David Dingwall

[Supply, March 15th, 1996]

We will have an opportunity to exchange views during the questions period. Whether the hon. member is disabled or not, we will have that opportunity. I ask him to be patient in terms of his interventions.

To the hon. member from Fraser Valley East, is if there was one shred of concern for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador why did he not have the absolute decency to come to the Chamber and put before us a votable motion? It is not a votable motion. That shows the strength of the conviction of the hon. member opposite. Some people in Newfoundland-not I-would say this is hypocrisy at its worst.

This is absolutely despicable on the part of Reform Party members, who are trying to position themselves as individuals concerned about the plight of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador; so much so that they have gone one step beyond by attempting to bloody the good name of the former member of Parliament who served there with great distinction for over 24 years. I think of my colleague, Mr. Rompkey, who we all know was able, concerned, dedicated and sincere in all of his activities on behalf of his constituents.

I find it passing strange the Reform Party would use this occasion, when a byelection is under way, to raise these issues, when it has never in the two years we have been in the House raised issues which affect the people of Labrador.

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador will not buy this. They will not buy your new found faith, your new found concern, your new found care, your new found compassion-

[Supply, March 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we have been in the Chamber for some time; you much longer than I. When I read today's orders of the day I was surprised, but not completely, the Reform Party of Canada put down as one of its opposition motions a subject matter dealing with a particular constituency which happens to be in the midst of a federal byelection.

[Krever Commission, March 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question is inaccurate, false and erroneous. To give credibility to that question would be giving credibility to a member who has no credibility.

[Krever Commission, March 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, three strikes and you are out. Once again the hon. member has falsified, has given misinformation as it relates to what is taking place. The hon. member knows fully what is taking place.

The Attorney General of Canada has stated repeatedly that he has an obligation to ensure that inquiry has procedural fairness and that the rules of natural justice be adhered to.

At no time has any member of this government, particularly the attorney general, the previous minister of health or I, ever indicated one iota that we are attempting to preclude or to prohibit Justice Krever from making his findings.

The hon. member knows the truth. I wish he would speak it once in a while.

[Krever Commission, March 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, slippery language will not help the hon. member opposite in terms of trying to define his particular case.

The hon. member is fully aware and has known for quite some time that the Krever commission has made an interim report. Forty-three recommendations have been made, seven of which applied to Health Canada. We have acted on the substance as well as the spirit of those recommendations.

We announced earlier this week that we would attempt to commence a consultation process with the provinces and all of the stakeholders.

I am saddened to hear the hon. member opposite not only outside the House but on the floor of the House argue that we ought to be taking action. Now we are taking action but the hon. member is standing in his place trying to politicize a very serious issue.

[Krever Commission, March 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, if I have the unanimous consent of the House I would like to proceed.

The premise of the hon. member's questions is false, as it has been on several occasions in the House. The hon. member is fully aware of the reasons the Government of Canada is in court. It is not attempting to block his eminent justice in terms of his findings. What it is attempting, based on what the Attorney General of Canada has said, because he has an obligation, is procedural fairness and the rules of natural justice.

Furthermore, I do not think the hon. member opposite does himself, his party or indeed people across the country well by making such false allegations.

[Krever Commission, March 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, there are adjectives to describe the question from the hon. member opposite.

[Health, March 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is well aware there is a lot of legal interpretation circulating with regard to this issue.

I want to assure him and the House there are no provisions of the NAFTA agreement which will impact in terms of Canada's medicare system. I want to assure the House that the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister for International Trade and I are working co-operatively with one another to assure every Canadian there will not be an attack by Americans or Mexicans as it relates to the Canada health care system.

[Health, March 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks a very substantive and important question.

The royal commission filed its report with the Government of Canada. Over the last number of weeks we have been doing a fair number of bilateral consultations with various groups.

It would be my intent, based upon the suggestions which have been made by hon. members opposite as well as my colleague to the right, that we would want to proceed with legislation. We would like to table that legislation hopefully before the House recesses in June.

The legislation we intend to table will be comprehensive. I will be looking for guidance and advice from members of Parliament from all political parties in terms of how we can effectuate the best piece of legislation for the country as a whole.

[Krever Commission, March 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member goes on again to make false allegations. The hon. member should be aware that Justice Krever has made a very valuable and positive contribution to this debate. Not only has he made 43 interim recommendations relating to the blood system, he has also talked about the system of governance.

Justice Krever said no one is in charge. The various groups, the Canadian Haemophilia Society, the Canadian Blood Agency, the Canadian Red Cross, the various consumers and stakeholders across the country agree with our approach that we ought to move forward with a debate and consultations in order to put in place a system of governance not only to maintain a safe system in Canada but to have the safest blood system in the world.