now to do more iterations and consultations. While he may not have given on major points yesterday, the purpose of the consultations is to have one more round before we go into effect.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the minister made a commitment to table impact studies in this House. At the same meeting in Montreal yesterday, the commissioner of the coast guard admitted that the studies mentioned by the minister would not be completed before September, while the new fee structure would take effect in July.

How can the minister justify the coast guard's imminent decision on the basis of studies that will be carried out after the new fee structure comes into effect?

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not doing anything to contribute to the ease of the particular system.

When we are dealing with something this controversial and complex across the country and we want to do it within a reasonable timeframe, of course there has to be feedback. The feedback takes place during the process of consultation, as the hon. member knows. He is smiling at me.

The imposition of the fees we were hoping would be done by April 1; however, it would appear we will not be able to do it until June. The $20 million collected on April 1 will now be later than that and every month that goes by we will have to collect more.

The hon. member is trying to impede the process. He is doing absolutely nothing to add to the simplicity of imposing these fees and coming up with an effective system across the country that is fair and reasonable.

Immigration Red Book

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we know the environment minister used public servants and taxpayers' money to produce 30,000 copies of the Liberal propaganda aimed at Canadian immigrants. The minister knew exactly what he was doing when he ordered the documents, "Creating Opportunity", the red book sequel. It is the very same title, if we can imagine.

Not all of these documents were shredded and I offer to table a copy.

What will the Prime Minister do about this blatant, partisan misuse of public funds?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I just said that when the minister looked at the document she said it was not to be distributed and she had her own reasons for doing so.

We are working on a sequel to the red book. It will be ready for the election and it will again defeat the Reform Party.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the question is who is paying for that red book?

The current minister now knows exactly why she shredded them. They were nothing more than partisan. Maybe we will at least give her credit for knowing that it was wrong and that something smelled about it.

The reasons are not good enough. I ask the minister that she stand up and answer to it. The former minister knew he was breaking the rules when he made the document. His departmental officials told him he was breaking the rules. His cabinet successor was so concerned about it that she tried to destroy the evidence.

As I said before, not all of the evidence was shredded and I have a copy which I am willing to table.

Canadians thought this kind of political sleaze belonged only to Brian Mulroney, but it has hung over to this Parliament.

Which red book should Canadians believe in, the red book that talks about integrity and honesty in government or the red book these people shredded to try to avoid a scandal?