Debates of Sept. 28th, 2000

Michel Bellehumeur Berthier—Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, in a 1990 supreme court ruling, chief justice Dickson recognized the notion of diversity in the application of the criminal law for the provinces.

He even said the following regarding young offenders, and I quote: “It is legitimate for Parliament to allow for province-based distinctions as a reflection of distinct and rationally based political values and sensitivities”.

My question is for the Minister of Justice. If the minister will not agree that we are right regarding young offenders, will she at least comply with the supreme court opinion? What Quebec is asking about Bill C-3 is legitimate and legal under a ruling made by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Sarkis Assadourian Brampton Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Following a review of the subject matter of my private member's Bill C-224, the recognition of crimes against humanity act, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage recommended that Heritage Canada consider entrusting one or more academic centres with the task of researching all genocides and crimes against humanity in the 20th century.

Will the minister explain to the House what efforts are being made to ensure that this important issue is addressed by the Government of Canada very soon?

Sarmite Bulte Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage

Mr. Speaker, the stories of the victims of crimes against humanity are among the most powerful stories of the 20th century. Canadians need to hear those stories.

The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage report on Bill C-224 looked at a number of ways that the Government of Canada could recognize the victims of genocide and the victims of crime against humanity through education, research and remembrance.

The department is grateful to the committee for its thorough, sensitive examination of this very profound and complex issue. It made a number of recommendations which the department is currently and carefully considering.

Val Meredith South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC

Mr. Speaker, Umberto Marvuglia of Surrey knows that accessibility to quality health care in Canada is dubious at best.

Last year he was diagnosed as having an aneurysm and was warned that any strenuous exercise would kill him. Despite this life threatening condition, it took seven months before Umberto was operated on.

Is this the type of accessibility to quality health care the Canada Health Act is trying to protect?

Yvon Charbonneau Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health

Mr. Speaker, I remind the opposition member that the delivery and structuring of services come under the responsibility of the provinces and of the hospitals that are accountable to them.

However, the federal government, through Health Canada, just showed its willingness to help strengthen the health system in each and every province by providing them with an additional $21 billion in the coming years and by targeting certain investments under a very concrete action plan.

I believe these investments will provide an answer to such issues.

Val Meredith South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC

Mr. Speaker, it did not help the Canada health services to have the federal government cut as much money as it did a number of years ago.

Umberto's family members in his native Italy were so concerned about the delay in his surgery that they approached Italian doctors who said that they would have operated within seven days, not seven months. Umberto's Italian relatives are horrified that a country like Canada would have a health care system that forces someone to wait so long for life saving treatment.

I think Canadians would like to know as well if this is the type of accessibility to quality health care that the minister is trying to defend.

Yvon Charbonneau Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health

Mr. Speaker, we knew official opposition party members in this theatre were very eager to walk on wet land. We have invited them to work now on dry land. Now they are walking on very slippery land.

The Leader of the Opposition has a written a letter to all provincial premiers asking them to weaken the role of the federal government in health. What is the logic of this question now?

David Anderson Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, the contradictions in the hon. member's question show how faulty the question itself is.

He has pointed out that we were there at the beginning providing information to the Ontario government, which has the primary responsibility for a landfill site of this type. He has pointed out that we were right there providing that information.

Later in the process, when concerns were raised about transboundary pollution getting into the province of Quebec and the province of Ontario and getting into an Indian reserve from lands outside the Indian reserve, in accordance with I believe sections 46 and 48 of the act we followed the normal procedure set down by the legislation. That process is continuing.

David Anderson Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, the member's question follows the same faulty assumptions that preceded his questions with respect to Walkerton.

The fact is the primary responsibility in this situation for the issue of a municipal dumpsite is provincial and municipal as well. That is the Canadian constitution. There are certain federal aspects. We provided technical information to the province in its assessment. There are aspects which we are now considering appropriately under sections 46 and 48 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

Joe Clark Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Human Resources Development. Does the minister's department have a copy of the audit prepared by the auditor general, the audit of her department scheduled to be presented to the House of Commons on October 17? Does her department have a copy? Yes or no.