House of Commons Hansard #98 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was crtc.
Shawn Murphy Liberal Hillsborough, PE
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
All Canadians are aware of the initiatives being taken to improve and enhance security at our U.S.-Canadian borders. On a related and equally important issue, what action is the minister and his department taking with a view to engaging the United States to ensure at the same time the efficient free flow of travellers and goods through the border?
Martin Cauchon LiberalMinister of National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)
Mr. Speaker, we all know that Canada customs started to reform the system some time ago. We all know as well that my vision with regard to the land border is a vision of co-operation. As well, we signed an agreement back in 1995 with the United States talking about harmonization, co-operation and joint engagement.
I would like to report to the House that last week the commissioner of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency met with his counterpart. Also this week my colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister, met with some elected people in the United States. Next Monday night I will be delivering a speech in Flint, Michigan in order to talk about our vision.
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—St. Clair, ON
Mr. Speaker, we have been attempting to get an answer from the Minister of Human Resources Development that will help a good deal of Canadians who are currently unemployed because of what happened on September 11. We continue to get platitudes from her.
Could the minister tell us when she will decide whether the hours that are needed to qualify for EI are going to be reduced or not? When will she make that decision?
Jane Stewart LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, I think the better thing to do is to assure the House and all Canadians that should they need the services of the employment insurance program it is there now and it can serve them in these times that are very difficult.
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—St. Clair, ON
Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, if I hear that one more time I will be nauseous. If she will not answer that question and give us more platitudes, could she tell us if she is doing anything about reducing the number of weeks it takes for her officials to process applications?
Seven hundred people have been laid off at the casino in Windsor and they are having to wait five, six and seven weeks for their applications to be heard. Could she tell us what she is doing about that?
Jane Stewart LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, there has been a backlog in the processing of employment insurance claims but there is a process in place in the department and the backlog is being reduced.
Where we have mass layoff circumstances we have particular provisions with dedicated employees who are there to work with particular employees, to go on premises to make sure that the applications are processed quickly and efficiently.
Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, my question is about this very suspicious practice of buying from Apotex when Bayer had all the product available to meet the health needs of Canada.
Contrary to what the Deputy Prime Minister has just told the House of Commons, before going to Apotex the government made no application under section 19(1) and did not notify Bayer as required in the law. There is no question, the government broke the law.
My question is for the Minister of Justice. Does the Minister of Justice intend to prosecute the Minister of Health for breaking the law of Canada or does she consider--
Herb Gray LiberalDeputy Prime Minister
Mr. Speaker, I did not say that the government had made application under section 19(1). I simply pointed out that the use of it did not require a national emergency to be declared. I would ask the leader of the fifth party if he would get a better person to prepare his questions. That one was totally ridiculous.
Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, I will rise on a point of privilege after question period.
André Bachand Progressive Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the scientific soothsayer or, if you prefer, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, contradicted his colleague, the government House leader in the other place, and said that the generic version of Cipro was safe, when the drug has not even been tested.
The Minister of Health is ordering millions of dollars worth of a drug which has not even been approved by his department.
In the absence of conclusive evidence, how does the government justify its purchase of an untested drug?
Jeannot Castonguay LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health
Mr. Speaker, first, I wish to thank the member opposite for the compliment he has bestowed on me. I have risen almost to the status of a god in his eyes; I thank him.
I can assure the House that when we have drugs available to respond to emergencies, they will be safe for ingestion and will present no threat to the health of Canadians.
Brian Fitzpatrick Canadian Alliance Prince Albert, SK
Mr. Speaker, the anti-terrorism legislation has big holes in it when it comes to extraditing and deporting people who pose a threat to Canadian society.
Why is the government more concerned about the civil rights of terrorists, criminals and dangerous people than the civil rights of law-abiding Canadian citizens?
Elinor Caplan LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, the premise of the member's question is not only wrong, it is ridiculous. It is absolutely silly.
The government is absolutely committed to ensuring that the protection of Canadians is the absolute number one priority. We brought forward changes in the proposed immigration and refugee protection act that will make it easier for us to streamline our procedures both for refugee determination as well as for deportation and removal.
One of the important provisions is the new security certificate procedure which will also allow us to identify and remove with evidence those people who--
Anti-Terrorism LegislationOral Question Period
The Deputy Speaker
The hon. member for Prince Albert.
Brian Fitzpatrick Canadian Alliance Prince Albert, SK
Talk about bluster, Mr. Speaker. The anti-terrorism bill proposes many changes that would restrict the civil liberties of law-abiding Canadian citizens.
Why is the government focusing more on policing law-abiding citizens within Canada than stopping terrorists and dangerous people from getting into the country in the first place?
Elinor Caplan LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, that is simply not true. Whenever we have evidence that someone poses a risk to Canada, be that a security risk or a criminality risk, we arrest them, we detain them and we keep them there as long as we have to until we are able to remove them and deport them from this country. To suggest otherwise is just wrong and it sends the wrong message to Canadians.
I would ask the member to be sure that what he is saying is accurate and factual because so far he is not.
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
Mr. Speaker, former minister Lloyd Axworthy and the present Minister of Foreign Affairs have denied allegations that CSIS was conducting secret operations outside Canada.
Yesterday, CSIS director, Ward Elcock, said the opposite.
Will the solicitor general confirm whether or not CSIS is involved in espionage activities outside Canada?
Lawrence MacAulay LiberalSolicitor General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, as I have said a number of times in this House, CSIS has the authority to investigate any activity that threatens security inside or outside of Canada. It has that authority and it fulfills that mandate.
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
Mr. Speaker, in light of what the Minister of Foreign Affairs has said, is the solicitor general saying that CSIS is involved in espionage activities outside Canada without the government's approval?
Lawrence MacAulay LiberalSolicitor General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, what I am telling my hon. colleague, and I have said this many times in the House, is that CSIS has the authority to investigate, inside of this country and outside of this country, any activity that threatens Canada. That is the mandate of CSIS.
Keith Martin Canadian Alliance Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier of Quebec joined with his counterpart in British Columbia to call for the creation of a North American security perimeter.
The two leaders pointed out that such a perimeter would facilitate the movement of goods between Canada and the U.S.
Why is the government still stubbornly ignoring this suggestion, which makes perfect sense and which will provide protection as well as being good for trade and employment?
Martin Cauchon LiberalMinister of National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)
Mr. Speaker, the government has already demonstrated a great deal of leadership and vision in this area.
As for the perimeter, what does the hon. member mean by this? If reference to a perimeter refers essentially to the definition of customs, which addresses the protection of ports and airports, then yes that is a perimeter.
The only thing to which reference is then being made is the basic principle of the customs system, which is a matter of proper risk assessment and management. In that context, there is no doubt whatsoever that there is a greater risk at international ports and airports. Customs is, however, already doing a good job in this area.
The reform we have put in place, which is in the process of being passed by the House of Commons, will also do an excellent job of creating an ultra-modern customs system.
Keith Martin Canadian Alliance Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, the problem is the government is talking, not doing. Premiers Landry, Campbell, Lord and Harris have all asked for this security perimeter. They represent the concerns of millions of Canadians who want to protect their jobs.
Why does this government not take the advice of these four premiers, as well as the advice of Canadians, and work with our counterparts in the United States to erect this security perimeter, which we need to protect our jobs and our trade?