John Reynolds

[Health, June 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, yes, some people use it safely but 10 people have died. There are 158 reports since the middle of May of severe problems. It is not good enough to wait until August 7. Some of these people may die.

In any other case the government would take action. Why will the minister not take immediate action? If it is not to protect the manufacturers with the inventories, why? Why would we allow the potential of more deaths between now and August 7? Canadians want to know that. It does not make any sense at all.

[Health, June 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the heartburn drug Propulsid, which is linked to the causing of the death of at least 10 Canadians, has been restricted for use in the United States. Since mid-May Health Canada has had 158 reports of adverse reactions to the drug, including the death of children.

Given the drug's history and the mortal nature of it, why would the Minister of Health allow pharmacies until August 7 to continue to sell the drug in Canada? Does he want to allow drug manufacturers to use up their old stock?

[Treasury Board, June 1st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is pretty obvious that treasury board is more concerned about managing the spin than managing taxpayer dollars.

Officials are now suggesting that future audits need to be massaged to ensure that damning information is whitewashed. Senior policy analysts warn that it will be necessary to keep a closer eye on what is written in future audits.

I will ask the minister my question again. Why is the government more concerned about the political spin than about solving the problem of the billion dollar bungle?

[Treasury Board, June 1st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, access to information documents we have just received reveal that treasury board officials are more concerned about hiding the results of internal audits than about the fact that HRDC bungled a billion dollars.

A memo from a treasury board senior policy analyst to the deputy comptroller general warns about government managers' “backlash” in the wake of HRDC's damning internal audit. The senior policy analyst then states that managers are planning to be more careful about the wording of future audits.

Why are treasury board officials more concerned about the political spin than about fixing the problem of their billion dollar bungles?

[Petitions, May 31st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have separate petitions here with over 2,400 names, which adds to the list of well over half a million people who have already sent in petitions.

The petitioners are concerned about the legal possession of child pornography in British Columbia and want parliament to take swift action.

[Petitions, May 31st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present this afternoon from a number of constituents in West Vancouver and British Columbia with regard to making sure that parliament affirms the opposite sex definition of marriage.

[Acoa, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister can play golf better than he can answer this question.

Could the minister explain? He talks about one-third, one-third, one-third. We understand that one-third came from the federal government. The federal government is the taxpayer.

Will the minister agree that one-third of the funding for a golf course in his riding came from the taxpayers of Canada?

[Acoa, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister in charge of ACOA.

He said they did not fund one penny for a golf course in his first answer. In his second answer he said that golf course funding is one-third municipal, one-third provincial and one-third federal. If ACOA did not fund it, where did the one-third federal money come from?

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, one of the cruel anomalies of our criminal justice system must surely be the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which allows for statutory release and automatically paroles all inmates after serving two-thirds of their sentences.

A justice subcommittee studying this mockery of the sentencing system came close to recommending an end to the statutory release. That was before the Liberal MPs on the committee changed their minds after a short visit to the whip's office decided to give credence to the corrections commissioner that statutory parole was a great thing.

There is a litany of abuse of the statutory release, but none as glaring as Kelly James Bedard. In 1994 he was arrested for murder, having slashed the throat of his victim. His rampage came three months after being released from prison, having served the necessary two-thirds of his sentence for aggravated assault.

Today Kelly is on the street despite a parole board assessment that Kelly was at high risk for violent offences. I hope the Liberals are happy with themselves.

[Privacy, May 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, we have been right more than the minister. My question is for the Minister of Justice.

A number of the larger provinces, especially British Columbia, Quebec, Ontario and Alberta, have privacy legislation just like the federal government. They also allow access to those files and allow the people to change them if there is misinformation in them. The federal agency disallows individuals to look at its files and disallows them to make any changes to them.

Why is it that the provinces allow individuals to make changes to their files if there is misinformation in them, and why does the federal government not allow Canadians that same right?