Pauline Picard

[Krever Commission, November 26th, 1996]

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

Yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister stated in this House that her government was legally obliged to withhold the documents sought by the Krever commission. Section 39 of the Canada Evidence Act sets out no such obligation. Her own minister of justice in fact said it was possible to obtain documents from the years 1980 to 1984 under a special procedure, which involves applying to the Prime Minister of the time, namely, Pierre Elliott Trudeau and John Turner.

Is the Deputy Prime Minister prepared to undertake all the steps necessary to obtain the required authorizations to finally provide the documents to the Krever commission? In other words, is she prepared to seek the approval of her former leaders, Pierre Elliott Trudeau and John Turner, so we may finally know the truth about this tragedy?

[Krever Commission, November 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Canada Evidence Act gives the minister the required authority. Under the terms of that statute, the minister may ask the President of the Privy Council to intervene in order to overturn a decision by the Clerk of the Privy Council to refuse to make these documents public, and to have them finally turned over to Judge Krever so that he may get to the bottom of this tragedy.

[Krever Commission, November 25th, 1996]

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

This morning, a coalition of organizations, including the Canadian Hemophilia Society, renewed its request for access to the documents the Krever commission wishes to examine. These documents, including draft regulations on blood products, go back to 1984, when the Liberal Party was in power and the current Prime Minister was Deputy Prime Minister. According to testimony given by certain senior health officials, the draft regulations were blocked at the highest level.

How can the minister explain his stubborn refusal not to table these documents, unless it is because their publication could be embarrassing to the present government?

[Women In Non-Traditional Jobs, November 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to draw attention to the courage and determination of women in non-traditional jobs.

In my riding, several women have managed to find work in occupations that traditionally excluded them. They are linewomen, welders, assemblers, surveyors, electricians, machinists, mechanics, truckers, engineers, and policewomen.

The Partance group and its board of directors recently published a directory containing information on and statements by 49 women holding non-traditional jobs.

I commend these women as well as the co-ordinator and counsellors of the Partance group, who, through their work, show that change is possible when the desire is strong enough. This is an example the people of my riding of Drummond follow with pride.

[Krever Inquiry, November 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, would the minister agree that it is up to Mr. Justice Krever and not the minister to decide whether these documents are useful? Will the minister agree to leave the decision up to Mr. Justice Krever and to provide him with what he has asked for?

[Krever Inquiry, November 18th, 1996]

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

Last week we learned that the government has once again refused to provide documents vital to the needs of the Krever inquiry. These documents, which date back to 1984, could provide details to the commissioners on the circumstances underlying the crisis.

Would the minister tell us why the government is refusing to provide the Krever commission with the documents requested of it?

[Tobacco, November 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, while I am all for tobacco control legislation, the major problem of sponsorship of sports and cultural events has yet to be resolved.

Is the Prime Minister aware of this problem and will he undertake to find a solution before the next election?

[Tobacco, November 7th, 1996]

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

We know that the health minister is so anxious to table a bill governing the use of tobacco that he has urged the public not to

vote Liberal if the bill is not passed before the next election. But we also know that there is another group within the Liberal caucus vigorously opposed to tobacco control legislation.

Can the Prime Minister, who has surely discussed this issue with his minister at the special meeting of cabinet, tell us whether his government will be going ahead with this bill?

[Osteoporosis, November 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, November is osteoporosis awareness month. This disease, which makes bones more fragile and fracture-prone, affects more than 1.5 million people, primarily women, one woman in four and one man in eight in Quebec and in Canada.

This silent and stealthy disease has a high social cost. More than a billion dollars are spent annually on hospitalization, ambulance services and drugs to treat osteoporosis-related injuries. The total over 25 years will be in excess of $32 billion.

The physical and emotional suffering and the costs related to osteoporosis could be reduced, however, simply through prevention, particularly information, consciousness-raising and a healthy calcium-rich diet.

Osteoporosis is surely a good example of the old adage: "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure".

[Inter-Parliamentary Delegations, November 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, which represented Canada at the 96th inter-parliamentary conference which was held in Beijing, China, September 14 to 21, 1996.