House of Commons Hansard #100 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was border.
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, the sole concern of Health Canada and of the Minister of Health is to protect the security of Canadians, and we did.
A week ago, we discovered we could not obtain the drugs needed. We acted responsibly. We have now resolved our differences with the companies and have taken the steps necessary to protect the health of the public.
Pierre Brien Bloc Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Speaker, all that, after wasting $1.3 million of taxpayers' money. Some responsibility is called for.
How can the minister, who says he has the health of Canadians at heart, make such a claim when he was preparing to give them drugs that had not been approved by Health Canada, while approved and effective drugs were available?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, I simply said we have now done what was needed in response to the situation.
Dave Chatters Canadian Alliance Athabasca, AB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the solicitor general how two suspects arrested in Fort McMurray last week for possession of fraudulent documents and suspicion of terrorist activities were able to pass an RCMP criminal background check required for employment when they were not even allowed to legally seek employment in Canada.
Lawrence MacAulay LiberalSolicitor General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague has indicated, these individuals have been arrested.
It involves an investigation and my hon. colleague is fully aware that I will not comment on an ongoing investigation.
Dave Chatters Canadian Alliance Athabasca, AB
Mr. Speaker, that is an absurd answer.
Given all the assurances that we have heard in the House this morning about the security of Canada's border entry points, how did these individuals gain entry into Canada given their long criminal record and even outstanding warrants for their arrest in Canada?
Elinor Caplan LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, members opposite have heard me say on a number of occasions that we are working very closely with the Americans as well as with law enforcement agencies in Canada.
Let me explain to the members what this means. When the RCMP says it cannot comment because there is an investigation and the FBI says it cannot comment because there is an investigation, surely they would recognize that there should not be a comment, because we do not want to jeopardize an investigation. If they were being responsible, they would understand that.
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport has told the House that the government supports a private sector solution to the challenges facing Air Canada. Could the minister please tell the House what he intends to do to support this idea?
David Collenette LiberalMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, as you know we have been working very closely with the airlines since September 11.
In particular, to assist Air Canada to secure more investment from the capital markets the government today agreed to introduce amendments to the Air Canada Public Participation Act, which would see the elimination of the single shareholder limit. Notice of that bill will be given this evening.
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—St. Clair, ON
Mr. Speaker, funding for public transit makes good sense especially in terms of reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and meeting our Kyoto commitments.
Municipalities and now even the provincial government in Ontario have agreed to put money into this program.
Yesterday the transport minister refused to meet the commitments he made in the past and he will not come to the table and contribute. Why will the minister not meet his commitments? When will he participate in this type of program?
David Collenette LiberalMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, I might remind the hon. member that in the red book we talked about forging a partnership with municipalities and the provinces to assist with municipal transit. Work is ongoing, particularly in committee, led by my colleague from York West.
Let me be clear here. The Ontario government ended funding in 1998. It used to pay 75% of capital funding and 50% of operational funding. It has come back with 33 cent dollars and then expects the federal government and municipalities to pick up the slack. That is just not good enough.
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—St. Clair, ON
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the mayor of Ottawa was quoted as saying that this minister, referring to the Minister of Transport, made speech after speech across this country, including here in Ottawa. He gave the commitment that he would be at the table if the province was at the table.
Now he has reneged on it. I can only hope that the finance minister will take up the slack and honour the commitment. So I ask the finance minister, will he?
David Collenette LiberalMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, I never thought that I would see a member from the NDP being an apologist for the Harris government and its scandalous treatment of municipalities on housing, on transit and in a number of other areas.
The government is committed to helping municipalities with housing and transit and we will do it in this mandate.
Jay Hill Canadian Alliance Prince George—Peace River, BC
Mr. Speaker, in an attempt to shield himself from prosecution by the Minister of Justice over the Ciprogate fiasco, the Minister of Health has used the excuse that he was only acting to protect the health of Canadians. If the minister really respected the Patent Act he would not be in another mess where taxpayers will have to pay twice for medication they could have obtained legally in the first place.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Are there any other cabinet ministers who have broken the law in their rush to play catch up following the events of September 11 or is the health minister the only one who has broken the law?
Herb Gray LiberalDeputy Prime Minister
Mr. Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question is totally unfounded. He is wrong in reaching a conclusion that any ministers have broken the law. When one decides that the law has been broken there has to be a trial by a court, not the unwarranted assertion by a desperate member of the fifth and failing party.
Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative New Brunswick Southwest, NB
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Health stated there were different versions of what happened when Health Canada approached Bayer to supply Cipro. Today the minister is stating that Bayer was approached twice and could not supply the drug Cipro.
If the minister has sorted out this mess, which incidentally is costing the taxpayers $1.5 million, will he table in the House today after question period the correspondence that confirms the request to Bayer by Health Canada and Bayer's confirmation that it would not be able to supply this drug?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, I am telling the member and I am telling the House today that Health Canada officials have confirmed to me that on two occasions last Wednesday Bayer told them it could not provide additional Cipro.
The member is wrong in saying the taxpayers have had to spend money uselessly. The fact is, we are paying for any drugs we take and use. If we order more drugs from Bayer we will pay for them and we will use them.
The drugs that have been purchased from Apotex will be kept and, if necessary, they are available for use.
Paul Forseth Canadian Alliance New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Speaker, the U.S. congress has indicated that it will be employing up to 7,500 new border police to protect America. From what? From Canada's lax immigration and refugee process.
The FBI has reported that there are anywhere from 50,000 to 70,000 undesirables in Canada right now who should be deported.
When will the minister stop hiding behind a plastic maple leaf card and a press release and start aggressively removing all those who may be a security risk to Canada?
Elinor Caplan LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, first of all, we do detain anyone where we have evidence that they pose a security risk to Canada and we keep them in detention as long as we have evidence to suggest that they are a risk. We move through the courts to remove them as quickly as possible.
I am the first one to say that sometimes those procedures take too long. That is why I brought forward legislation to streamline those processes.
The premise of the member's question is absolutely wrong. On the Canadian side of the border we have three times the resources in personnel than the Americans have at this time. What they are doing is actually going to--
ImmigrationOral Question Period
The Speaker
The hon. member for New Westminster--Coquitlam--Burnaby.
Paul Forseth Canadian Alliance New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have spoken. There have been literally hundreds, even thousands, of letters of complaint by Canadians to their elected representatives. Obviously the workings of the immigration system do not have broad political support in this country.
Even British Columbia premier Gordon Campbell, a Liberal, is questioning the validity of the government and the claims of the immigration minister.
Why has the government not made it a priority to seek out and remove the thousands of people who should be deported from this country?
Elinor Caplan LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
In fact, Mr. Speaker, removals are a priority. Canada has a very good record of removal. Last year well over 8,000 people were removed. The number one priority for removal are those who are inadmissible because of criminality or security concerns and the second priority are failed refugee claimants.
Over the last five years there have been 45,000 removals. Of the people who were removed last year, some 1,700 were inadmissible because of security concerns. They were removed as quickly as we could do it.
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
Was his decision to violate the Patent Act approved by cabinet, yes or no?
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
Mr. Speaker, by taking a decision of this importance without cabinet approval, by taking a decision that is costing the public $1.3 million and by taking a decision to violate an act of this parliament, will the minister admit that he committed three very serious errors of judgment, one right after the other?