Debates of May 26th, 1994

Hepatitis C

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak about people who enjoy good health. I do not think that they need to be told they are in good health. The hon. member's question is truly extraordinary, but I understand that he may have misspoken.

Let me reassure you by saying that we take a real interest in this issue. However, as I said before in this House, it must be understood that medical treatments always involve some risks. Nothing is 100 per cent sure. It goes without saying that if people think they are suffering from side-effects, they should see a doctor. This is my opinion. In the meantime, we are interested in hearing what Mr. Justice Krever will have to say about these blood transfusions and their recipients.

[The Speaker]

I simply want to remind members that they must always address the Chair.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister realize that some people will die while she just sits and waits for the findings of the Krever commission? Will the minister do something to save these people? After all, their life is in danger.

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, let us not get carried away! People have good reason to feel rather safe. If one have problems, one goes to see a doctor. We can get very good treatment in this country. Hepatitis C is not AIDS. Let us be reasonable, Mr. Speaker.

Interprovincial Trade

[Judy Bethel, Liberal, Edmonton East, AB]

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

Interprovincial trade barriers are costing Canadians as much as $7 billion and many are losing economic opportunities while the discussions drag on. Some provinces are co-operating and some are making it difficult to remove costly barriers for other Canadians.

Could the minister tell the House what he is doing to get the co-operation of all provinces and to meet the June deadline for an agreement?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Edmonton East raises a very important issue which I think most Canadians find quite astonishing, that while Canada has entered into international trade agreements it has failed to find a way to reduce interprovincial trade barriers which in some ways would not be permitted in our relations with other countries.

I am pleased to advise the House that progress is being made. A great deal of effort is being put into this project by ministers who are members of the committee of ministers on internal trade, ministers from all provinces and the territories, as we work toward the June 30 deadline.

Given the commitment that is being made on the part of all provinces, there is a very good prospect it will succeed in having a broad based and worthwhile framework agreement together with comprehensive chapters in a number of areas, a number of sectors, which will provide a good base for continuing progress in this issue.

Frankly I find the spirit of co-operation from all provinces very encouraging, although I must say I worry about retaliatory action being taken by Ontario in light of the results of the Stanley Cup playoff game the other night.

Canadian International Development Agency

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

It is becoming apparent that the mandate and operation of the Canadian International Development Agency needs a thorough review. The OECD, the academic community and the Auditor General have all demanded changes to CIDA. We hear reports and we read all the time that CIDA's mandate may even be at cross purposes with the humanitarian objectives of Canadians.

Will the minister bring in enabling legislation so that Parliament, not cabinet, can debate and eventually direct CIDA's mandate?

[Jesse Flis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, CIDA has a very clear mandate, one of sustainable development in developing countries.

The hon. member knows very well because he was at the meeting this morning. The Canadian Council for International Co-Operation appeared before the joint committee on foreign policy and it praised CIDA for providing a very enviable reputation in many countries where it is doing work.

The hon. member also knows we are now going through an in depth review of foreign policy, including foreign aid, defence and other issues. Any recommendations the member has should be made to the joint committee on foreign affairs which may consider some of his recommendations. However it would have to be an agreement of the foreign affairs standing committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, part of the problem is that Parliament does not have an opportunity to give direction to CIDA because it is a creation of cabinet and is not under the direction of this House of Commons.

In order to reassure CIDA management, Canadian NGOs and the Canadian people, will the minister bring in that enabling legislation to refocus CIDA's mandate on the truly needy people of the world?

[Jesse Flis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I will pass the hon. member's question on to the minister. Again the hon. member knows the forum to which to take such a recommendation.

I would not agree with the hon. member when he says that CIDA is not accountable to Parliament. The Auditor General just did an in depth audit of CIDA programs, specifically in three Asian countries. He gave CIDA a glowing report.

There is accountability. No one more than the workers in CIDA are conscious of getting the best for the Canadian tax dollar. They know how hard it is to collect that dollar and they spend that dollar very wisely. They look at their objectives and the programs that would meet those objectives. The hon. member must know that before a program is implemented the local provincial governments are consulted, as are the NGO people.

Avcorp Industries

[Réjean Lefebvre, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, AVCORP Industries, a subcontractor in the aerospace sector involved with the EH-101 helicopter program, finds itself in dire straights while waiting for compensation from the federal government, as promised by the Prime Minister after he cancelled the helicopter contract. This firm is desperately trying to convert to civilian production.

Does the Minister of Industry not realize that his attitude, in dragging his feet with respect to compensation for those businesses which were penalized by the cancellation of the helicopter contract, is threatening the very survival of several of them, including AVCORP?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the government made it perfectly clear, when it announced the cancellation of the helicopter contract, that there would be no compensation for the companies involved, except for contracts between the government and those companies.

It was quite clear and the Leader of the Opposition should try to understand there was no offer of compensation outside the contracts. The contracts are being settled by the process of negotiation and perhaps legal proceedings.

On the broader issue of defence conversion, we have discussed that in this House many times. There are many elements to a defence conversion policy.

The government has a program which is intended to aid companies in converting from defence to civilian or dual use purposes. The program is known as DIPP.

Since November, when this government came into office, we have agreed to 41 proposals under DIPP, 39 of which came from companies converting to civilian production or dual use purposes.

[Réjean Lefebvre, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does the case of AVCORP not show clearly to the minister that a defence conversion program is more urgent, and does he not remember that the Liberal Party of Canada had promised such a program during the last election campaign?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, yes, we did make commitments about defence conversion and we are honouring those commitments.

What is very confusing about the Bloc members' position is that they seem to think the taxpayer of Canada is prepared to sit and write cheques to companies in order to help them succeed.

We are prepared to sit down with management of the companies and help them find strategic approaches to their marketplace. We are prepared to work with them to find ways in which they can find new products and new solutions to their problems. However if the hon. member's idea is that there is some kind of deep pocket out there that can put money into companies then he did not read the red book. We talked about cutting subsidies to business and that is what we stand for.

Agriculture

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Lisgar—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Last December the government acted on a Canadian International Trade Tribunal recommendation for an annual quota of 72,000 tonnes on imported boneless beef. This measure was necessary to prevent serious injury to the Canadian beef industry. Now the government has increased that quota to 85,000 tonnes.

Why is the government disregarding the CITT recommendation, thereby abandoning the Canadian beef industry?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, the government is most certainly not abandoning the Canadian beef industry. The CITT recommendation upon which the government acted last December also included the recommendation that we should monitor the situation and take into account changing circumstances.

A surprising thing which occurred this year is that the 1994 quota level which was established in the area of 72,000 tonnes was in the process of being filled very early in the year. I think none of the participants in this process anticipated that. When it became obvious the quota was about to be filled, some 12,000 to 15,000 tonnes of product which had been contracted for at a lower price were actually in transit. Because of the time taken in transit the product would have arrived in Canada at the higher price and subject to the surtax. Therefore the number was adjusted to take into account, among other things, that volume of product which was actually in transit and would have been treated unfairly upon its arrival in Canada at the higher price.

We continue to monitor the situation. There are discussions going on today and tomorrow with respect to the importation situation for offshore boneless beef. We will try our best to keep a very balanced view of the situation to make sure that all Canadian interests are properly taken into account.

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Lisgar—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that answer. I would like to point out to him that cattle farmers have taken a 20 cents per pound reduction in prices since January. At present beef exports from Australia and New Zealand to the U.S. are down, while exports from Australia and New Zealand to Canada are up 47 per cent. Our cattle producers are being forced to ship live-

[The Speaker]

Order, please. I would ask the hon. member to put his question.

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Lisgar—Marquette, MB]

Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. Why is the minister putting the Canadian cattle industry at risk and also allowing the export of jobs in the Canadian beef processing industry?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly not my intention nor that of the government, nor that of any Canadian I am sure, to put the Canadian cattle industry at risk.

Over the last period of time while we have been plagued with some difficulties in our grain sector, the red meat sector particularly the beef industry, has been one of those bright spots we would obviously want to encourage in every way possible.

I am certainly sensitive to the point the hon. member has made about the need to ensure the viability of this industry, including the processing and further processing side of this industry for the future. That is indeed one of the factors the government will take into account in making its decisions from time to time with respect to imports.

South African Election

[Réginald Bélair, Liberal, Cochrane—Superior, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa. Like the vast majority of Canadians, I applauded the success of the election held last month in South Africa. I was particularly proud of the prominent role played by Canada in supporting the democratic process in that country.

Can the minister tell the House how the Canadian government will help the new Mandela government and the people of South Africa, especially during this post-election period, which is so crucial for the future of that country?

[Christine Stewart, Liberal, Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa)]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the pleasure of tabling in the House the report of the official delegation of observers to the elections in South Africa, a very historic event. I have said and I repeat to the House today that elections are just the first but very critical step for South Africa on the road to democracy.

I am very pleased to announce to the House today that cabinet has made the decision that South Africa is now fully eligible for official development assistance. Through this process we will be looking to see how we can continue to help South Africa grow on the road to democracy.

Today I have pulled together a group of Canadians who have been very involved in South Africa up to now. This symposium of non-government organizations, media, business people and officials from government is trying to find out in particular how we can use official development assistance to help South Africa in its ongoing process of democratic development.

Indian Affairs

[Maurice Dumas, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs. This morning we learned that the minister gave to the former president of the Liberal Party of Canada, Michel Robert, the mandate of negotiating the establishment of an independent Mohawk territory in Kanesatake. In that regard, the minister said that the top priority was the project to expand the native cemetery.

We all agree on the need to solve the native cemetery issue. However, will the minister pledge to ensure that the case of the forgotten ones of Oka, which has been dragging for two years now, will not be shelved by his negotiator, Michel Robert?

[Ron Irwin, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, if I understand the preamble that there is a reference perhaps to the negotiator's confidence, I want to point out that the appointed negotiator was the president of the Canadian Bar Association-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.