Debates of May 13th, 1999

Young Offenders Act

[Chuck Cadman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is not much to say. I was prepared to thank the hon. members for supporting the bill all the way through, as far as it got, but now we see what the government is really up to.

The bill was meant to amend the Young Offenders Act, which is the current law of the country. I understand and appreciate the fact that the minister did choose to use it in the new legislation, but we do not know where that legislation is going to wind up. It has been pushed back and pushed back. We do not know if it is ever going to see the light of day. I am not prepared to take a pig in a poke and act on faith alone.

I am disappointed about this, but I have dealt with more severe things in my life. I think most members can attest to that.

This piece of legislation was an idea that was prompted by some personal experience. It would have been good legislation for the country. It would have allowed the crown an opportunity to increase the sanctions on parents who fail to supervise their children properly.

In effect, my bill is dead. That is fine. That is part of the deal here. All I can hope for is that Bill C-68, the new youth justice legislation, does come into force sometime. Judging by what I have seen, I do not anticipate that will happen.

There is not an awful lot more I can say on this other than—

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not see a quorum in the House to listen to my hon. colleague's final comments on this important legislation.

And the count having been taken:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion are deemed put and a recorded division deemed demanded and deferred until Tuesday, May 25, 1999, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, on March 5, I raised the issue of charges pending against Mike Kipling and the pursuit of these charges against this man.

There are many issues surrounding the government's administration of the anthrax vaccine to Canadian forces personnel last spring in the Persian Gulf. A vaccine researcher corresponded with my office earlier this year and raised some very interesting issues.

This researcher was informed by the Department of National Defence that it was a matter of military policy that forces personnel were to be provided with specific written disclosure of contraindications and possible adverse effects associated with immunization. As well, prior to immunization, forces personnel should be briefed as to the risks of the diseases the vaccination is supposed to prevent.

Sergeant Kipling was left with serious and unanswered questions after reading the acknowledgement form. This vaccine researcher claims that there is no data addressing how carcinogenic this vaccine may be nor about any possible reproductive effects.

The Nuremberg Code of 1947 clearly states that in terms of following orders:

The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.

Is the government able to say without a doubt that voluntary consent was given? I think not.

I would like to hear from the government, in response to my comments, why the Liberal administration supports people losing their right to decide what goes into their bodies simply by virtue of the fact that they have joined the Canadian forces?

It appears, from the Food and Drug Administration in the United States, that the company which provided the anthrax vaccine in question may have re-labelled a lot of outdated drugs. Furthermore, the government did no independent testing of the chemical package it wanted so desperately to inject into the body of Sergeant Kipling and other Canadian forces personnel.

Will the government commit here and now that it will review policies concerning vaccinations to allow for individual choice and the possibility of waiving vaccinations and whether some quarantine during testing might suffice to meet the goal of protecting the population at large?

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, last year Canada responded to the threat posed in the gulf by Saddam Hussein. We dispatched the HMCS Toronto , aircraft and personnel from 435 squadron in order to do our part as a member of the international community.

Our maritime personnel provided escort duties for a U.S. navy carrier battle group and contributed to maritime interdiction operations. Our aviators and support personnel provided technical air to air refuelling in support of the allied air effort in the region. Our maritime and air personnel did an excellent job.

The dangers faced by the approximately 360 Canadians in the gulf were very real. They included the possibility that biological weapons could be used against our personnel.

In all good conscience, we could not send our people into a potentially dangerous situation without ensuring they were properly protected. Part of this protection was inoculating them against anthrax. As we all know, anthrax is a very deadly disease in which individuals are not aware they are sick until it is too late to treat them. We had to protect Canadian personnel against the use of such biological weapons. To do otherwise would be both irresponsible and unconscionable.

The government has worked in good faith and in the best interests of the men and women of the Canadian forces to provide them with the best protection possible in what we must remember was a potentially dangerous operation.

We recognize that Sergeant Kipling and his family have no doubt experienced considerable stress over this situation. However, cohesion and discipline are fundamental elements in an effective armed force. For that reason, disobeying an order, any order, is a serious offence that should be treated appropriately by the military justice system.

Sergeant Kipling has been charged with wilfully disobeying an order under section 126 of the National Defence Act. The decision to charge Sergeant Kipling and to proceed to a court martial was made after very careful examination of the case and is in accordance with current military law.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry to interrupt the parliamentary secretary, but the time provided for the answer has now expired.

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7.07 p.m.)