House of Commons Hansard #174 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was federal.

Topics

International Co-OperationOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

The Speaker

The hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla.

National DefenceOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Reform

Jim Hart Reform Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC

Mr. Speaker, I think we should review the facts of the tainted virus scandal. First the Minister of National Defence said the vaccine was tested in Canada and was safe. Then yesterday he said no, it was tested by an independent U.S. firm. We already know that the manufacturer was shut down for quality control violations. We know because we have the documents. The Food and Drug Administration says that lot FAV020 was redated.

Health Canada must have known this as well and granted DND permission to use the vaccine anyway.

I would like to ask—

National DefenceOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

The Speaker

If the hon. minister wants to, he can address himself to the preamble.

National DefenceOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

York Centre Ontario

Liberal

Art Eggleton LiberalMinister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, that is not true at all. The plant was not shut down. The plant was told that it had to make some improvements. There were some contaminated products that were totally removed but nothing that was contaminated ever got out or ever got used in terms of our Canadian forces.

I never said it was tested in Canada. I said Canadian doctors and the Canadian military approved it as indeed did Health Canada. They fully had the information on the testing that was done in the laboratory and were satisfied that it was safe and effective for our troops.

Social UnionOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, under the letter signed by the provinces and sent to the federal government, Quebec will receive the money it is owed in the health sector.

However, since Quebec has not signed the agreement on social union, will the federal government, with the co-operation of the other provinces, unilaterally impose in Quebec programs relating to health, post-secondary education and social assistance, which are all provincial jurisdictions?

Social UnionOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Saint-Maurice Québec

Liberal

Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister

Mr. Speaker, the agreement that we signed was acceptable to all provincial and territorial governments, except Quebec. Of course, they signed the agreement on health. This issue is settled and they will get their share of the money. That was very important.

As for social union, what we proposed, even with regard to the spending power, was a solution at least as good as if not better than the one provided for in the Meech Lake accord.

I am somewhat surprised that the leader of the Quebec government, who leads a separatist party and who left the Conservative Party because he did not like the Meech Lake accord, is now refusing our proposal on the spending power.

Water ExportsOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

NDP

Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs who I am sure will acknowledge that Canada's most valuable natural resource is our fresh water. He will also acknowledge that foreign interests have access to every natural resource in Canada except one, our fresh water.

Will the minister explain why, after repeated promises by the government to introduce legislation to protect Canada's fresh water, he will not announce a moratorium today? As this is a matter of international trade will legislation be brought forward immediately to prohibit the bulk exports of Canadian fresh water?

Water ExportsOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Winnipeg South Centre Manitoba

Liberal

Lloyd Axworthy LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, nobody on this side has ever argued about the importance and value of water. In fact we have debated it many times in the House.

The question is what is the most effective way of managing the issue. As a result, we have undertaken very extensive discussions with the provinces and our North American partners to ensure that we can have a system that protects Canadian waters. When that agreement is developed, when we come up with a proper arrangement that we can say is a way of effectively managing water resources, we will tell the House and I am sure the hon. member will be happy to support it.

Child PornographyOral Question Period

February 4th, 1999 / 2:55 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Diane St-Jacques Progressive Conservative Shefford, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice assured us that Mr. Justice Shaw's ruling was only binding on B.C. provincial court judges and not on other judges in the country.

Yet, The Gazette reported on January 27 that the case of another person charged with possession of child pornography, who was to appear before Alberta's provincial court in Red Deer, had been postponed until the supreme court rules on this issue.

How can the minister wait another day before making the possession of child pornography illegal?

Child PornographyOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Edmonton West Alberta

Liberal

Anne McLellan LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate that the law is in full force and full effect in the province of Alberta. I have no doubt that my colleague the attorney general, who is charged with the administration of justice in Alberta and the prosecution and enforcement of the Criminal Code in Alberta, will do that which he finds appropriate in this case and in any other.

National DefenceOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

NDP

Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, there is a huge discrepancy between what the Minister of National Defence is saying today and the facts of the anthrax vaccination case.

We know from FDA documents that the product was relabelled after being stale dated. We know from the company that the minister refers to, Microtek, that all it did was observe the testing of the product. Health Canada was not involved at all.

Will the minister of defence now agree to launch an investigation into this case and will he lift the cloud hanging over Sergeant Michael Kipling and end the court martial proceedings?

National DefenceOral Question Period

3 p.m.

York Centre Ontario

Liberal

Art Eggleton LiberalMinister of National Defence

I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, the only cloud is over the head of the hon. member because there is no cloud in this case at all.

Quite clearly anything that would have been relabelled would have been fully retested. The retesting that was overseen by the consultant hired by the department of defence in the United States fully went through the entire process of testing in great detail. I have had our medical people in the Canadian forces describe to me that process. It is one that is very thorough to ensure the safety and effectiveness of the product.

Business Of The HouseOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Reform

Randy White Reform Langley—Abbotsford, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government House leader the nature of the legislation to be tabled in the House for the remainder of this week and next week and ask whether that legislation includes a bill to prohibit the possession of child pornography in this country.

Business Of The HouseOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario

Liberal

Don Boudria LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that this afternoon we will continue to debate the opposition motion proposed this morning.

Tomorrow the Minister of Industry will propose a motion to disagree with the Senate amendments to Bill C-20, the competition bill, and to restore the whistleblower provisions to that bill. This will be followed by the resumption of debate on second reading of Bill C-63, the Citizenship Act.

On Monday we will debate second reading of Bill C-65, the equalization bill, which must be passed by both houses by March 31.

Next Tuesday and Thursday shall be allotted days.

On Wednesday of next week we will commence the report stage of Bill C-55, the foreign publications bill.

Business Of The HouseOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

André Bachand Progressive Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the Thursday question to ask the hon. government House leader a question about the business of the House.

Earlier today the Prime Minister and the premiers met at 24 Sussex Drive and apparently reached an agreement concerning the health system and the social union.

Will the government assure the House that the Prime Minister will make a full statement to the House concerning this agreement and will he table copies of the agreement in the House?

Business Of The HouseOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister returned to the House at the earliest opportunity and even answered a question only moments after the agreement was concluded. I will inquire and report to the House hopefully as early as tomorrow about the availability of such a document to be tabled in the House.

Business Of The HouseOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

NDP

Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, my intention was to ask the same question. It seems that the occasion of the Prime Minister and the first ministers having reached an agreement would be more than appropriate for the Prime Minister or the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs or the Minister of Justice or someone either today or tomorrow or early next week to make a ministerial statement that would lay out the government's rationale for this, to take parliament seriously and into the confidence of the government on this and have an opportunity for opposition parties to comment. I cannot think of anything more appropriate and respectful of the House of Commons than such a process.

Business Of The HouseOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the very serious suggestion he has brought to the attention of the House. The time provided for ministerial statements today was prior to the time of this request. The hon. member recognized that in the tone of his question. I will inquire about that as well. I take this very constructive suggestion under advisement and will report to the House as early as possible.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Reform

Grant Hill Reform Macleod, AB

Mr. Speaker, Health Canada issued a press release on January 22 announcing a national Liberal caucus committee on health priorities initiative. The release is on Health Canada letterhead and the contact numbers on the release are Health Canada numbers.

The use of the resources of the Department of Health by the Minister of Health to promote Liberal Party activities is contempt of parliament for two reasons. First, this action deliberately ignores and omits the House of Commons to which the minister and his department are responsible. This omission in my submission makes a mockery of parliament.

Second, department funds are not meant to be used to promote political party activities. As parliamentarians we are free to use our office funds to develop party policy. We are also free to use parliamentary committees and their funds. Departments are free to use their funds to serve the public, their ministers and parliament. With respect to political parties departments have absolutely no right to get involved and promote their activities.

If the minister and his department want to use public funds to promote and encourage members of parliament to develop policy then they ought to do that through parliament by working with the Standing Committee on Health. To deliberately go around the parliament to which they are responsible and promote a political party activity is wrong. It makes a mockery of parliament and is a contempt of parliament.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Reform

Randy White Reform Langley—Abbotsford, BC

Mr. Speaker, here we go once again on an issue that is very similar in nature to other issues that have been brought before you over the past five and a half years I have been in this House. I can refer to the many times we have stood in the House and talked about ministers making announcements outside of the House with no consideration given to this side or in many cases even to the government side. Statements have been made through press releases in other countries when the House of Commons had not even dealt with the issue. We recently referred one of those cases to the board of internal economy.

The rights of members in the House are being ignored on a consistent basis. I watched the Prime Minister come in today and make an announcement that is critical to our country. Yet members of the House are virtually not part of it, as was mentioned earlier. Now we see a minister's department working with the Liberal caucus making press announcements.

I would ask that Mr. Speaker take all this in the larger context this time and perhaps look at the possibility of a legislative committee or some other process that actually steps aside and looks at the rights and privileges of members of parliament and how they are in effect being eroded by ministers, and even now the Prime Minister, completely ignoring us in this House.

It will only get worse. We can step up the heat on this and make things bad for the other side I suppose but it is time now that Mr. Speaker looked at this on a global basis and maybe took another approach to it and set some better standards in the House so as not to degradate what we have here.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

Reform

Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a point of privilege, particularly in the case of our health critic who opened this issue up. He is currently taking part in a Reform caucus task force on health care. He is spearheading that attempt.

To read from the original health department's announcement, if our health critic's name were inserted it could be said that the Health Minister today announced that the national Reform caucus, chaired by a person from our caucus, has been asked to look at options for enhancing the government's tobacco public education initiatives, something he is working on.

The Reform committee will canvass the views of Canadians for strategies to address youth smoking. The Reform caucus committee he is chairing is looking into the entire potential reform of the health system in Canada. That news release with just a few name changes would be a great one for the Reform Party.

On the privilege end of it, if we allow the department to promote the Liberal caucus not only through its news release but through its telephone numbers and through its website then at the very least it should be promoting each of the parties in the House, giving their views and visions of health care.

It cannot be that one caucus gets to use departmental assets and the rest of us will read what the Liberals do and just be out of luck. The department of course should promote its vision of Canada, what is happening, the programs for youth and all that stuff. But it should not be promoting one political party in this place. That is what has happened with this news release. The privileges of our health critic have been compromised. The department cannot select one political party only to receive an endorsation and publicity and the resources of the department. That is not right and it contravenes privileges of the rest of us.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to see a copy of this document and because I had not been warned ahead of time unfortunately it is not possible for me to have the Minister of Health comment on it. I am sorry about that and I am sure that once the document in question is made available to the Minister of Health he will want to respond.

If there is a document of a department which somehow is seen as supporting a task force of members of parliament of a particular political party, that is a political question which could be the subject of something asked at question period. In other words, the opposition member could be, if that is true, entitled to ask did the minister do something correct or incorrect and so on. That is a political question, not necessarily an issue of privilege. That is a different story all together.

That being said, neither I nor the minister in question, because I am sure he would have told me, was made aware that this question was to be raised today. I am sure the minister will want to respond to this at some point.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

Reform

Grant Hill Reform Macleod, AB

Mr. Speaker, I have the document with me. I am delighted to table it so the Minister of Health can review it.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

The Speaker

Does the hon. member have the consent of the House to table the document?

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.