Debates of June 10th, 1998

National Defence

[John Richardson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the national investigative process is still ongoing. It would not be appropriate to comment at this time, as all members know.

Allegations of sexual assault have been taken seriously by the Department of National Defence and what happened? The Reform Party trolls around trying to find something and bring it back here. Typical Reform Party tactics.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Private Dickey has been attempting for two years to have her complaints looked after. For two years the response on the part of the government as well as the military has been to suppress it.

A toll-free sexual assault hotline apparently has received 40 calls in one week of operation. Ann-Margaret Dickey called this line last week and she still has not received a response. My question for the minister is, what about the other 39?

[John Richardson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the number 39 has been thrown out but no adjectives to describe it, no adverbs put in front of the actions. How can we expect to respond to something 39?

The Private Dickey situation is clearly under investigation. We will get to the bottom of it. When the time comes, charges will be laid.

Atlantic Groundfish Strategy

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with the situation deteriorating in eastern Quebec, Quebec's Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Guy Julien, has just told the press that he has received no proposal from the federal government for a solution to the TAGS problem, and that there are no discussions under way right now.

How could the Minister of Human Resources Development tell the House yesterday that he was working with the provinces to find a solution, when he has just been formally contradicted by his colleague from Quebec?

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

Mr. Speaker, I can assure members that there have been meetings between officials and that my assistant deputy minister is in contact with several directors general and representatives of the Atlantic provinces.

The discussions are lively and are going very well, because we are determined to work together. This is a very important problem; we are aware of the difficult situation faced by fishers who must contend with greatly reduced fisheries, and this is a problem we wish to address with the provinces.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what kind of game is the Minister of Human Resources Development playing, while an unprecedented human tragedy is taking place in eastern Quebec, the Gaspé, the Magdalen Islands and eastern Canada?

What is he up to telling us his officials are holding talks with provincial officials? Does he not get it? He is being called upon as a member of the government by fishery workers in need of the government's assistance.

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

Mr. Speaker, our people went to meet with provincial officials, with a specific mandate and topics to discuss regarding the communities and the people who live in those communities. We have specific matters to discuss at this point and we will be in a position to take appropriate decisions when the time is right.

I think it is entirely normal that the minister begin talks with the provinces through his officials, but we will take a decision when the time is right, once consultations are over.

[The Speaker]

Once again my colleagues, I ask you to listen to the answers rather than giving discourse throughout the answers.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC]

Mr. Speaker, again, a human tragedy is unfolding in eastern Canada.

In Newfoundland, in the maritimes, on the Magdalen Islands and in the Gaspé, people are vocalizing their dissatisfaction as the Atlantic groundfish strategy comes to an end.

Since the problem of the victims of the fishery disaster is of unprecedented scope and calls for exceptional measures, how can the minister say to us, as he did again last week, that the only plan he has in mind to help fishery workers is to draw on his government's ordinary programs?

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

Mr. Speaker, first I must say that our government's regular programs are excellent and have been considerably improved in recent years. Moreover, hundreds of thousands of Canadians are very happy with them.

I can assure you that license buybacks are among the options available to us. We can apply economic development measures. We can apply adjustment measures. We have options open to us and we will make sure, jointly with the provinces, that they meet the needs of the individuals and communities affected according to the priorities we have set for development.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC]

Mr. Speaker, not only do we have ordinary measures, we have an ordinary minister.

Does the minister realize that his technocratic attitude is responsible not only for the mess the people are in but, more importantly, for all of the current social unrest in eastern Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, ours was the first government to react to the very difficult situation facing the population there. In the very strained fiscal situation of the time, we invested $1.9 billion in Atlantic Canada to help the fishers and the communities, and we remain very sensitive to their concerns.

I can assure you that our compassion for what these people are experiencing is—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

The hon. leader of the New Democratic Party.

Environment

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.

Canada agreed in Kyoto that greenhouse gas emissions reduction begins at home. It begins by cleaning up our own act. But today we have evidence that Canada is behind closed doors in Bonn promoting instead unlimited emissions trading, a massive loophole to escape responsibility for domestic emissions reductions.

What happened to Canada's Kyoto commitment? Was it a sham?

[Christine Stewart, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, Kyoto is taken very seriously by this government. It was not a sham. It was extremely important to Canada that we get mechanisms like trading of emissions, joint implementation, clean development mechanisms within the protocol of Kyoto.

Why would we reduce greenhouse gases at $20 a tonne if we can do so at $2 a tonne? That is why we are pursuing this avenue.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, why would we sign on to an agreement that we have no intentions of honouring? What Canadians need is not loopholes but leadership on climate change. That is what the environment commissioner is looking for as well.

Why is the government telling Canadians one thing and saying something completely different behind closed doors in Bonn?

[Christine Stewart, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, these allegations are absolutely ridiculous. This government is totally committed to our Kyoto protocol commitment and we will reduce by minus 6%. Trading of emissions is an important way not only for Canada to achieve its goals but for other nations around the world as well. We are showing leadership on this file.

We are concerned about the environment. We are concerned about human health and we will achieve our objectives.

Hepatitis C

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, Krever commission documents reveal that Health Canada allowed plasma to go unscreened until 1993 even though it was ordered to screen this product prior to that date. This order was in 1990 on the advice from doctors and the Red Cross.

Does the minister accept the fact that this product did go unscreened in that timeframe? If he does, does that not tell us that all post-1990 victims have to be compensated?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, all the documents referred to in that report were before Mr. Justice Krever. He looked into all of the facts and, in fact, they were referred to in his report.

The report this morning on the radio was factually wrong in important respects. I encourage the member to look at the facts.

It was alleged that there was no action taken until 1993. In fact, Health Canada issued a directive in 1991. It said this morning that Health Canada awaited a U.S. study. That is false. Health Canada instructed manufacturers to start screening plasma a full two years before the publication of the U.S. report. The Health Canada directive was issued five months before the FDA acted.

The facts were—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Charlotte.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is confusing the issue. What we are talking about is the responsibility of Health Canada. At the end of the day, the safety for Canada's blood supply stops at his doorstep.

Is the minister considering compensating those victims? His facts, unfortunately, disagree with what the record actually states. Again, will he consider compensating those victims outside of the previously announced package for 1986 to 1990?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the whole issue of compensation is before a working group with the provinces.

But I want the member to acknowledge that it is very important to get the facts right. The fact was improperly reported this morning. Health Canada issued a directive in 1991. We did not wait for the Americans. We were ahead of the FDA.

By the way, we have accepted the Krever recommendations on regulation. We are going to spend more money to put better regulation in place and make sure that through the Blood Safety Council we have the highest standards of safety for all Canadians because that for us is the bottom line.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the health minister says the facts were wrong in this report. The U.S. made it illegal to use hep C tainted blood in September 1991. I have the directive from the health protection branch here. It was in fact issued November 15, 1991, and it said “effective January 1, 1993, you cannot use the blood”. The facts are straightforward.

Why did we continue to use dirty blood for that period of time?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, all of these facts and all of these documents were before Krever. They were all gone into in detail and referred to in Volume 2 of his report.

The answer to the question is that the practice at Health Canada at the time, 1990-1991, reflected the scientific knowledge and understanding of that time.

In 1991 a directive was issued in keeping with the usual practice to get manufacturers to test plasma. That is what we did. We did it ahead of the Americans and in advance of the publication of many American reports.