Debates of May 30th, 1994

Sexual Offenders

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe the changes we are going to introduce in legislation to be tabled in the House will meet those concerns.

I have engaged in discussions with chairs of school boards, with representatives of schools, with police forces, with parents groups. I am keenly aware of the strong feeling that where public safety requires it, information about young offenders should be shared, particularly in those cases involving crimes of violence.

I am confident that the changes we will propose very shortly to the House of Commons will meet those concerns and answer the needs that have been identified by the hon. member.

National Forum On Health

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. After excluding the provinces from the National Forum on Health, the Minister of Health may have to backtrack because last Friday in Calgary the Prime Minister contradicted her by opening the door to the provinces' participation in this forum.

Does the Minister of Health still refuse to ensure the provinces' direct involvement in the national forum or will she review her position after the Prime Minister said he was ready to consider provincial participation in the forum?

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, let me inform all members of this House that I have had and will continue to have extensive discussions with my provincial counterparts. I even had some again this morning.

Let me also inform you that several of the provinces have already expressed their interest in participating in this important forum. It must be said once again that the purpose of the forum is to bring together health care experts to start a dialogue with Canadians and advise the Prime Minister. It is not intended as a decision-making forum replacing the meeting of provincial and federal health ministers.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is this: Can the minister assure us that the provinces will become full participants in the consultation process which the National Forum on Health is, in addition to the federal-provincial conferences planned for that purpose?

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, most of the provinces are very much in accord with what we are doing concerning the national forum on health. We continue to work with all the provinces to ensure their co-operation.

Let me be very clear here. We must not let intergovernmental squabbling interfere with the real objectives of this forum which is to look at the future of the health needs and health requirements of all Canadians.

Established Programs Financing

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the health minister.

The federal component of health care funding has dropped and continues to drop. It is now in the neighbourhood of 22 per cent of our health care spending.

Will the minister agree to open up the Canada Health Act to bind the federal government to a specific percentage of health care funding?

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the Canada Health Act does not specify any amounts in transfer payments. That is done under EPF.

In the last nine years, there have been some decreases in funding. However, the good news of the past budget was that we maintained the funding of EPF health and we hope to continue to do that with the co-operation of all.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, frankly, the answer does not satisfy the Canadian public. The funds are dropping and continue to drop as a percentage of health care funding.

Our party has been criticized for slashing and burning in terms of social programs. Our party would cut theme parks in Shawinigan, cut limousines to ministers, cut fancy health programs for members of Parliament and cut pensions for members of Parliament, to look after health care.

Will the minister put her money where her mouth is?

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, for a party that is so generous when it comes to cutting, what surprises me is that it is actually looking at establishing a two tier system, on having extra billing.

This party is not for cash register medicine whether there is an express lane or not.

Hepatitis C

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. Responding to a question from the opposition on the hepatitis C issue, the minister refused to take action to identify and warn those who were infected, merely suggesting that people see their doctor. The fact is however that hepatitis C is often asymptomatic.

How can the minister responsible for public health refuse to take action on the hepatitis C issue when several thousand Canadians, unaware of their condition, can transmit the virus to others and even die from it?

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, we continue to strive to make the Canadian blood supply system safe. But let me tell you that there are many partners in this system. The role of Health Canada is to ensure that blood products are as safe as possible.

As for the Canadian Red Cross Society, its role is to keep a precise record of the blood products distributed. Hospitals also have a major role to play, as well as physicians, who are responsible for keeping their patients well informed.

For our part, we are examining our role as a regulating authority to make sure that all these people work together to ensure our blood supply system is the safest possible.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since tens of thousands of Canadians have already been infected, does the minister agree that, by accepting to make arrangements immediately to reach people who may have been infected, she would not only improve their quality of life but also reduce considerably the risk of hepatitis C spreading?

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, as I just said, there are many partners involved in the blood supply system. There are many partners in the health system, including the provinces, who have a major role to play. I am really surprised to see the Bloc Quebecois, which is so intent on leaving this Confederation and making sure that we do not infringe upon provincial jurisdictions, rise today and urge me to tell the provinces what to do.

Softwood Lumber

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.

The minister was quoted recently as saying that perhaps the dispute between Canada and the U.S. over softwood lumber could be taken away from the present dispute settlement panel procedures, which have ruled in Canada's favour in the past, and moved into some broader based discussions that could lead to resolution.

Can the minister ensure the Canadian softwood lumber industry and all of the workers that this will be an improvement particularly considering that Canada has won just about every round in this ongoing dispute over the existing procedures?

[Roy MacLaren, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, we fully expect to win the next panel reviews. There are two more during the months of June and July and we expect to win them as well.

The point I had in mind was that it is always available to United States' interests to retrigger, to reinstitute the whole process for a fourth time. Surely it is in both our interest and the United States' interest to proceed on a basis that does not once again trigger this whole tiresome process.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's answer.

I was wondering if the minister was thinking of trying to take the dispute settlement that is currently being used against us, where Canada is being harassed, and actually making it a separate part, almost like an auto pact; in other words, taking the softwood lumber out from under.

I can tell the minister that I had a discussion with Congressman Sam Gibbons, a senior congressman, who thought that was a good idea. Would the minister support that?

[Roy MacLaren, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

I would be glad to hear in rather more detail what the hon. member has in mind.

The point that we both share is that there is this possibility of ongoing harassment, as the member puts it, and since both industries, both sides of the border, are to a degree integrated and share common environmental problems, common supply problems, it must not be beyond our wit to come up with some better solution to our difficulties than this constant recycling of dispute settlement panels.

Conversion Of Defence Industries

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as we recently saw, the Minister of Industry totally distanced himself from the election promise made by his party to transform the defence industry productivity program into a conversion instrument rather than a program supporting civilian technology for military purposes.

My question is: Will the minister explain why DIPP, which was not deemed adequate to facilitate industrial conversion when the Liberal Party formed the opposition, is suddenly perceived as an effective tool to facilitate the conversion of military industries to civilian production?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I thought the answers I provided to other Bloc Quebecois members on that issue were quite clear. As mentioned in the red book, DIPP will indeed be the basis of our conversion program for military industries. Also, as I indicated, since we were elected, 39 out of 41 proposals accepted by this government concerned civilian projects or both military and civilian production, and had nothing to do with DIPP.

I do not understand why the Bloc objects to the fact that, even with a program such as DIPP, we can choose proposals related to civilian purposes, and also objects to the commitment we made to the effect that we could change some aspects of that program to stop the wasting of money, by setting up a system which would benefit from contributions made by companies. This is a program for the conversion of military industries.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Does this mean that the Minister of Industry was refused the financial resources required to implement a true conversion strategy, which might explain why he is now extolling the virtues of DIPP, which was so strongly criticized by his party when it formed the opposition?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I can only believe that the Bloc keeps repeating the same ridiculous allegations in the hope that sooner or later people will start to believe them.

What we have made clear is that there is a program of defence conversion. Yes, DIPP needs to be expanded and yes, we need to create a revolving fund, but fundamentally we made a key promise when we went to the polls last October which was in part to cut subsidies to business.

The Bloc keeps wanting us to write cheques to companies which somehow or other were not aware that the Berlin wall came down in 1989 and their shareholders are not willing to invest enough now to give them a plan for the future. If that is the kind of company the member wants us to give money to, I am sorry I do not agree with him and the government does not agree with him.

We are prepared to work on strategies for companies. We are prepared to help them identify markets. We are prepared to work with their managers and their shareholders. However it has to be

a co-operative effort including all of the stakeholders in each case, in each company.

Amateur Sport

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the parliamentary secretary responsible for fitness and amateur sport.

The recent report of the core sport commissioner recommended among other things the elimination of federal funding for 19 amateur sport programs. Six of the targeted programs are Olympic sports, two of which saw gold medal performances for Canada from Myriam Bédard and Jean-Luc Brassard at Lillehammer. The report also recommended cutting funding to lacrosse which we in this House just declared Canada's national summer sport.

Will my hon. colleague give this House her assurance that these recommendations will never see the light of day?

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, the minister remains a good sport when it comes to funding those sporting activities which remain important to Canadians.

The minister has been unequivocal in his intent not to discontinue funding to biathlon and to the Canadian Freestyle Ski Association. Officials are currently reviewing the Cal Best report. The minister intends to make his call on the core sport concept before the end of the summer.

Canada Pension Plan

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. The minister has assured this House that the Canada pension plan is in good shape with a healthy surplus.

However, almost all the surplus, 93 per cent of it, is loaned out to provinces at bargain basement interest rates. For example, it has just been reported that a Saskatchewan crown corporation, SaskTel, owes $100 million of its huge $600 million debt to the Canada pension plan at below market rates.

How could cheap loans to debt ridden governments and crown corporations be in the best interests of CPP contributors and beneficiaries?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may be interested to know that this arrangement in terms of using surpluses of CPP as a basis for provincial use has been in place since the mid-1960s. It is not simply a program to lend to crown corporations.

If the member would speak to some of her colleagues who have been in provincial government she would know that the provinces also provide guarantees on whatever loans that are given to their agencies. Those are usually on a return interest of about 11 per cent, as I understand it. In effect the process has been in place for 30 years.

We are certainly glad the Reform party wants us to take a new look at this co-operative arrangement with the provinces and do something about it. Generally the program has worked very well. It has been a very important source for all provincial governments to invest in a wide variety of important infrastructure and educational institutions in their provinces. It is too bad the Reform party wants that program to come to an end.