Debates of Feb. 13th, 1998

Justice

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, David Pryce, special assistant to the Minister of Industry, pled guilty on February 4 to charges of assault causing bodily harm. Can the minister inform this House whether Mr. Pryce is still a member of his personal staff advising him on confidential matters, despite the fact that he has pled guilty to a very serious criminal offence?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, the matter has not been concluded before the courts.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I caution the hon. member for Crowfoot that questions on this subject may therefore be out of order.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Pryce has entered a plea of guilty to a charge of assault causing bodily harm.

My question to the minister is whether or not this person is still employed as his personal assistant.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Given the answer the minister has given to this question that the matter is still before the courts, I think the member must accept that. Under the conventions of this House it is not proper to ask questions on matters before the courts, particularly ones involving criminal proceedings as alleged by the hon. member.

Reference To Supreme Court

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

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

This morning, we learned that Quebeckers are massively opposed to the Supreme Court reference on Quebec's right to decide its own future. Nine out of ten Quebeckers said that the democratic will of the people should take precedence over a Supreme Court decision.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister admit that this public rejection signals the failure of Plan B and of the hard line approach backed by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the entire government?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Quebec, Lucien Bouchard, insists that we comply with the decisions of the Supreme Court on all sorts of issues, such as the dispute between Quebec and Newfoundland concerning hydroelectricity.

So why not agree with Mr. Bouchard's point of view on this issue of the rule of law involving the Supreme Court of Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister's answer gives the clear impression that he is completely out of touch.

With each passing day, the government is becoming increasingly isolated with respect to its Supreme Court reference. Yesterday, it was the turn of the Association canadienne-française de l'Alberta, which represents 60,000 Franco-Albertans, to ask the federal government to abandon its reference to the Supreme Court.

With this popular rejection now spreading outside Quebec, will the government agree that the only responsible, and courageous, thing to do would be to withdraw its reference to the Supreme Court before hearings begin?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, in a media scrum on September 21, 1996, Lucien Bouchard said: “I am in favour of the rule of law. The law must always be respected”.

That is precisely what we are doing in this case. It is why we believe that asking the Supreme Court to decide the matter falls squarely in line with Mr. Bouchard's thinking.

Iraq

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

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

While the American position on Iraq is being questioned by a large part of the international community, and Russia is becoming increasingly critical, the Canadian government is still talking about diplomacy, but the reality is that the troops are on their way to Iraq.

Since Iraq has recently offered to open eight presidential sites to UN inspectors, can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether he thinks that that constitutes a worthwhile basis for a diplomatic solution to the conflict?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the position of Canada and of other countries is very clear. Saddam Hussein must comply fully with all UN resolutions regarding the inspection and destruction of biological products.

The hon. member's question is an interesting one but, as things now stand, we do not have the complete agreement of Saddam Hussein with respect to this request. That is why we are continuing our efforts to reach a diplomatic solution.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the troops are on their way. The government keeps telling us that their involvement will be limited to logistical support.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister at least guarantee the House that they will never be involved in combat operations?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, if we are serious in our intention to seek a diplomatic solution, we must also be serious in speaking about what we will do in the event of a failure to achieve such a solution. It is therefore not possible to give the hon. member the answer he would like.

Youth Employment

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Human Resources Development.

High student debt, a 16.5% unemployment rate and diminished opportunity. This is the legacy for the young people in the gallery. Liberal reforms to the EI system now require young people and students entering the labour force to obtain 910 hours of work to qualify for employment insurance.

In light of the fact that the first contact with the workforce for so many young people is part time or of short duration, how can the minister justify this policy?

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, let me see if I can make this very clear to the member opposite.

We have on a number of occasions already made it very clear that we recognize that student debt is an issue. We recognize that youth unemployment is an issue. This government has made improvements for youth relating to jobs, education and their skills. That is our first priority. We have also put a number of initiatives in place to deal with that.

If the member would like us to send a copy of all those—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Sydney—Victoria.

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad attention was brought to the young people in the gallery. They, like Canadians—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member knows that he is not supposed to draw attention to persons in the gallery. I would ask him to abide by the rules of the House in this regard.

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I stand corrected and I apologize to the House.

Canadian youth want opportunity, not amazing rhetoric. The policy of this government makes it take Canadian youth 117% more hours of work to qualify and collect employment insurance.

Is the government prepared to stop discriminating against young people?

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, it is just the opposite. I am quite surprised the NDP would be opposed to this particular initiative in the new EI reforms.

The objective of making the entrance requirement higher for youth is to make sure they do not get caught in the trap of taking the easy way out. For example in the summertime they get a construction job and thinking they are making big money they stay in that field. They quit school because they can make some money in the short term. Then they find out down the line when they get a bit older that they do not have the education they need.

The intent is to have young people go back to school. It is a very important initiative. All members of the House should support that.

Health

[Jean Charest, Progressive Conservative, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health who will be meeting next week with his counterparts to discuss the issue of people infected with hepatitis C through tainted blood.

There seems to be a will on the part of provincial governments to deal with this, but there is also a concern that the federal government will put forward some grandiose package and leave them covering the real costs.

Will the Minister of Health commit today that he will put forth a compensation package that is substantial enough to cover the ongoing health costs provinces will incur in assisting these victims?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, since we received the Krever report last fall we have made it clear that we are interested in finding some way forward to treat humanely and fairly those who were the innocent victims of tragic mistakes in the blood system. In that regard I think the interests of victims are best served by levels of government working together.

In response to the question put by the hon. member, I commit myself today to continue to work with my provincial counterparts. I am meeting with them Monday and Tuesday of next week to try to find a way in which we can all contribute to the appropriate outcome in these tragic cases.

[Jean Charest, Progressive Conservative, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, most provincial governments have already clearly indicated their desire to help victims of hepatitis C.

I would like to know whether the federal government now in office will take into account the health care costs to provincial governments of ongoing assistance to these people. I would specifically like to know whether the minister intends to include victims who received blood before 1986 in the federal government's compensation plan.

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I will have an opportunity to discuss this with my provincial counterparts next week. We are examining the entire issue. We intend to look closely at Judge Krever's recommendations, including those concerning which victims should be compensated. I am now working with my counterparts and their officials to find a solution to this major and difficult problem.

Calgary Declaration

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday when the B.C. unity panel released its report, it showed that British Columbians are prepared to support the Calgary declaration “A Framework for Discussion”. However this support is based on the entire declaration especially the equality aspects.

While this government has strongly embraced the unique character aspects of the Calgary declaration, it has virtually ignored the equality provisions. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, does this government have any initiatives to promote the equality provisions of the Calgary declaration?