Debates of April 30th, 1998

Hepatitis C

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

The hon. member refers to Manitoba. The first three times that I met the Manitoba health minister on this issue he would not hear at all about any compensation for anyone. The Government of Manitoba refused completely to talk about it. So did the governments of other provinces. So did Ontario, saying there was no way it was prepared to talk about compensation.

It was only because of the leadership of the federal government that 22,000 victims of hepatitis C have been offered $1.1 billion in compensation.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Manitoba minister of health has clearly said that if the federal government is prepared to live up to its responsibility the provinces certainly would be prepared to meet with it to discuss this further. “Certainly I will be”, he said.

Will this government accept its regulatory responsibility and come back with a fair compensation package for all blood injured Canadians?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, after long and arduous efforts we dragged the Government of Manitoba into an agreement in which it became a junior partner, contributing to compensation for the group that was harmed by governments which did not act when they should have.

To listen to this hon. member suggesting that the Government of Manitoba is in some position where it is taking a higher moral ground is impossible for me to tolerate.

This government led the efforts and this government produced an agreement that offers compensation to 22,000 victims of hepatitis C.

Treasury Board

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on October 9, the President of the Treasury Board admitted to the House that he had discussed with Jacques Roy, at his Montreal office, the whole issue of information leaks and influence peddling.

On several occasions, the minister denied any involvement by his Montreal office. We now know that Jacques Roy, the minister's assistant, was indeed Pierre Corbeil's source of information.

Can the minister tell us when he was apprised of his employee's activities, under which mandate and authority his employee leaked the information to Pierre Corbeil, and why the minister omitted to inform the House? We want to hear the truth today.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, it was a minister of this government who asked the RCMP to conduct an investigation.

The investigation took place. All the facts were provided to the RCMP. After its investigation was completed, the RCMP laid charges against one person. That person has now admitted his guilt and the judge has handed down his ruling.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this file is not closed. Last fall the President of the Treasury Board denied the involvement of his office in the Pierre Corbeil affair, yet it was his special assistant, Jacques Roy, who provided confidential information to help a Liberal Party fundraiser, a now convicted criminal.

The President of the Treasury Board has denied that link all along. In light of what has happened, will the President of the Treasury Board take some responsibility in this action, reopen the investigation and tell us what happened? Come clean.

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

Mr. Speaker, the RCMP has just finished its investigation. It was asked by the government to do an investigation. It was given all the facts. It has looked at it at length. It has accused one person and that person has now accepted that he is guilty.

The RCMP has made its investigation with all the facts. There has been an accusation, it has gone to the judge and a judgment has been rendered. There is nothing more to do.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it has been 10 years since the death of J.J. Harper who sparked the aboriginal justice inquiry in Manitoba.

Could the Minister of Justice inform the House how the federal government is helping to rehabilitate non-violent aboriginal offenders?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the aboriginal justice initiative or strategy within the Department of Justice is one that is aimed at involving aboriginal people more directly in the administration of justice.

Under the strategy we recently signed an agreement with the province of Manitoba and with the aboriginal council of Winnipeg. We will be providing matching funding of $750,000 over the next two years to develop an urban court diversion program. Under that program we will be working with urban aboriginal non-violent offenders in a way that is culturally sensitive.

Hepatitis C

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government says that the hepatitis C file is closed. I would suggest the only thing closed around here is the Prime Minister's mind on this issue.

In the past 24 hours the provinces of Ontario and Quebec have both reversed their decision on this bad deal.

We know how the Prime Minister convinced his backbench MPs to toe the line. They were threatened.

What threats will the Prime Minister use against these two provinces? How will they too be punished?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, they did not change their minds. We had to drag them to the table and they accepted only partial responsibility. Today they are running away.

It is the cheapest type of political tactics to pass the buck to somebody else. They invite people to dinner and run before the bill arrives. I have never done that.

Aerospace Industry

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

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

Twenty workers were laid off at SPAR Aerospace in Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue as a direct result of the loss of the contract to build the Canadian satellite Radarsat II. Worse yet, the company did not create 450 high end jobs as planned.

Why did the Canadian government and the space agency decide to award the contract to a company in Vancouver when the SPAR bid had the largest Canadian content?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, of course in putting together a procurement contract of this importance, and it was a very big contract, many standards were imposed including a standard for Canadian content.

I would like to say that the proposal received from MacDonald Dettwiler Corporation of Richmond, British Columbia was the winning proposal. It won a contract worth close to $300 million and it won it fair and square.

Atlantic Groundfish Strategy

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the government's Atlantic groundfish strategy is a failure.

Yesterday, thousands of fisheries workers took to the street to denounce this government's management of the program. The minister said he would be compassionate. However, according to another one of his department's internal reports, the government's response is to let Canadians starve to death to force them to relocate.

My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. When will you stand up and defend—

[The Speaker]

My colleague, members must always address the Chair. The Minister of Human Resources Development.

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

Mr. Speaker, as soon as the problem was identified in the Atlantic region, our government was the first to go to the people.

The program you repeatedly denounced and criticized was a generous one. I can tell you one thing: it ends in August, and my colleagues and I are working very hard to ensure that we will be able to provide collective and individual assistance in an intelligent and responsible way given the situation the workers will be confronted to come August, since the fish are not coming back.

Presence In Gallery

[The Speaker]

I draw to members' attention the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Hu Kuangdi, Governor of Shanghai of the People's Republic of China.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Speaker]

I also draw to members' attention the presence in the gallery of Mr. Alexandru Athanasiu, Minister of Labour and Social Protection of Romania.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Business Of The House

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government House leader the business remaining for this week and the business for next week.

I would also like him to point out to the House earth shattering business, something that might be of interest to most Canadians and not just some Liberals.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to make this answer as earth shattering as the question.

Today we will continue with second reading of Bill C-27, the coastal fisheries bill. If that is not earth shattering enough, we will then follow it by Bill S-5, the human rights act amendments.

Tomorrow we will start debating Bill C-30, the Mi'kmaq education bill. Then we will finish any business not completed from today. If the business of today is complete, we will not call any other business after Bill C-30 tomorrow.

On Monday we will call Bill C-3, the DNA bill at report stage. We will stay with this bill on Monday in the hope of completing it. It is our hope that we will have the bill completed at third reading by mid week.

Tuesday shall be an allotted day for the New Democratic Party.

Points Of Order

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning a breach of the rules of confidentiality during the lock-up for parliamentarians prior to the release of the auditor general's report on Tuesday, April 28.

The point of the lock-up prior to the release of the auditor general's report, as with lock-ups prior to the budget, the estimates and similar documents, is to provide parliamentarians and their staff as well as journalists time to study the document in confidence so that they are able to comment on it in a considered way when it is tabled in the House of Commons. It is crucial that those present at such lock-ups preserve an absolute confidentiality in order to preserve the privilege of the House and to have all important documents tabled first in the House before being made public in any way. In order to preserve such confidentiality, participants at the lock-up are asked to surrender cell phones upon entering the lock-up to prevent the premature release of confidential information.

It was brought to my attention by New Democrat staffers who were at the lock-up prior to the release of the auditor general's report of Tuesday, April 28 that staff members of another political party were witnessed using cell phones from within the lock-up. These people know who they are and I am not interested in naming them.

This constitutes a very serious infraction of the rules of the lock-up and a threat to the privileges of this House. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to investigate the matter in consultation with officials of the auditor general and report to the House if you find an infraction has taken place. I ask you to inform the House what action you will be taking as a result to make sure this does not happen again.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on this. After I was made aware of this supposed infraction I talked to staff that were in the lock-up. This is apparently what happened.

Apparently the lock-up went on for a couple of hours. When staff and others go into the lock-up for the auditor general's report they turn in their cell phones and so on, which was done. Apparently at the end of the session as the auditor general's staff members were cleaning up, saying the lock-up was essentially over, they delivered the cell phones back to the people who were in the room. This was three or four minutes before the technical expiry of that lock-up time. When the cell phones were returned, one of our staff checked his messages. I do not think he misused his cell phone. He did it at the last second when it was returned to him by the staff. There was no malice intended. There was no breach of confidentiality.

We can check to make sure they are not delivered back at the last minute. Perhaps we should do that. I do not think there was any intent to break the spirit of the law here.

[The Speaker]

Quite a few Speakers previous to me have ruled consistently that these lock-ups are under the auspices of the auditor general. They do not come under the purview of the House of Commons per se. The reason I permitted the second intervener was so we could get more information. In any case, I would rule that it is not the responsibility of the House of Commons per se. It is outside of our purview.