Debates of June 21st, 1995

Bovine Somatotropin

[Michel Daviault, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The Fédération nationale des associations de consommateurs du Québec and the Canadian Council, which represent over 300 organizations, have joined forces with dairy producers and processors to demand that the federal government renew the moratorium on bovine somatotropin, which will end in nine days.

Since the ministers of agriculture and health have been waffling for months on this important issue, I would ask the Prime Minister whether he intends to follow up on the request of consumer associations, the dairy industry and even the Standing Committee on Health to impose a strict moratorium for an indeterminate period on the use of somatotropin? It is up to him to set down the rules.

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, just because the voluntary moratorium agreed upon by manufacturers and the Department of Agriculture ends on July 1 does not mean that the sale of BST will automatically become legal.

Health Canada continues to study the issue and will approve the product only if scientists are convinced that it is safe and effective.

[Michel Daviault, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister does not even recognize the work of the heath committee, which is unanimous regarding the issue. The agriculture committee has declared war and is demanding that Health Canada make its studies public and the minister is taking no action.

Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that people have the right to drink the most natural milk possible, and that by refusing to extend the moratorium, he is exposing consumers to the risk of unknowingly drinking milk tainted with hormones, without knowing the real impact that this will have on the health of humans and animals?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the Minister of Health explained the situation clearly. There was a voluntary moratorium and the Minister of Health did not give permission for this product to be used for the Canadian market. And we will not give permission until we have very clear advice that there is no danger.

At the moment, we are fully aware of the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, and I would like to remind you that almost weekly, a member of my caucus raises the issue. We are very much aware of the problem and, contrary to what some people are implying, the product will not be authorized for use after July 1 of this year.

Government Of Canada

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as this session comes to an end the great imperative for the Prime Minister is to re-establish the ethical standards of his government.

When the government came to power it promised to make government integrity its number one priority but 20 months later that red book promise is in tatters with ministers flouting the federal code of ethics, the ethics counsellor reduced to impotence, and the Prime Minister defending party loyalty and discipline over the principles of democracy and ethics.

Will the Prime Minister send a clear signal to Canadians today that unethical behaviour in government will not be tolerated? Will he can tainted ministers, starting with the Minister of Canadian heritage?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, after many days of arguing the case we stated that everything had been done according to the laws of Canada. The record of the government over the last 20 months has been the best we have seen in a long time. I am applying myself to making sure that all ethical and normal rules that should apply to members of Parliament and to cabinet are followed by all cabinet ministers. That has been debated.

After 20 months and on the last day before we adjourn they repeat the same question they have used for the last three weeks. We must be doing quite well if they have nothing else to talk about.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government also promised to put an end to the politics of patronage and backroom deals.

But over the last 20 months what have we witnessed: $26 million diverted in Nova Scotia from highway 104 to a road in the riding of the minister of public works, campaign workers lined up in Victoria for patronage plums from the justice department, and the Liberal family contact rewarded again and again with government contracts and favourable cabinet decisions. This is like a rerun of an old movie: Brian Mulroney Part II.

Will the Prime Minister make a new commitment today to purge political patronage from his administration by restoring funding to highway 104 and by disciplining members tainted by patronage, starting with the minister of public works?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the list of things. I will explain every element of it to the House of Commons.

The Minister of Transport said many times that the change in the situation in Nova Scotia was requested by the elected provincial authorities in Nova Scotia. The member refuses to recognize that.

He made another so-called attack talking about family contacts, knowing very well who he is trying to attack, and he cannot prove anything. I will not go to his level to try to defend myself; I have a record of 32 years in public service.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

Not one contract or not one favour has been given to anybody close to me and my family. I do not have to insist. Every member in good faith knows it.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government also promised freer voting in the House of Commons and a meaningful voice for backbenchers.

In the past few weeks, however, we have seen nothing from the government but a growing disregard for the democratic process: time allocation and closure, Liberal backbenchers being punished for voting the wishes of their constituents, and cabinet ministers who break conflict of interest guidelines being defended by the Prime Minister himself.

Will the Prime Minister reaffirm his red book promises of freer voting and greater MP power in the House by lifting the heavy hand of discipline from those MPs whose only crime was to respect their constituents' wishes?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I have done it since I have been prime minister.

In some opinions expressed not long ago, it seems a few years ago, this institution was considered not very acceptable in performing well. It was 9 per cent. The last time there was the same poll it was published not long ago that collectively we have managed to lift respect for this institution from 9 per cent to virtually 30 per cent.

There was an international poll which said there was more respect for the Parliament of Canada in Canada than there was in England, the United States, France, Italy, Germany and so on.

I am not afraid to reply to the person who fired his own justice critic. I have some rules in my party which people know about, but we have more democracy in our party than in any other.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been a member of Parliament for quite some time and it is the first time in the history of this Parliament when members of Parliament of the government side presented dozens of amendments to the House of Commons, as we saw last week, and we let them vote on them.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

Yes, we did. It is the first time there was so much freedom in the House of Commons. We have never seen that before. The vote has passed and I think members on this side of the House of Commons are going home happy, feeling they have done a good job.

Defence Industry

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

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

A study done by the defence industry research group reveals that Quebec would be particularly affected by cuts to the defence industry production program, DIPP. This study concluded that 60 per cent of DIPP's funding in Quebec would be cut, that is, $50 million, and so research and development would drop by $150 million.

Will the minister admit that he is on the wrong track in cutting funds to DIPP, when he knows very well that, for every dollar the government puts into this program, the industry puts in three, and jobs in high tech industries like aerospace are directly related to contributions to the program?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, we discussed this issue last week. As I indicated then to the member, I acknowledge that DIPP is very important, but the government has decided to reduce grants to Canadian private enterprise and to review DIPP.

We think that it has long been an important program in Canada, but this does not mean that this sort of program should not be reviewed. Perhaps the member has some ideas that could be adopted.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister should not concern himself with my ideas. I am more worried about his.

After attacking at the Quebec pharmaceutical industry, the minister is now going after the aerospace industry by cutting DIPP. Is this the sort of federalism being offered to Quebec, where Ottawa continually threatens high tech industry in Quebec, offering only unemployment and technological delay in exchange?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I know the Bloc supports high tech companies like Monsanto and Eli-Lilly.

I would remind him that Quebec is not the only province with a high tech sector, particularly in aerospace. There are companies all over Canada, such as Pratt & Whitney, which is located not only in Montreal but also in Lethbridge and Halifax, and is very concerned about international competition for grants from the government. We are very much aware of this competition and have some ideas to propose for this sector.

Highways

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it just does not fit, really. The Prime Minister just said that the highway 104 scandal is the responsibility of the province of Nova Scotia.

I recognize that the Minister of Public Works and Government Services refuses to answer for the misappropriation of funds-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

As I mentioned during the last question period, whenever a question is put it is put to the government. The government may choose to answer in whatever fashion it wishes.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, now I find that the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester is telling people that the federal government has found a solution.

Before the session closes I would like to try to get the minister of public works up on his feet and be blessed with an answer. Will the Liberal government be returning the $26 million to highway 104 as suggested by the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester is very interested in this matter and I understand her concerns. We have listened to people who have made representations with respect to highways in Nova Scotia on a number of occasions.

Although the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester is a very hard working member of Parliament, it does not change the reality that decisions for highway construction, the allocation of funds and the routing of highways is a provincial matter.

I know it is extremely difficult for the hon. member who has asked the question to understand that, but I intend to be patient and to continue to explain to him that whether it is in Manitoba, British Columbia or Nova Scotia, the decision for the construction of highways and how the funds are allocated is the primary responsibility and falls within the constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces in question.