Debates of Feb. 18th, 1997

Employment

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, our government was extremely

pleased last week to be able to give some hope to children and young unemployed people who really want to do something with their lives. That is what the youth of this country want and that is what we are giving them.

There is the amount of $2 billion that we are already spending for young people in this country. We have announced two major new programs to gain work experience and 110,000 young Canadians will have access to some work experience in order to get them out of the no experience, no job and no job, no experience cycle. Our government is doing a lot. We need to do more and that is what we will do.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question the government needs to do more. It has to give tax relief, not more tax and spend programs. These tax and spend programs of this government are merely creating dependency on welfare. We know and the government knows that the entrepreneurial sector is the sector which creates jobs. It is not welfare dependency.

That is why I ask the minister to explain the policy of this government dependency on welfare. Why is the government insisting on that way of resolving the problem rather than creating the entrepreneurs we need in this country and giving them the breaks? Jobs will be created this way rather than the government's way. Does the minister acknowledge that job creation can be better done this way?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, the member will have to look at the jobs strategy before commenting on it. This is precisely what we are doing. We are doing precisely that in partnership with the private sector and non-governmental organizations in creating jobs. These work experiences will not be in the government. They will be in the private sector and non-governmental organizations.

That is why this strategy for young people who want to find jobs and gain work experience is greatly appreciated across Canada. In partnership with the private sector and non-governmental organizations, we will provide 110,000 young Canadians with work experience to get them out of the no experience, no job and no job, no experience cycle.

Floating Casinos

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

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

On November 26, 1996, in response to a question from the official opposition, the minister recognized having received from the Quebec Minister of Justice a letter requesting an amendment to the Criminal Code to permit the opening of casinos on international cruises in Canadian waters. The minister even promised at the time to keep me abreast of his consultations with the cruise industry and the provincial governments.

Does the fact that we have not yet heard from the minister about the latest developments on casinos on international cruises mean that he has simply given up the idea?

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

No, Mr. Speaker. As I told this House a few months ago, we have received a proposal from the Province of Quebec concerning floating casinos.

As the hon. member knows, this requires an amendment to the Criminal Code. The justice department has initiated consultations with the provinces, the territories, the aboriginal peoples, the industry and all other interested parties.

We are now discussing every aspect of this issue with those concerned. In the months to come, I am confident that we will be able to state our position.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the minister that what is at stake are the jobs, jobs, jobs promised in the Liberals' red book during the last election campaign.

Am I to understand from the minister's answer that he is prepared to support the bill I tabled in this House last week?

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

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, it is very important that we see this consultation process through. As I told this House, the interests involved are many and varied. I would rather wait and see what comes out of this consultation before stating a position.

National Defence

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence is getting quite the reputation of engaging his mouth while his brain-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.

Small Business

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

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

Could the minister imagine what it is like to be a tourist operator in my riding in May getting ready for a busy summer, then suddenly being deluged with surveys from half a dozen or so government departments? I know the information is important to collect but would the minister tell this House what he is doing to ensure this paper burden is not interfering with doing business?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from small business people from across Canada that they are concerned about the extent and number of surveys they have been receiving.

We have asked Statistics Canada and it has agreed to work with small business people to choose the best time of year for them to complete survey information. Small business owners know how important it is, not just to the federal government but to provincial and local governments as well, that Statistics Canada has adequate information so it can provide a basis upon which policy decisions can be made.

StatsCan has moved in the last two years to reduce the burden it imposes on small business by over 15 per cent.

Prescription Drugs

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

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

The present Prime Minister said in this House on April 1, 1993 that Canada should not side with the multinational drug companies by passing Bill C-91 at the expense of poor and sick Canadians who need drugs. The Prime Minister was joined by the present ministers of health and industry in criticizing and voting against Bill C-91.

Last night Canadians were told by the Minister of Industry that reducing the length of time for drug patents which could save Canadians billions of dollars on prescription drug costs will not happen under a Liberal government. Why have the Liberals now flip-flopped and sided with the multinationals at the expense of Canadians who need affordable prescription drugs?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member listens closely because he evidently has been misled by somebody.

He will know that since the time he has referred to, Canada has entered into, among others, the World Trade Organization agreement which resulted from the Uruguay round negotiations. One commitment of that agreement is article 33 of the TRIPS agreement which was signed subsequent to that: "The term of protection available shall not end before the expiration of a period of 20 years counted from the filing date".

I understand why Bill C-91 was very controversial. I was here during those debates. I also understand how important it is for Canada to participate in international trade organizations such as the World Trade Organization, particularly when so much of our economy benefits from export access to many countries.

I urge the hon. member to make significant and important contributions to the work of the industry committee that is reviewing Bill C-91, but to understand the context in which that review is being conducted.

[The Speaker]

I have received written notification that the member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing wishes to raise a point of privilege. I will hear that and then I will hear the points of order.

Privilege

[Chris Axworthy, NDP, Saskatoon—Clark's Crossing, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my point of privilege arises from a response to a question yesterday by the Minister of Justice.

It is not a question of interpretation of fact which would not make it a point of privilege. It is a clear point in which the minister said something that was not the case.

I would like to read what the minister said in yesterday's Hansard . It relates to services relating to Airbus. He said that ``all services that were rendered were entirely within those contemplated properly by the contract''.

I have a copy of the contract and it plainly is not the case that those services were rendered within it. I can read it or not, as the case may be.

[The Speaker]

I wonder if the hon. member could identify for me the specific privilege which is being impinged upon.

[Chris Axworthy, NDP, Saskatoon—Clark's Crossing, SK]

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I believe it is contrary to the privileges of the members for anyone in the House to mislead the House and it is particularly important for the minister not to do that.

[The Speaker]

With all respect, we seem to be going down the road of debate in this particular case. The hon. member mentioned that a statement was made. I take it he disagrees with whatever that statement was. Usually in the give and take of question period where a question is asked, the minister or a parliamentary secretary gives a response and that is all part of question period. It is surely

not for your Speaker to decide that which is or which is not, and I quote your word, "misleading".

Perhaps the answer was not the one that the hon. member wanted or was expecting, but I would be hard pressed to judge when a statement is or is not misleading.

At this point, the hon. member should identify further what was his particular privilege. We have a question and answer and we have to take for granted that all of you are honourable members, therefore, that the answer will be given in good faith. I would let the matter rest there.

I am going to hear the point of order.

Points Of Order

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, during the course of question period in an exchange between the member for Beaver River and the government side, the member for Beaver River pointed out that she had opted out of the $1.4 million parliamentary pension on principle.

The Minister of National Defence was clearly heard to say- I will not repeat the phrase because it is beneath the dignity of the House. But he should withdraw those words and he should be ashamed of his conduct in the House today.

[The Speaker]

Once again, with all due respect to you, I did not hear unparliamentary words.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

We all heard it.

[The Speaker]

I will review the blues and see if unparliamentary language was used and to whom were they directed. If it is necessary, I will come back to the House. I will review the blues and the tapes and see if, indeed, any unparliamentary language was used so that I can ascertain who said it and to whom it was said. We will try to work it that way. If necessary, I will get back to him.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

[The Speaker]

Is this on a different point of order?