Grant Hill

[Fisheries, May 14th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are frankly in disarray on this file. The Solicitor General just over a year ago said that strong unilateral action by the government should be taken against foreign overfishing.

The only unilateral action that has been taken by the Prime Minister is to shut down the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador. Why did the government choose unilateral action against fishermen in Canada instead of the foreign overfishing that really is a problem?

[Fisheries, May 14th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has simply ignored the provinces' concerns, be they related to softwood lumber, duties on wheat or the fisheries in Newfoundland. Yet the provinces' demands are very reasonable. They want more control over their resources.

Is he now prepared to sit down with the Premier of Newfoundland to discuss that province's concerns, yes or no?

[Fisheries, May 14th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador has joined other provinces to call for more control of provincial resources. The Prime Minister has been somewhat dismissive of that request. In fact, he said he will not be here fairly soon so he is just not interested.

He also dismissed Liberal MPs who expressed concern over the cod fishery. Will the Prime Minister reconsider and sit down with the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador about this issue?

[Supply, May 13th, 2003]

Mr. Chair, of course that was a political decision that was made by government, not by other parties.

I will change the subject one more time. The Romanow commission was followed by many participants in the health care system with interest. Romanow suggested raising the federal share of health care to 25%.

Does the minister agree with that proposal?

[Supply, May 13th, 2003]

That will not be necessary, Mr. Chair, because the number is between 5,000 and 6,000 people.

If we take the 7,300 which the minister has identified between 1986 and 1990'90 and take those 5,000 to 6,000, it is easy to see that the numbers of victims totally in Canada are somewhere between 10,000 and 12,000.

There is $900 million left in the compensation fund. The minister says that the disease may get worse in the future and that is true for a small proportion of people. However $900 million will take care of plenty of those problems.

Could not that money or a large portion of it be used to compensate those outside 1986 to 1990?

[Supply, May 13th, 2003]

Mr. Chair, carrying on with that same subject, how many victims outside the 1986 to 1990 time frame are there? We were told during this debate that there were between 40,000 and 50,000 victims. I will not lead the minister but I would like to know how many she thinks are outside the 1986 to 1990 period.

[Supply, May 13th, 2003]

Mr. Chair, those numbers equate very well with what victims' groups have said. Many provinces compensated all victims of tainted blood with hepatitis C; in other words more than just those between 1986 to 1990.

Does the minister think that those provinces are right or wrong to have done what they did?

[Supply, May 13th, 2003]

Mr. Chair, on the same subject, from that $220 million, how many victims have been compensated?

[Supply, May 13th, 2003]

Mr. Chair, let me reinforce the fact that response still does not answer my question. I did not ask her to speculate, I asked her to find out why. She has not done that.

We talk about deficiencies, per diem rates paid above the maximum rates payable. We also talk from an administrative point of view about deficiencies in the contract files. This has done nothing other than to raise more suspicions.

Since I cannot get any further with that particular question, let me turn now to hepatitis C. One point one billion dollars was set aside for the victims between 1986 and 1990. That grew to $1.4 billion with interest. How much of that money has been spent on the victims between 1986 and 1990?

[Supply, May 13th, 2003]

With respect, Mr. Chair, that does not answer my question, so let me ask it again. The report did not answer the central question and it leaves some Canadians suspicious.

I will ask again, why was this individual not hired, as she was once, under JM Enterprises, her firm, her name, her corporation? Why was she hired under three different contracts with three different companies?