Debates of March 2nd, 1999

Division No. 325

[The Speaker]

I declare the amendment defeated.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I wonder if I might ask the indulgence of the House for a moment and ask you if we might include the member for Mississauga East on the government side of the tally on the vote previously taken. The member was present but was missed by way of oversight or otherwise.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The chief government whip has asked that the member for Mississauga East be tallied as voting with the government.

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak about the question I asked on December 8, 1998.

People sometimes wonder why those of us on this side of the House lose our voices. It is because we have to speak up loudly on certain issues. On the other side, they do not seem to understand the problem they have created for Canadians.

In 1994, after the Liberals were elected, 61% of the unemployed could qualify for benefits. That number has dropped to 38%. Even the United Nations blamed the Liberal government for its cuts in employment insurance.

I asked a question to the Deputy Prime Minister, and got the following response from the parliamentary secretary:

The member refers to what is called the B/U rate and suggests that it is down around 40%.

What is referred to here is the number of people qualifying for employment insurance. I continue with the response:

The correct number is 78%.

The correct number is not 78%. It has gone down to less than 36%, because the 78% is 78% of 36%. That is the correct number.

I cannot understand how my colleague over there can stand up and state that 78% of Canadians can qualify for employment insurance, with all the cuts that have been made.

In order to receive maternity benefits, a woman has to have accumulated 700 hours. A person who becomes sick needs 700 hours, and a newcomer on the workforce 910 hours. That is what I tried to explain in the House, that the cuts in employment insurance have resulted in only 36% of people paying into employment insurance being able to draw benefits.

I have travelled across the country, province by province. I have even gone to Whitehorse in the Yukon. I have heard the horror stories resulting from the cuts that are affecting people throughout the country. It happens not only in the Atlantic region, but in Regina, Winnipeg, Nanaimo, Vancouver, Prince George, Whitehorse and Windsor, in the riding of the Deputy Prime Minister, where people working in the automotive industry are suffering from the cuts to employment insurance.

How is it that, on the other side of the House, the member can rise and say that 78% of Canadians qualify for benefits? She then turns around and says that these are people who have not worked. Does she think we are crazy or what? We know that people who have not worked do not qualify for employment insurance. These are not the people we are talking about. We are talking about those who have worked.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I say to my colleague, that on Prince Edward Island, it is the same thing. They cut thousands of people in this province, and they are not very proud of you. I know because I went there.

These are the mistruths that are spouted in this House, because when the hon. member says I am not speaking the truth and that 78% of Canadians qualify for benefits, I say that is not true. Only 36% of those who contribute to employment insurance receive it. That is the problem.

I would hope my colleague understands the figures. If she does not, maybe it is time she went back to school.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, the government has been saying since October, and I reaffirm today, that the best available information from Statistics Canada shows that 78% of unemployed Canadians who have lost or quit a job with just cause were eligible for EI benefits. This 78% is based on a new survey by Statistics Canada specifically designed to answer questions about EI coverage. Indeed the survey is called the Employment Insurance Coverage Survey.

A study released by the department in the fall concludes that the BU ratio, which is the number the member opposite chooses to use, that is the 42%, is the indicator used by the member to confuse and frighten workers but is not, I repeat not, a good indicator of coverage effectiveness by the EI system because it includes all unemployed Canadians irrespective of their attachment to the labour market or whether they have paid into the EI program or not.

Does the hon. member suggest that all unemployed Canadians should automatically receive EI? For example, should someone who has never worked a day in his or her life be entitled to EI? Should someone who decides to quit a job in order to go back to school be entitled to EI? If someone is self-employed and does not pay premiums, should he or she be entitled to EI? If someone is being paid severance pay, should he or she receive EI at the same time?

Unemployed Canadians who need help and who are not eligible for EI are supported by a range of other programs such as the youth employment strategy, the Canadian opportunities strategy, the transitional jobs fund, the post-TAGS program, other active employment measures which help people get the skills they need to get back to work, and the new hires program which helps employers to hire more young Canadians.

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on December 2, I asked the minister of fisheries why he authorized a fishery for his friend and campaign contributor which resulted in a kill of 30,000 coho in a no-kill zone, a number the government questioned in error. I was outraged by the kill and DFO bureaucrats were alarmed.

Ottawa warned north coast managers in Prince Rupert that the more that becomes known of the coho kill the bigger the issue would become. I could not agree more.

On May 21 last the minister announced that coho stocks were in crisis, some bordering on extinction. There were to be no fisheries directed at coho anywhere on the coast by any fishermen and a zero retention of coho caught in other fisheries.

On June 19 the coast was divided into red and yellow zones. In red zones there was to be zero mortality of coho. Nevertheless, in red zones there were to be a number of small, highly restricted, experimental recreational fisheries. Such a fishery was authorized in the Dixon Entrance on the north coast of the Queen Charlottes. Problems became apparent immediately.

In a weekly coho report dated June 24 officials issued a warning to the minister:

Concern for Dundas Island red zone sport fishery growing. Encounter rates of coho climbing.

Nevertheless, a promised observer program to monitor the fishery was not put in place until halfway through the season and when they were hired there were only four of them for six fishing areas. The July 29 report indicated for area one that coho abundance was high throughout Dixon Entrance and that it did not matter where one went or what they did, coho were being caught.

The coho encounter rate was estimated to be 11 to 1 at Langara Island, although they acknowledged that many believed it to be much higher. The August 5 report indicated that in area three at Dundas Island East monitors were reporting an encounter rate of 20 coho caught for every chinook taken.

The August 12 report indicated that area one lodges continued to be fully operational with about 320 anglers per day. It reported coho encounters were a continual occurrence, noting that unguided vessels were remaining in areas where coho abundance was high. It also noted that there continued to be reports that some fishermen were not treating the coho well when releasing which could be increasing mortality. Area one coho encounters were then estimated at 80,000. The report goes on to estimate that area three coho encounters were 142 coho for every chinook caught.

The minister had promised that the fishery would be closed if there were coho mortality. There was a continuous coho kill that reached alarming proportions, yet he took no action.

On the north coast of the Charlottes the minister was not interested in conservation. He was only interested in providing a special opening for the lodge based fishery operated by his friends.

Last summer DFO scientists undertook a special mortality study on recreational catch and release for coho. Scientists found a mortality rate of slightly more than 25% for coho caught in recreational fisheries.

In estimating a 30,000 coho kill in the waters of the north coast and the Queen Charlottes, I used a coho-chinook encounter rate of 10 to 1, not the 142 to 1 documented in area three or even the 11 to 1 documented at Langara Island. I also used a mortality rate of 10%, not the 25% rate DFO scientists found in their study. A minimum of 30,000 coho were killed in this no-kill zone.

The question remains. What does no kill mean to the minister? Does it mean that only his friends and campaign contributors can go fishing?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, the member was quite wrong in his preamble and quite wrong in his last statement. The minister has made it very clear that he believes in conservation and protecting the fisheries.

Just to establish some of the facts, harvest management plans for Pacific salmon in 1998 were based on two conservation objectives: zero fishing mortality for upper Skeena and Thompson River coho salmon stocks, and where these stocks were not prevalent, only selective fisheries which clearly demonstrated that the risk of coho bycatch would be minimal were permitted.

The sport fishery that the hon. member for Delta—South Richmond is concerned about is at Langara Island in the Queen Charlotte Islands. This fishery was designated an experimental pilot sport fishery for chinook salmon. There was non-retention of coho. Even though fishers could not keep the coho they encountered, departmental scientists accounted for a portion of the coho that may have died after being released.

Two methods were used to estimate the number of coho encountered in this sport fishery: a creel survey estimate by the Haida first nations and an estimate by departmental patrolmen.

Using an accepted mortality rate of 10%, it was estimated that coho mortalities ranged from 4,500 to 13,100, far less than the member is accusing us of. Even using a significantly higher rate of 20%, the estimated mortality of Skeena coho from the experimental sport fishery at Langara Island was only .4%. This is considerably less than the mortality resulting from the north coast commercial fishery which was estimated to be 2% to 3%.

These successes are a direct result of the management policies introduced in 1998 and reflect our commitment to conservation. We intend to put fish first, and the minister is certainly doing that.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to go into more detail regarding my question to the Minister of National Defence on February 4 when I raised concerns about the governments administration of the Anthrax vaccine to members of Canada's armed forces in the Persian Gulf last spring.

Details of this matter came to light as a result of the treatment of Sergeant Michael Kipling of Winnipeg who refused to submit to the Anthrax vaccination last March. He was subsequently sent home, cited for breach of the National Defence Act and is now awaiting a court martial.

It is our view that Sergeant Kipling had every right to refuse the Anthrax vaccination and that his case has revealed serious negligence by the Canadian government in the administration of the vaccine generally.

We have several concerns, which are as follows.

The Canadian government did not take the proper safety precautions to ensure the vaccine given to the troops was safe.

We know from the FDA in the United States that the company which produced the vaccine relabelled an outdated lot of drugs. That is particularly interesting since today it is our understanding that there is no viable vial of Anthrax vaccine left in the country.

The Canadian government did not test the vaccine itself and relied on the testing done by the company itself.

There was no independent testing done. Mitretek simply used the results of the tests by the company in question.

The FDA in the United States has shown that there have been no studies done on the long term effects of this drug.

The Anthrax vaccination has been linked to the gulf war syndrome yet this country continues to dismiss, and is probably the only country in the world to dismiss, this syndrome and reduce it to a matter of stress on the part of the troops.

The lack of involvement by the health protection branch was noticeable and nothing was done to certify the vaccine. It is just another indication that the government is reducing its regulatory responsibilities and dismantling the health protection branch.

We have several recommendations. One, that the government investigate the administration of the anthrax vaccine. Two, that it initiate a review of the policies vis-à-vis vaccinations to allow for some method of waiver and some choice. Three, that there be an involvement of the health protection branch to get a scientific assessment of this vaccination and any other inoculation used on our troops. Four, that the government stay the charges and stop the court martial proceedings involving Sergeant Michael Kipling.

Sergeant Kipling has had an exemplary record during his 26 years of service in the Canadian armed forces. He raised serious concerns about the health and safety of the Anthrax vaccination. It would seem to us that, given his safety concerns, given the facts we have learned subsequently about the case and all the circumstance involved in this issue, surely it is unfair for the government to proceed with a court martial for Sergeant Michael Kipling.

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the anthrax vaccine administered to members of the Canadian forces deployed in the Gulf had not expired.

It was tested according to U.S. Food and Drug Administration directives in 1996 and its expiry date extended to 1999. Before it was used to vaccinate Canadian and American troops, it was also tested for strength, safety, sterility and purity.

The U.S. defence department asked Mitretek, an independent American firm, to supervise testing and to audit the results of testing by the manufacturer, Michigan Biologic Products Institute, in January and March 1998.

Finally, the vaccine we received was again tested on the orders of the U.S. defence department, in accordance with FDA directives. These additional tests confirmed that the vaccine was both safe and effective.

The vast majority of those vaccinated against anthrax suffered no ill effects. A very few experienced a small local reaction, comparable to that caused by other vaccines currently used in Canada.

Our policy for pharmaceuticals is to obtain from Health Canada approval to import, store and distribute vaccines licensed in other countries but not in Canada before DND gives them to our personnel. This is exactly what we did with regard to the anthrax vaccine last year.

We must remember the operation in the gulf was potentially dangerous. The government has worked in good faith and in the best interests of the men and women of the Canadian forces to provide them with the best protection possible.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7.12 p.m.)