House of Commons Hansard #103 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was tribunal.

Topics

Health
Oral Question Period

11:30 a.m.

Etobicoke Centre
Ontario

Liberal

Allan Rock Minister of Health

Mr. Speaker, I will take that question because I recently had experience with those laws. I can tell the member we do respect them. Patents are a way to reward and encourage innovation.

This week we sat down with the patent holder, Bayer, and we resolved the matter. We resolved it on a basis that is good for Canadians because we got access to the drugs we need at preferred prices. We did not spend a nickel more than we had to in order to achieve that.

The member should know that we do respect patent laws. We also respect the need to protect the health of Canadian.

Health
Oral Question Period

11:30 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

James Rajotte Edmonton Southwest, AB

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the government did not respect the patent laws.

The Minister of Health has defended his actions by arguing against the bottom line. The reality is that both the generic and the brand name pharmaceutical companies are large scale business operations. Both need clear legal guidelines to invest in Canada and provide Canadians with drugs to address their medical needs.

How can the government defend breaking arbitrarily its own laws?

Health
Oral Question Period

11:30 a.m.

Etobicoke Centre
Ontario

Liberal

Allan Rock Minister of Health

Mr. Speaker, the member should know that we took steps to make sure the health of Canadians was protected.

When the patent was an issue we met with the patent holder and resolved the matter with them through agreement. However what was really at issue this past week was not so much the patent law. The issue in this episode was if we were in a position to respond to protecting the health of Canadians should something happen. We are in a position to do so.

Anti-Terrorism Legislation
Oral Question Period

11:30 a.m.

Bloc

Pierre Brien Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, the government and the Minister of Health are bungling when faced with a potential emergency, and their actions show that they feel they can break the law.

At the same time, parliament is working on anti-terrorism legislation, Bill C-36, and a number of voices are condemning the abuse that could result from this legislation.

Since the government is clearly showing that it overreacts in a crisis, is the Deputy Prime Minister prepared to make major amendments to Bill C-36 and include, among other provisions, sunset clauses?

Anti-Terrorism Legislation
Oral Question Period

11:30 a.m.

Windsor West
Ontario

Liberal

Herb Gray Deputy Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, we will take a serious look at all the committee's recommendations. I also wish to thank the Bloc Quebecois member for supporting a very important federal measure.

Anti-Terrorism Legislation
Oral Question Period

11:30 a.m.

Bloc

Pierre Brien Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that panic is not the best policy, as evidenced this week by the actions of the Minister of Health. It is in emergency situations and in crises that democratic controls are most necessary.

Can the Deputy Prime Minister assure us that, as a minimum, his government will pledge to include sunset clauses in its anti-terrorism bill?

Anti-Terrorism Legislation
Oral Question Period

11:30 a.m.

Vancouver Quadra
B.C.

Liberal

Stephen Owen Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member brings up a good point and that is the advice coming from the Senate and the House committees looking into Bill C-36. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice have said in the House repeatedly that the government, while it has put forward preferred options, is willing to consider all reasonable advice coming from those committees.

National Security
Oral Question Period

October 26th, 2001 / 11:30 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Kevin Sorenson Crowfoot, AB

Mr. Speaker, first the solicitor general claims the RCMP and CSIS are adequately funded and staffed. Then he jumps on his soapbox explaining why there is a need to throw more money into the security forces. The fact is he is the one who gutted them in the first place. Now police and CSIS investigations are being sidelined because the RCMP does not have enough manpower.

Will the solicitor general stop playing a shell game with the RCMP and immediately ensure that it has adequate personnel so nothing is put on the back burner?

National Security
Oral Question Period

11:35 a.m.

Cardigan
P.E.I.

Liberal

Lawrence MacAulay Solicitor General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times in the House, the government provided in the last budget and since the last budget about $2 billion to the public safety envelope for the security of this nation.

In the last couple of weeks we provided about $100 million extra for police and security intelligence. We have a public safety committee in place to make sure that if any more funds or any more technology are needed it will be provided.

National Security
Oral Question Period

11:35 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Kevin Sorenson Crowfoot, AB

Mr. Speaker, the minister talks about the money that was put in since the budget. The budget was so long ago, we cannot remember.

SIRC reports that CSIS is so overloaded with work that it can take years to determine if potential newcomers to our country pose a security threat. This was occurring long before September 11. Since then its workload has increased dramatically.

Again, I ask the solicitor general this. When will CSIS receive the necessary funding to hire more agents so no one slips into this country who poses a threat to the safety and security of Canadians?

National Security
Oral Question Period

11:35 a.m.

Cardigan
P.E.I.

Liberal

Lawrence MacAulay Solicitor General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague is well aware that the director of CSIS has said many times that he has the financial resources to fulfill his mandate. In fact, just a week ago we provided another $10 million in that area.

I am aware there was a backlog in dealing with immigration screening. However I can tell my hon. colleague that that backlog has been cleaned up.

The Environment
Oral Question Period

11:35 a.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, throughout the negotiations on climate change at the Bonn conference last July, Canada made its four conditions abundantly clear through the press.

At the end of the conference, all four of its conditions for ratifying the Kyoto protocol were met. They were: market mechanisms, carbon sinks, clean development mechanisms, and a compliance regime.

If the minister got everything he wanted in Bonn, why has the Kyoto protocol still not been ratified?

The Environment
Oral Question Period

11:35 a.m.

Victoria
B.C.

Liberal

David Anderson Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, it is true that we made great strides in Bonn, and I congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. member for Windsor West, on his success.

However the Government of Canada cannot act without the support of the provinces and without consulting them. We want the broadest consultations possible with all sectors, including the provinces, before deciding whether Canada should ratify the protocol.

The Environment
Oral Question Period

11:35 a.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, the minister is well aware that the national assembly has passed a unanimous motion calling on the federal government to ratify the Kyoto protocol.

The fact is that the minister set four conditions in Bonn and these four conditions have been met.

Today Canadians and Quebecers have just one question: What new conditions will Canada set on the eve of the conference of the parties to open in Marrakesh next week?

The Environment
Oral Question Period

11:35 a.m.

Victoria
B.C.

Liberal

David Anderson Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the member that Quebec's minister of the environment has supported the position of Ontario and Alberta that more consultations with the provinces are needed before the protocol can be ratified. This was just one week ago, the resolution of the National Assembly of Quebec notwithstanding.