House of Commons Hansard #119 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was amendments.
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-36 has been in front of the House for days. There were 60 hours in committee. Dozens of witnesses appeared in front of the committee. We have come now to pass the bill.
I remember that the same people a few months ago were telling us that we were not going fast enough. Now there is a new flip-flop. The member tells us now that we are going too fast. He should make up his mind.
Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister does not even know what bill we are talking about.
My question now concerns clause 38 of the bill on which the government today decided to end debate.
Clause 38 allows the attorney general to prohibit a witness from disclosing information to a parliamentary committee. It gags parliament. The prohibition can last up to 15 years.
Why is the government thus limiting parliament's most fundamental right?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should calm down a little on this bill. The bill is before the House of Commons. It will go before a committee; he will be able to make full representation there. It need not die today.
He still has a lot of time before him to analyze the bill and realize we have a problem with terrorism. We have decided to take action. Now, they do not want us to do anything any more.
Brian Pallister Canadian Alliance Portage—Lisgar, MB
Mr. Speaker, United States president George Bush has made it very clear that the next step in the war on terrorism must be to enforce United Nations resolutions allowing weapons inspectors into Iraq.
As one political leader said when Iraq barred weapons inspectors in 1998, “...Saddam's behaviour to date indicates that he will not honour diplomatic solutions so long as they are not accompanied by a threat of intervention”.
Will the Prime Minister support in a material way a multinational intervention in Iraq?
John Manley LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member would agree with me that the imposition of sanctions against Iraq and the obligation to allow international inspection were both based upon UN security council resolutions.
Canada's position is that if any military intervention were to occur in Iraq it should also be based upon UN security council resolutions.
Brian Pallister Canadian Alliance Portage—Lisgar, MB
Interestingly, Mr. Speaker, the political leader I just quoted was the Prime Minister.
In February 1998 he told the House “...Canada cannot stand on the sidelines...” Our armed forces would support, in a material way, the actions of this multilateral initiative. He went on to say “...a military strike against Iraq would be justified to secure compliance with...security council resolutions”.
Iraq still has not complied with these United Nations resolutions. Will the Prime Minister stand by his words or has he changed his position again?
John Manley LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, it is not that complicated. In fact the UN has authorized sanctions in order to enforce the inspection provisions of its resolutions. It has not yet sanctioned any kind of military strike. If and when it does, then we will consider that accordingly.
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister told us that Bill C-42 on public safety was needed to enable the government to act quickly.
We would be interested in hearing from the Prime Minister just what this bill would allow him to do now that he could not do last September.
Our interpretation is that nothing prevented him from taking action in September and that existing legislation is sufficient. If we are mistaken, let him give us one example of his being prevented from acting in September.
David Collenette LiberalMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows Bill C-42 does allow for regulations to be made in urgent situations, with all the normal parliamentary and legal safeguards.
I think the hon. member is reading too much into the bill. I think Canadians want a government to act firmly and decisively when there is an urgent problem, as we had on September 11, and not debate the semantics.
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Mr. Speaker, the government does not want to respond. I will tell it what it could not do before and what it will be able to do after Bill C-42 is passed.
I challenge the minister of defence to deny that one of the powers accorded by Bill C-42 is to establish military security zones throughout a province, to thus have the army intervene on the basis of its judgment alone and without the express request by the provincial attorney general. Can the minister say this is not so?
Art Eggleton LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is mixing up two provisions.
In terms of the military security zone, as I have said before, it is intended to protect the assets of the Canadian forces and our allies. Look at what happened to the USS Cole . It did not have proper protection and was attacked by terrorists. We certainly do not want that kind of thing to happen here and, certainly post-September 11, that is an area of concern. There could only be a reasonable cordoning off of an area to protect these kinds of assets. That is all the provision of this particular portion of the legislation is about.
Rob Merrifield Canadian Alliance Yellowhead, AB
Mr. Speaker, the cloning of a human embryo in the United States only highlights the lack of legislation in Canada. The government has been dragging its feet on this issue since the royal commission in 1993. It allowed Bill C-47 to die on the order paper. What do we get in the current legislation? More delay.
Will the minister commit today to an immediate ban on human cloning?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, the member, who serves on the health committee of the House, is fully aware that six months ago I put in front of that committee comprehensive legislation dealing with all those matters and asked him and his colleagues to study it, to look at practices in other countries, to listen to witnesses and to give us their best advice on whether it was the way we should proceed. It included a ban on cloning, plain and simple. That was to show respect for the parliamentary process, for the committee and for the member. Is he not up to the task?
Rob Merrifield Canadian Alliance Yellowhead, AB
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister should poll the committee to see where it stands on the issue. The opposition has been warning the government for three months about the need for this legislation and all we get are more delays. The government can ram through its contentious anti-terrorist bill but it refuses to deal with legislation that every one of us agrees on.
Will the minister take this window of opportunity and ban human cloning now?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, will the member take this opportunity to do what committees are supposed to do, which is to study the legislation and come back with recommendations?
We have just heard from the NDP that it has an idea about commercialization. We have heard from other parties about their perspectives. This is not a partisan matter. It is a policy matter. I would ask the committee, including the member, to do their homework, come back with recommendations and then the government will act. I hope the committee does that soon so legislation can be put before the House.
Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in responding to our concerns on Bill C-42, the Prime Minister said that it would still be possible to go to court. However, that is not the case for military security zones.
Will the Minister of National Defence recognize that one of the things that he could not do before but that Bill C-42 will allow him to do is to not only suspend the rights of citizens, but also to take away their right to sue the government for damages, losses or injuries?
Art Eggleton LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should read proposed subclause 260.1(10), which states:
Any person who suffers loss, damage or injury by reason of the exercise of any of the powers conferred by this section shall be compensated from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC
Mr. Speaker, I urge the minister to read proposed subclause 260.1(9) of the bill, which says exactly the opposite. If the minister cannot read, that is not my problem.
Will the minister recognize that this suspension of rights can last for up to a year and could be renewed for an additional year? Can the minister still maintain that this act will not change anything in Canada?
Art Eggleton LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, there will be every opportunity to talk about the different sections and how one compares to another in the deliberations on this bill, particularly in committee.
However, I can tell the hon. member that there is no suspension of the charter of rights and there are no powers other than the ones that already exist. This is a reasonable request for a reasonable application of protection of property at a time when there are concerns about the security environment in our country and in our world.
Diane Ablonczy Canadian Alliance Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, last night the Prime Minister took hypocrisy to new heights by posing as the defender of health care. The truth is that under his watch the Liberal government drastically cut health care support. In fact the federal contribution to Canada's health system today is less than when he became Prime Minister in 1993.
Why does the Prime Minister ignore this terrible record and blame others for trying to fix the mess he created?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, the member is completely wrong. Transfers to the provinces are higher today than they have ever been in the past.
What the Prime Minister said last night was that it was outrageous for Mike Harris to blame anyone but himself for the problems with health care in Ontario. He is a man who has put it beyond his own power to meet the health needs of the province by cutting taxes to the point where he does not have the money to do his job. It is his fault. He should blame nobody but himself.
Diane Ablonczy Canadian Alliance Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, this member is completely right. There is less federal cash for health care today than when the Liberals took office, and that is a fact. That does not even factor in population growth, inflation, an aging population and the exploding cost of new drugs and technology. None of that is factored in and the Liberals are still supporting health care less than when they took office. Instead of addressing this desperate situation, all the Prime Minister does is take cheap partisan shots.
When will the government be part of the solution?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, I am afraid ideology just met mathematics and she cannot make it add up. She is wrong.
The fact is that transfers to the provinces have never been higher than they are today. I will give the House an example. Since 1999 we have increased transfers to the provinces by $35 billion, all of it available for health. By the way, we also gave $1 billion for medical equipment and Ontario received almost $400 million of it.
We have repeatedly asked the Ontario government to tell us whether it cut taxes, paved roads or bought equipment with that money but it will not tell us. It should be accountable to Ontario taxpayers. It is Ontario's fault.
Walt Lastewka Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister for International Trade announced the launch of bilateral free trade negotiations with El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua. Could the minister's parliamentary secretary explain what Canadians can expect from new bilateral agreements with these countries?
Pat O'Brien LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade
Mr. Speaker, last Thursday the Minister for International Trade and his counterparts from El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Honduras announced the launch of free trade talks. This agreement would give our exporters advantaged access to the important central American market. It would also help us to further our foreign policy objectives in the region of the alleviation of poverty, promotion of peace and democracy, and economic stability and growth. These are very important talks. We look forward to a successful resolution of these talks.