Greg Thompson

[Hepatitis C, June 10th, 1998]

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?

[Health, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I think the minister is underplaying the crisis because it does involve real people and a problem at the health inspection branch.

I am quoting from this morning's statements in the CBC news: “The report describes managers as autocratic, abrasive, difficult to approach and dismissive”. How can we have a functioning health protection branch when that is the attitude? It does come down to attitude and at the end of the day the health and safety of all Canadians.

If the minister refuses to do something, would he at least table the report in the House?

[Health, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, according to a recent consultant's report Canada's health protection branch is in a crisis. This is the second report in two years reaching the same conclusion.

The head of Canada's health protection branch says that the bureau is not working at peak efficiency and the minister says he has not read the report.

Will the minister take the time to read the report, at least one of them? If he does read it, would he act expeditiously to protect Canada's health and safety?

[Fishers Bill Of Rights, June 4th, 1998]

moved that Bill C-302, an act to to establish the rights of fishers including the right to be involved in the process of fisheries stock assessment, fish conservation, setting of fishing quotas, fishing licensing and the public right to fish and establish the right of fishers to be informed of decisions affecting fishing as a livelihood in advance and the right to compensation if other rights are abrogated unfairly, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Nova Scotia.

I believe if members look carefully and examine what has happened since the election last year, this is the first major fisheries bill to be introduced in the House. I am very pleased that it is mine and coming from the opposition side of this House.

This sends out a certain signal to the fisheries community. I do not think the government has been listening carefully to what is happening in the fishing community.

Canada has been abused by other countries in terms of offshore fishing. Successive governments have never really stood up for our fishermen and outlined the rights of fishermen. That is what this bill is intended to do. It is the fishers bill of rights. I know the word fishers is more politically correct today but I am from the old school. I still use the term fishermen. I hope my colleague from Quebec forgives me.

What I am attempting to do with this bill is give fishermen the right to be consulted. Examine what has happened on the east and west coasts and with Great Lakes fishing. We are also talking about Lake Winnipeg.

Fisheries from coast to coast are in desperate straits. What they need is some protection. What we have to do is consult with the fishermen. I am convinced that had we consulted with fishermen from day one we would not be in the state we are in today where on both coasts of this country we are into a situation of vanishing stocks.

We have allowed foreign overfishing for years. As a result we have a fishery in Atlantic Canada that is almost broke. Cod have virtually disappeared. Groundfish in some areas have virtually disappeared.

I am not standing up to blame the present government because that would be wrong. I am not standing up blaming the government I was part of from 1988 to 1993 because that would be wrong.

It has been a succession of governments, regardless of political stripe, making errors along the way but never really standing up for fishermen. Now we have a fisheries on the east coast that is virtually in collapse.

The other part of this bill I think fishermen will take a keen interest in and support is that when support programs for fishermen are being negotiated they have to be at the table.

Whether they are talking about support programs to move them from fisheries into something else or to buy back their licences, they have to be consulted from day one. That has never happened.

Where was the consultation from the very beginning in terms of the TAGS program? It was a program basically invented in Ottawa. Again, I am not blaming any government. It was invented by bureaucrats and administered by bureaucrats. From the very beginning there was no consultation with fishermen.

The other problem I see where it would have made a big difference is on the conservation side if fishermen had been consulted. There is no secret that in the early days of international overfishing our fishermen knew what was happening. They saw huge quotas granted to outsiders, outside countries coming into Canada and fishing our stocks. The result was well known by fishermen at that time as to what would happen. It is like the old story about Canadians. We are much too polite to tell it like it is.

I remember the story of a Canadian in New York. When a New Yorker stepped on his toe the Canadian looked at the New Yorker and said “excuse me”. The New Yorker said “you must be Canadian”. He asked why. “Because you are the only people in the world who apologize if someone steps on your toe”. Is that not what we have done internationally?

I can remember when Premier Tobin stood up internationally for fishermen. I was the first one to applaud him. The former fisheries minister, Mr. Crosbie, was very congratulatory as well. We had a politician who for the first time in recent Canadian history stood up and told it the way it was.

We might debate whether the outcome of that was successful. At least the international community heard us. All politics aside, it is something we should have done years ago. What the fisheries minister was doing at the time was listening to those people he represented regardless of political stripe. That is what we have to do.

Testimony was heard by the fisheries committee of what some of our fishermen go through in terms of income and cost of getting on the water or attempting to catch fish that are not there. Some of this is absolutely outrageous.

Mr. Fortin on November 27 gave his testimony to the fisheries committee. I use his testimony to show just how ridiculous the situation is. This year he caught $40,000 worth of fish, gross. His earnings were $16,000, of which he paid $5,500 in fishing expenses, $5,400 in fuel, oil and other things, $5,525 in repairs because they were out of luck, $4,775 for electronic equipment, $1,500 in groceries because they live on the water for days. He paid $4,000 in car insurance because he has a family to support at home. He paid $1,400 for the CSST and $2,400 for other expenses.

Then there was interest on the loan he had to take out from the credit union and taxes. That is 25% of the boat payment. He has a deficit of $30,000 and $10,000 in expenses, and they still want to take his TAGS benefit back. He said he cannot accept that.

Who in this House could accept that? I think it goes right back to the bill I brought into the House. Again I stress it is the first major fisheries bill to hit the House since the election of last year. There is a deficit on that side of the House in terms of what it could do today to pay attention to fishermen, the people the government is supposedly representing back home.

That is just a small example of what has happened over the years. What we have to do in the House is say fishermen have certain rights that cannot be taken away by governments. When rights are taken away to fish and to make a living, they are to make sure there is adequate compensation. When the compensation package is decided upon fishermen will be at the table. They will be there helping us make the decisions. It will not be left to bureaucrats in their ivory towers in Halifax or in Ottawa. It will be in consultation with fishermen.

I will pass over the remainder of my time to my colleague from Nova Scotia. I am sure he can carry on this debate. I thank the House for waiting for me to arrive. I know the previous debate collapsed a bit early. I am looking forward to hearing from the hon. member for South Shore.

[Tobacco, June 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on this issue the Minister of Finance could stand in his place and do something he rarely does, and that is support the Minister of Health. He obviously has not done it on the hepatitis C issue.

If he did consider raising tobacco taxes, there would be a 30% reduction in the number of new smokers, particularly young smokers, especially if that increase was coupled with tough advertising and education.

Will the Minister of Finance consider doing that to help save young Canadians?

[Tobacco, June 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, if the government was serious about reducing the number of people, particularly young people, who smoke it would not have reduced taxes on tobacco in 1994. This capitulation created the single biggest increase in the number of smokers in the history of Canada.

Attacking the smoking problem and the 40,000 deaths associated with it requires a three pronged approach: pricing, advertising and education.

When will the Minister of Health get serious about reducing the number of Canadians who smoke and reverse the regrettable decision of 1994?

[Motions For Papers, June 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to have an opportunity to put some more comments on the record with regard to hepatitis C. There have been numerous questions to the minister over the past few weeks.

The parliamentary secretary is here tonight. I guess maybe in an unusual sense we will have a little debate here if it is allowed. I will put a question or two to the parliamentary secretary which perhaps he could answer. I do not think that is breaching the rules too much.

My last question to the minister on this issue had to do with the working group established after the breakdown in talks between the federal health minister and the provinces regarding compensation for all victims outside the 1986 to 1990 package. No one would argue with that package in and of itself, but obviously the problem is that we have many victims prior to 1986 who were not compensated. Therein lies the problem.

We want to see this issue resolved. We want to see all pre-1986 innocent victims of the tainted blood supply compensated. It is as simple as that. Some provinces have indicated since the breakdown of the federal-provincial negotiations that they would compensate. They are on record and have obviously dedicated some funding to it.

I am hoping to get tonight basically a sense of what is happening at the meetings in Edmonton which are presently ongoing. We have heard everything from a complete breakdown in the negotiations to things are moving on, they are still talking and meeting and so on. We are hoping the latter is the case and that negotiations are continuing. I have to refrain from using the word negotiations because the minister says they are meeting and discussing. At the end of the day we are hoping that something will happen.

I hope the parliamentary secretary can bring us up to date on this issue because it is an issue that will not go away. I do not think Canadians will be satisfied until there is a compensation package that includes all the victims prior to 1986, some of whom contracted hepatitis C since 1990. Possibly the parliamentary secretary could bring us up to date.

In a country as generous as Canada and in a country which as I told the Canadian public time and time again in the House is rated No. 1 in the world we are seeking fairness for all victims.

Maybe the parliamentary secretary could deviate from the script a bit tonight and bring us up to date.

[The Late Robert Lorne McCuish, June 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in rising to mark the passing of Lorne McCuish my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative caucus extend our sympathy to Mrs. McCuish and to her children and grandchildren.

Their loss of a husband, father and grandfather is difficult. I hope they will draw comfort and pride from the public service that Mr. McCuish rendered to the people of Prince George—Bulkley Valley during his career in municipal government and his service to the people of Canada through his election to the House of Commons.

The measure of a member of parliament is not something easily expressed. The consistently positive election results for Mr. McCuish say much about him and the gratitude of his community for his efforts.

The constituents of Prince George—Bulkley Valley from 1979 to 1988 were the beneficiaries of his feisty, tell it like it is style of politics. I am sure Mr. Speaker remembers that. He possessed a wonderful mischievous personality and was not the least bit squeamish about using it on anyone from big business to his caucus colleagues.

Some of those mischievous pranks are legend in this House and I am sure Mr. Speaker has some memories of them. He had a wonderful sense of humour. We recall one of the famous incidents. I believe that Lorne at one time was a member of the consumer affairs committee. His granddaughter and he one day counted the raisins in the bran flakes because the company that produced these bran flakes was talking about two scoops of raisins. It is a famous story. Lorne said “We opened a lot of boxes of these but we never did find two scoops”. Apparently a few days later a truckload of Raisin Bran arrived at his parliamentary office. That is just one of the many things he did. Some of them I cannot mention in the House but he did have a great sense of humour.

Lorne loved his work. He realized that to love his work he had to have fun at it. He did have fun at politics.

Lorne represented a very large riding, 322,000 square kilometres. He was like the travelling representative. He always visited the remote corners of his riding to make sure he was in touch with his constituents, and in touch with them he was.

In expressing our gratitude for the public service of Lorne McCuish we would like to say thank you to his family for its understanding and for sharing him with the House and with the people of Canada.

[Hepatitis C, June 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, indeed I understand the process. My question is for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister understands as well because he in fact is the one who put the health minister where he is in the front row of those benches.

Will the Prime Minister take some leadership, stand in the House and give the health minister the liberty to go in there with the generosity that has to be extended to these victims, or will he sit in his place and defend the indefensible?

[Hepatitis C, June 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the health minister is absolutely right when he says that no negotiations are taking place in Edmonton. Their position has not changed. They have gone in on this negotiation process with the idea of take no prisoners. The only casualties out there will be the hepatitis C victims.

When will the minister show leadership, stand in the House and say that he will fund these innocent victims?