Preston Manning

[Krever Commission, December 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, HIV tainted blood will kill over 3,000 Canadians from AIDS. Another 12,000 Canadians are infected with hepatitis C through infected blood.

Legislation was drafted in 1984, draft amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and draft regulations under that act that might have prevented or at least lessened this tragedy. However somewhere in the federal government, probably somewhere fairly high up, somebody or some group of people decided that the legislation and regulations were not worth proceeding with. Justice Krever wants to know who those people were and why they failed to act.

Will the government provide Krever with all the documents that explain why legislation that might have protected the blood supply was shelved by Liberal and Tory administrations in 1984?

[Krever Commission, December 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the commission wants documents that pertain to why draft legislation and draft regulations that might have prevented this tragedy were not proceeded with. Those are the documents the commission wants.

In August 1984 when the current Prime Minister was Deputy Prime Minister, Health Canada scientists were sounding alarms about the dangers of AIDS and legislation was drafted that might have protected the blood supply. The warning and the legislation was ignored by both Liberal and Tory governments and tainted blood victims, their families and all Canadians deserve to know why.

Will the government dispel the appearance of a cover-up by giving Krever all the information he needs to get to the bottom of the tainted blood supply?

[Krever Commission, December 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Justice Krever thinks this information, particularly the information about why the legislative regulations were not proceeded with, may hold the key to why our blood supply killed thousands of Canadians, yet the government refuses to release all of the pertinent documents. We are talking about the national interest, the public interest in health. Is the security of our blood supply not part of the national interest? Is finding out why Canadians died not in the national interest?

Why does the government place cabinet secrecy ahead of the national interest in health? Why does it place the political security of Liberal politicians ahead of the security of Canada's blood supply?

[Krever Commission, December 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Krever inquiry was established, as members know, to get to the bottom of Canada's tainted blood tragedy. It is responsible for finding out how HIV infected our blood supply, leading to the deaths of thousands of Canadians.

Justice Krever's inquiry has now led him right to the doorstep of a previous Liberal administration. Legislation was drafted in 1984 which might have prevented this tragedy, but the Liberal government of the time chose to ignore it because a federal election was on the horizon.

Will the present government now co-operate fully with the Krever inquiry and release all the documents surrounding the draft legislation of 1984?

[Canadian Airlines, November 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the question is not whether this position is the position of the employees. My question was what is the government going to do about it to ensure that their rights are exercised.

There is a section in the Canadian Labour Code, section 108.1, that authorizes the Minister of Labour to direct that a vote of the employees be held on a collective bargaining agreement offer by an employer if it is deemed to be in the public interest.

Surely it is in the public interest that Canadian Airlines employees be permitted to vote directly on a restructuring proposal, but that it does not appear to be covered by the code.

We and the employees of Canadian would appreciate a direct answer to this question. Would the government be willing to introduce forthwith an amendment authorizing the Minister of Labour to direct an employee vote on restructuring offers such as that being put forward by Canadian Airlines to its own employees?

[Canadian Airlines, November 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we are glad to hear that. Flight attendants and ticketing agents at Canadian are demanding a vote on the company's restructuring proposals but their own union bosses are refusing to let them exercise their democratic right.

Buzz Hargrove does not work at Canadian. He does not have a personal stake in whether the airline succeeds or fails and he does not appear to care. Canadian employees must have the final say on their own jobs and the future of their airline.

Since the parliamentary secretary said he agrees the employees have this right, what specific action is the government taking to ensure that Canadian's employees will be able to vote directly on the company's restructuring proposals?

[Canadian Airlines, November 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to see that the federal government has indirectly lowered the aviation fuel tax for Canadian Airlines. We disagree with the way that it has been done, but we do think it is a step in the right direction. And if it is done, it should save Canadian about $20 million a year in the short term.

The other stumbling block, as members know, to the restructuring of Canadian Airlines is that the leadership of the CAW and CUPE will not let their members vote on the company's restructuring proposal.

Every Canadian employee should have the basic democratic right to vote on their own future and the futures of their families.

My question is to the parliamentary secretary. Does the government agree that Canadian's employees, in particular the members

of the CAW and CUPE, should be permitted to vote directly on the company's restructuring proposal?

[Aviation Fuel Tax, November 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we understand all that and have understood it for a long time. Our question is very simple. These workers are going to have to make a final decision this weekend as to whether to accept this restructuring package. It includes proposals for reducing the overhead and operating costs of the airlines. However, if they know there is going to be a reduction in the federal aviation tax that makes a difference with respect to the acceptability of the entire package.

I simply ask the parliamentary secretary, who seems to be moving in the right direction, can he go the whole way and just tell the House and tell those workers that the federal government is offering a reduction in the federal aviation fuel tax?

[Aviation Fuel Tax, November 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, taxes kill jobs and this particular tax is capable of killing many jobs. The aviation fuel tax is an excellent example. It puts our airlines at a competitive disadvantage.

The old way of dealing with economic sectors that are in trouble has been grants and handouts. The new way of dealing with that is tax relief. If Canadian employees are willing to make sacrifices to save their jobs, surely the federal tax collector would make some sacrifice as well.

Again, we are asking the parliamentary secretary for an answer to this, not a general comment. Will the federal government offer to reduce the federal aviation tax as a means of saving these 16,000 jobs at Canadian?

[Aviation Fuel Tax, November 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Government of Alberta took a very positive step toward assisting Canadian Airlines in the securing of the jobs of 16,000 people. Alberta cut its aviation fuel tax in half, a move that will save the airline over $8 million a year.

The transport minister said last week that he was open to a lowering of the federal aviation fuel tax and that he had discussed it with the finance minister.

However, the parliamentary secretary was unclear yesterday as to what the result was.

My question is for the parliamentary secretary. Will this government follow Alberta's lead and reduce the federal aviation fuel tax?