Debates of March 30th, 1998

Millennium Scholarships

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader of the NDP for giving me the opportunity to talk about the meeting the Minister of Finance and I had last Thursday evening with the Canadian Council of Ministers of Education. All the provinces were represented.

We had very positive discussions on the millennium fund. Everyone around the table gave the government credit for its initiative and was very favourably impressed by the government's vision in support of knowledge and the acquisition of skills in Canada.

We will, of course, be having discussions and negotiations. The representatives of the foundation that will be set up will be talking with each of the provinces.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, if this government would not keep engaging in unilateralism it would not always have to be scrambling to do damage control.

With the millennium fund unilateralism did not work. Unilateralism will never work. It just gives separatists another cause célèbre. Bilateralism will not work either.

In the spirit of co-operative federalism, will the government agree to meet with all the premiers to ensure that the education funds are allocated to meet the real and pressing needs of our students?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and myself met with the education ministers of the provinces just last week precisely to make sure that the foundation's contribution would be able to reach the students who most need it to continue their post-secondary education.

Because we are working with the provinces, a margin of manoeuvres will be developed in some provinces which will give them more of a margin to manoeuvre to make the wisest possible investment in the right direction.

This is federalism at its best, working together to help young Canadians.

Hepatitis C

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health is wrong. There was a test available and it was being run in Germany prior to 1986, in fact in 1982, to screen out what is now know as hepatitis C, but the department did not act on it.

As a consequence, we have 40,000 people left outside the compensation package. Will the minister now act unilaterally to compensate these innocent victims?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, I think it is clear that 1986 was the year of demarcation, when countries to whom we compare ourselves, such as the United States, put in place as a matter of standard practice a test for looking for this contaminant in blood.

This is not a partisan issue. At the table last week with me were ministers from Conservative provincial governments, from NDP provincial governments, who all agreed as a matter of public policy that this is the right and the responsible course to take.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree—and this is probably the only thing we agree on—that this is not a partisan issue.

The fact is that the only reason the minister is using the U.S. model is because it is a model of convenience. That model of convenience allows him to fit within the timeframe of 1986 and 1990, therefore leaving out 40,000 innocent victims.

He is talking about fairness. I want those 40,000 victims compensated. It is as simple as that. He has the constitutional and moral responsibility to do that. Will he act?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I take a different view of the facts. My provincial colleagues, my counterparts, take a different view of the facts. I have explained the principle upon which we proceeded. The member is entitled to disagree.

This is the basis upon which all governments have approached this matter. If we are to compensate people who are harmed however tragically through no fault, with people acting in good faith based on the evidence that is in hand in the medical system, then that is a very dangerous course on which to proceed.

We have identified the principle upon which we have acted. All governments are agreed that this is the appropriate approach.

Employment

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister says that this is a golden age for Canada but maybe not.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

I am surprised members would clap when one in ten Canadians is on welfare today. It is interesting they would take that attitude.

According to the National Council of Welfare one in ten of Canadians is on welfare and 78% are continuously on welfare for more than seven months.

Is that the finance minister's definition of a golden age for Canada?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the definition of a golden age is one in which employment increased by 82,000 in February. This is the biggest one month increase in employment since November 1994.

A golden age is when the help wanted index increases 2.3% in February to 136 points. Housing starts increased 11% in February, the largest monthly increase in over a year. Real exports of goods and services grew 8.3% in the fourth quarter. Those are the kinds of numbers that give Canadians confidence.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, 2.8 million Canadians are dependent on welfare today. Hopefully that is not the minister's definition of a golden age.

Today in Canada we have seen take home pay plummet since the government came to power by $3,000 for a family of four. We have seen an increase in personal bankruptcies and in personal debts. Is that the finance minister's definition of a golden age, 2.8 million people on welfare?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, all the numbers the hon. member referred to have improved since the government took office and in fact have improved more over the course of the last six months.

The real issue is the crocodile tears of the hon. member when he talks about welfare. We must remember that his party wants to take a further $3.5 billion out of the transfers. It specifically targeted welfare. The Reform Party stands up and talks about its compassion for the poor which flies in the face of everything it has ever said or every written.

Copyright Board

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

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

Judging from the main estimates, and according to certain sources, the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Canadian Heritage have apparently opted for financing the Copyright Board through a user-pay system.

Can the Minister of Industry tell us if it is true that his department and the Department of Canadian Heritage have given their approval to the Board's being run on a cost-recovery basis?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has just asked a question relating to funding which comes under the jurisdiction of the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Department of Industry.

I have taken note of the question and will get back to the hon. member as soon as possible.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the Federal Court's McGillis ruling has laid the board's independence open to question, the departments, the ministers and the secretaries of state must realize that they would be jeopardizing the very independence of the Copyright Board and the principle of equity itself.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is the government's intention, of course, to respect the decisions that have been brought down and it is our intention to act in the best interests of Canadian authors, as always.

Immigration And Refugee Board

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

Mr. Speaker, let me read a statement about the Immigration and Refugee Board. “The board should be scrapped”. This came from Saleem Giga of the Canada Employment and Immigration Union, the very people who work at the board. His complaint is patronage and incompetence.

I would like to ask the immigration minister which is worse, that the board is so incompetent or that the minister will not even listen to them to fix it?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the Immigration and Refugee Board is a quasi-judiciary tribunal which plays a vital role in determining the refugee status of those who come here claiming persecution in their country of origin.

Its competency is very clear. However, as part of the legislative review we are going to look into improving the entire refugee determination process, so that it will be more efficient and more responsive to the needs of those who come to our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been through a lot of refugee hearings and I can assure you there is a lot of incompetence there.

Mr. Giga says that a lot of the problems at the board are because of patronage appointments. We have to return to merit, he says. He also says that some appointees have no experience in dealing with refugee cases.

Just last week Anna Terrana, a defeated Liberal MP, I might add, who was appointed to the board admitted that she was not the best person for the job. She was appointed because she was a good Liberal.

What does the immigration minister think she is running, a refugee board or the Senate?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, like his colleague from British Columbia, misquoted what Mrs. Terrana said. She did not say that there are others better qualified. She said “I am very well qualified. I am sure there are others who are also very well qualified but I do not know who is on the list”.

I point out that Mrs. Terrana worked with the B.C. Police Commission for 10 years. She worked with the National Parole Board. She worked with refugees as executive director of the Italian community in B.C. for many years.

Marine Radio Station

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

In the matter of the closure of the Magdalen Islands marine radio station, the minister said last week that his department had consulted a vast number of users before deciding to close the station.

How can the minister say his decision to close the island station was based on public consultation, when the facts indicate that nothing more than an information meeting was held for the employees affected?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, the closing of that station has had an extensive airing in the press and in public on the islands.

There are few decisions taken by the government which have had more involvement of the public. I should point, however, that not a single employee is being laid off. They are all being transferred to another coast guard station within the same constituency, I believe, but very close by in any event. It is a question of trying to organize our resources in the most efficient way possible.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, however, the minister had said he would consult service users.

If the minister wants to avoid making a mistake, should he not suspend his decision to close the island radio, publish the technical studies behind his decision and really consult on the matter?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, we have looked at this matter many times and looking at it again does not make any sense.

We consulted the fishers, the mayors of the region and the residents of the Magdalen Islands on many occasions. The decision is firm, and it is impossible to change it now.