Debates of May 30th, 1996

Quebec Referendum

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, pity poor Pierre F. Côté. He is insulted. He is upset because Alliance Quebec questioned the objectivity of his report on electoral fraud in the Quebec referendum.

Let us see. An independent study by McGill sociologists looked at all 22,000 polls, yet Mr. Côté only investigated 290. Evidence showed the same pattern of fraudulent steps taken by the "yes" side in at least three ridings that were examined, but Mr. Côté concluded that there was no national conspiracy to undermine democracy.

More than 60,000 perfectly good "no" ballots were illegally rejected by sovereignist officials, but Côté considered this less serious than freedom of expression at the Montreal rally.

He is upset. It is Quebecers who lost their democratic right as citizens to have their votes count who are legitimately upset.

Join Alliance Quebec tomorrow at noon in front of the Hydro building. Let the government know about democracy, fairness and decency in the voting process.

Integration Of People With Disabilities

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this week, we are called upon to take an active part in the many activities organized as part of National Access Awareness Week.

Even today, people with disabilities are faced with all sorts of barriers, both physical and social, which prevent them from playing an active role in our society.

The purpose of this week is to make us aware that much still remains to be done, despite the phenomenal progress made in recent years in this regard.

People with disabilities are full-fledged citizens. Our attitudes and treatment of them as a society must not be a greater handicap to them than their disability. We must therefore continue to be vigilant, so that they can enjoy the same advantages and rights as any other Canada citizen.

National Access Awareness Week

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton—York—Sunbury, NB]

Mr. Speaker, this week marks National Access Awareness Week. Citizens with disabilities are just that, citizens first and foremost, not somehow less than those of us who can walk around without the aid of a wheelchair or go to work without the aid of an attendant.

The only difference between those of us who are disabled and those of us who are not is that those of us who are not have been lucky.

There have been many gains with respect to awareness in many areas of society. Differences in race, religion and sexual orientation are becoming more and more accepted and actions are being taken to mitigate injustice.

We need to afford persons with disabilities the same consideration. It needs to become a matter of course that access is built into every program we design, every course we put on, every announcement that we make and every incentive that we offer.

We must be committed to being accessible to all Canadians and this is the week that we are to be reminded.

Minister Of Human Resources Development

[Paul Mercier, Bloc, Blainville—Deux-Montagnes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development invited my colleague, the member for Bourassa, to go and find himself another country, because he, an immigrant, dared to support the sovereignist option. If we are to believe the minister, and the Prime Minister as well, my colleague had a pressing moral obligation, as a new Canadian, to throw his faithful support behind the federalist cause.

I imagine that the minister applies this curious notion of parliamentary democracy to me as well, because I, too, am an immigrant and I, too, am a sovereignist.

However, like my colleague, I realized that the federal yoke was preventing my adopted province from reaching the potential it could as a sovereign nation. Heeding the invitation issued to my colleague, the member for Bourassa, by the Minister of Human Resources Development, I therefore decided to find myself another country. The country I picked was Quebec.

Greyhound Air

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Okanagan Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, 24 jobs in Kelowna, 63 jobs in Vancouver, 145 jobs in Calgary, 43 jobs in Edmonton, 89 jobs in Winnipeg, 61 jobs in Ottawa, 64 jobs in Toronto, 109 jobs in Hamilton: 595 Canadian jobs provided by Greyhound Air. Will it fly? "Can't do it", says the NTA. "Regulatory restrictions", shrugs the Minister of Transport.

The Liberal government has had three years to make changes that would give Canadian business an advantage and ensure fair competition. Why has it not been done? Why must businesses like Kelowna Flightcraft go to court to prove it has the right to do business in its own country?

Clearly too many lawyers and not enough business people are running this country. That would change under a Reform government.

Economic recovery, opportunity and jobs. Those were the promises. By hijacking Canadian business with regulatory restrictions? By forcing Canadian businesses to take a nosedive? That is not acceptable. We do not think so.

Children's Miracle Network Champions

[Anna Terrana, Liberal, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today in Ottawa we have 10 Canadian children who have been named Children's Miracle Network champions by the Children's Hospital Foundation.

Sierra Harrold, who is nine years old, is the B.C. champion and resides in Fort Nelson. Sierra has Gaucher disease, a rare metabolic disorder which causes ongoing bone thinning, liver and spleen damage, anemia, susceptibility to infections and the likelihood of brain damage.

Sierra has been treated at the B.C. Children's Hospital for the last seven years. She will continue to be treated, but she is improving and remains a champion through lengthy, painful treatments. Sierra and her other champion friends will go to Disney World, an award to honour her bravery and that of the other champions.

During the weekend in Vancouver I co-hosted the Italian B.C. Children's Hospital telethon. The Italians donated about $100,000 to the cause. This money will be presented to the B.C. Children's Hospital Foundation on June 1 and 2 during the annual telethon.

Today I would like to ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Sierra Harrold and the other nine Canadian Children's Miracle Network champions.

[Ian Murray, Liberal, Lanark—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to take this opportunity to welcome some true Canadian heroes to the House of Commons.

Ten children from across Canada have been chosen as Children's Miracle Network champions and the Speaker and Prime Minister will be presenting them with special medallions this afternoon in recognition of their triumphs over illness and life challenging problems. The champions are accompanied by two other well-known Canadian champions, Rick Hansen and Mark Tewksbury.

The 13 CMN hospitals in Canada specialize in the treatment of children with a wide variety of afflictions such as cancer, birth defects, heart and muscular diseases as well as accident victims.

In conclusion, I want to particularly congratulate 10-year old Chris Stephens, a CMN champion from my riding of Lanark-Carleton. Best wishes to all of you. Let us all support the Children's Miracle Network so it can continue to provide help for Canadian children everywhere.

Manpower

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development has just this morning released a document presenting his manpower policy. Briefing Note No. 2 describes the post-negotiation arrangements with the provinces as "enabling the provinces to deliver active employment measures funded from the employment insurance fund".

My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. Are we to conclude from this statement that the federal government reserves for itself the responsibility for defining policy with respect to active employment measures?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, no. Obviously I hope that we shall succeed in finding ways of meeting the requirements of all provinces and territories. There will be differences, no doubt; the agreements will differ from one province to another. Certainly, the available resources, the wishes, the systems in place to deliver programs will differ.

The objective, however, is to ensure that, where provinces wish to take over in this sector, we will be able to reach an arrangement based on negotiations, on a true agreement characterized by partnership and collaboration. It is not our intent to impose conditions and to drive a hard bargain in these negotiations. We want to obtain something that will work well, so as to prove to Canadians that federalism works.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, you will understand our concerns when the document refers to allowing the provinces to deliver active employment measures. It does not refer in the same terms to defining policy.

My second question for the minister is this. By reaffirming in these documents his responsibility to "ensure that funds are spent effectively and efficiently", does the minister confirm that the federal government is thus retaining responsibility for monitoring results and for final assessment of the programs?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, we believe that, through these negotiations, we can arrive at the kind of results we all want. We will proceed via negotiation, via agreement. No province would accept our simply forcing our criteria on them, deciding how our programs should be delivered, nor our deciding unilaterally what results we would like to obtain.

These are all elements which will enable us to reach agreements with provinces such as Prince Edward Island, in which resources and the ability to deliver programs might be far more limited than in Ontario, for example.

The entire undertaking is based on the willingness of the Government of Canada to find means of co-operating so that we may, in the case of Quebec for instance, respond to the consensus we know exists in that province between the unions, the Conseil du patronat, the chambers of commerce and the Government of Quebec. All Quebecers have a vision of the way they would like to see this sector of active measures operate. I believe that we will be able to get results that will match those needs.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has just confirmed that the federal government's plans depend on an agreement between the federal and the provincial governments.

Will the minister admit that, failing an agreement with a government, the Government of Quebec for instance, the new Employment Insurance Act will apply, which is more or less like saying that the minister has set all the conditions for a negotiation where he is holding all the cards? In reality this comes down to saying "Negotiate and reach agreement with me, or else I apply my legislation". That is the situation.

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

No, Mr. Speaker. In this area, I believe that there will be an attempt to do things so that the results will, I think, match what everyone wants. It will be difficult, without a doubt. Negotiating bilateral agreements with ten provinces and the territories will be complicated.

Finally I believe, and this is obvious, that whether in Quebec or anywhere else, governments, members of parliament, ministers, first ministers, all have one objective. More than a million people in Canada, including Quebec, have no jobs. At the end of the exercise, when all of the negotiations are concluded, it is my hope that everyone will be trying in good faith to find solutions to allow men and women in search of a job to find one, and to prepare them, while they are searching for a job, to be good employees.

That is the object of the exercise, and I believe we have taken a giant step forward today by demonstrating that Canada can be open to new ways of doing things.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Human Resources Development. I say to him that, for things to go the way he has just said, the past cannot be assumed to guarantee the future.

We were stupefied this morning by the government's announcement of its withdrawal from manpower training and the subsequent end to financial assistance in this area.

Will the minister confirm that, after the three year period, financial assistance for manpower training will end and that the provinces will be forced to assume the cost of it on their own?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government has long been asked to withdraw from manpower training. We announced nothing new in this area this morning. We have already said, on many occasions, including in the throne speech, and the Prime Minister has announced it, that the Government of Canada would be withdrawing from manpower training.

Moreover, we have always indicated in our budget forecasts that funding for all these programs would drop to zero at the end of three years. We have already considerably reduced the amount of money earmarked for training.

Since we have to withdraw from this sector, because employment insurance and manpower training are two fairly different things, we are withdrawing and have been continuing to reduce the funding to zero.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that means no compensation for respecting exclusive jurisdiction.

Will the minister confirm that the money invested by the federal government in training comes from the unemployment insurance fund and that the provinces, which do not have access to this fund, will be forced to take over responsibility on their own using their own resources?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, certainly there were programs where training was financed out of the consolidated fund. What we are saying is that we have been easing out of training in the area, for example, of the direct purchase of space in CEGEPs and community colleges and in the purchase of training contracts from the private sector. We have planned for some time in all our budget forecasts not only to participate less in this sector but to cut funding as well.

That said, with part II of the Employment Insurance Act still before Parliament and with our upcoming negotiations with the provinces that would be interested in pursuing the proposal we tabled today, I hope that we will continue to find the means to provide job training throughout the country to those who need it.

Government Contracts

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

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

The defence minister thinks it is acceptable to hand out pork barrel contracts to campaign pals to do political work, all at taxpayers' expense. The minister broke Treasury Board guidelines by contract splitting. Canadians found this kind of patronage unacceptable from Mulroney and Canadians find it unacceptable now.

Why will the Prime Minister not raise his ethical standards to at least the level of Brian Mulroney's and put an end to this patronage budget abuse by his Minister of National Defence?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Secretary of State (Veterans)(Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency)]

Mr. Speaker, the minister will be back in the House tomorrow. He will respond to questions involving the individual who handled the file for the Greek community across Canada.

It is important to note that the changes that were brought about by the 1995 budget brought the War Veterans Allowance Act back to its original intent. That was not to pay resistance fighters from foreign countries. It was to pay the allied veterans who became Canadian citizens and our Canadian veterans. This move saves $30 million for the Canadian taxpayer.

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

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

The Minister of National Defence has been caught abusing his budget and breaching Treasury Board guidelines, all to reward campaign pals. Let us look at the facts. Two contracts that the minister issued overlapped and amounted to $50,000. The work for each contract was the same. Last week the deputy secretary of the Treasury Board stated that it is not acceptable to contract split and when it happens, disciplinary action must be taken.

When will the Prime Minister obey the rules set down by Treasury Board and discipline the Minister of National Defence?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, the rules about contract splitting are clear. They indicate that if a contract is for the same purpose, the same object and if the contract is given at the time when it should be above $30,000, it should not be the sole source. The rules also indicate that if the contract is

below $30,000 and is for an object that at the time the contract is given is believed to be studied within the $30,000, this is according to the guidelines. This is what I understand happened in this case.

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

Mr. Speaker, my second supplementary is for the Prime Minister.

The Minister of National Defence violated Treasury Board guidelines. The Prime Minister cannot escape the facts. The defence minister issued four contracts to Karabekos. Some of the contracts overlapped.

The work on the contracts was the same. This is one of the most blatant examples of contract splitting we have ever seen. Senior officials from Treasury Board have said that disciplinary action should take place.

I ask the Prime Minister again: Will he take immediate action and discipline the Minister of National Defence?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board studied the problem. It was within the guidelines established by the Treasury Board. There is no need to discipline the minister.

Justice

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

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

In a ministerial statement yesterday, the Minister of Justice indicated that he was responsible for ensuring the independence of the judiciary and the integrity of the justice system. Yet the minister refused to order an inquiry into the actions of the two federal court judges who have violated their duty to remain neutral and impartial. His inaction has now prompted the judicial council to open an inquiry into the actions of Justices Isaac and Jerome.

Why did the Minister of Justice skirt his responsibilities under the Judges Act and not order himself an inquiry into this serious matter calling into question the impartiality of the chief justice of the federal court?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, in the first instance based on the facts of this case as I know them, I do not believe it is an appropriate circumstance for me to ask for an inquiry under section 63(1) of the Judges Act.

On the other hand, the judicial council has jurisdiction to consider the matter. Anyone is at liberty to file a complaint with the judicial council. What is more to the point, I now understand that the chair of the judicial conduct committee of the judicial council has asked Chief Justice Isaac to explain the circumstances of his communications with Ted Thompson of the Department of Justice. The judicial conduct committee, based on the explanation furnished by Chief Justice Isaac, will decide whether further steps are required.

The public can be satisfied that the judicial council itself has initiated a process in this matter which will result in an adjudication by judges of the appropriateness of the conduct of Chief Justice Isaac.