Debates of Nov. 25th, 2002

Kyoto Protocol

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, in his budget, the hon. Minister of Finance has included measures to assist the renewable energy sector. If this is insufficient, I trust that the hon. member will raise the point during the debate on the ratification of the Kyoto protocol, and indicate the policy he wants. This is a good opportunity for a good debate on renewable energy, as well as on our credits for other forms of energy.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today the parliamentary secretary to the government House Leader pointed out that parliament cannot ratify the Kyoto accord and that only the government can do so.

It appears even he recognized that the Prime Minister's commitments in Johannesburg to have the Canadian parliament vote on ratification and statements in the Speech from the Throne to bring a resolution before the House this year are meaningless. Perhaps he could explain that to the Prime Minister.

Now that his government understands that, will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us today in the House on what specific date his government will ratify the Kyoto accord?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, let me repeat for the third time in the last 10 minutes, before the end of this year. Is that understandable to the hon. member, or should I go slower?

There are many things that we bring to the House for advice and consultation which are not within the purview of parliament to make a final decision. They are within the purview of the executive.

We frequently however, at the request of the opposition and of other members of the House on the government side, bring items to the House so a full debate can take place. That I think is desirable.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of understanding; it is a question of believing in the government.

The auto industry continues to lose jobs and the future critical investment in this country is at risk. Labour, industry and 20-plus Ontario cities have repeatedly asked the industry minister to do something.

Will the minister come out of his slumber and finally work on a strategy to make Canada a leader in the development of environmentally sustainable technology for the auto industry? This will ensure we meet our Kyoto targets and defend our vital auto industry.

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, for the first time in our history the government has brought together all the interests to the same table: auto manufacturers, parts suppliers, labour unions, different levels of government, and auto dealers.

We are working together to develop a strategy to ensure that investment in the auto sector in Canada continues to grow. We are looking 10 years out to ensure that we continue to get our share of global investment. We continue to produce quality automobiles for the world.

Canada-U.S. Relations

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the acting Prime Minister. The comments of the Prime Minister's official spokesperson about the President of the United States threw Canada off our agenda at the Prague Summit and Paris. Now they are being used by the Iraq dictator in his war of words with Washington.

The Prime Minister's director of communications has done the honourable thing and submitted her resignation. When will the Prime Minister do the honourable thing and accept it?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, it is time that we turned our attention to some of the accomplishments that took place in Prague, including ones with which Canada is directly identified, especially the addition of seven new members to the NATO alliance and the expression of united support by members of NATO for UN Security Council resolution 1441.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let us be serious about this. The problem is precisely that we cannot turn attention to the international priorities that are important to Canada because the only thing that gets reported is President Chirac protecting the Prime Minister against his own bad judgment and the dictator in Iraq using the Ducros controversy as a means to further deepen tensions between Iraq and the United States.

Why does the government not put Canada first and accept the resignation of a director of communications who has become--

[The Speaker]

The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I do believe that it is time for the hon. member to move on and to begin to discuss some of the issues that were important as a result of the Prague Summit, including the expansion of NATO and the strong resolution on the issues in Iraq.

The individual in question indicated that indeed if the statement were made, it was one for which she apologized. I think that should be the end of the matter for now.

Health

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Justice Horace Krever studied the whole issue of tainted blood and on compensation he said:

Compensating some needy sufferers and not others cannot, in my opinion, be justified

Top federal bureaucrats have now been charged with criminal negligence for the 1980-90 events. Why did HIV sufferers of tainted blood receive compensation when 6,000 sufferers of hepatitis C from exactly the same federal bureaucratic mistake receive nothing?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said before in the House the government did respond to the recommendations of Mr. Justice Krever. That is why the government put $1.4 billion toward compensating and assisting those infected with hepatitis C.

As I have already indicated in the House there was a settlement reached among those victims who suffer from hepatitis C for the period 1986-90. That settlement, which was court managed, constitutes some $885 million and we have an additional $525 million to assist--

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Macleod.

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the tainted blood tragedy is Canada's worst public health disaster and the minister can be very precise with her words if she will.

I will ask her to be precise as I ask a precise question. The federal government compensated every single victim of HIV from tainted blood. Some 6,000 victims of hepatitis C received no compensation. Why is that?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated in the House before, for those pre-1986 and post-1990, the government has provided $525 million to assist in the care of those people.

I find it incredible that the opposition would suggest that the government has not dealt in a compassionate fashion with those who tragically suffer from hepatitis C, pre-1986 and post-1990.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the figures on health care funding in Quebec are very clear. The federal government has cut its share of health care funding from 22% in 1994-95 to 14% in 2000-01. This is a drastic cut in an area where it will be felt the most.

How does the federal government plan on explaining to the people of the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean that government cuts have cost them more than $28 million for health care alone? Can the government explain this to the people of Saguenay, Roberval, Dolbeau and Alma?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the hon. member is aware, we are all committed to working in partnership and together to renew our health care system. In fact, this collaboration has been a continuum, an ongoing partnership. That is why in September 2000 our Prime Minister and first ministers entered into an accord in which we agreed to put in an additional $21.1 billion of cash so that provinces could in fact renew and continue the process of revitalizing their health care systems.

I am sure that with Mr. Romanow's report this week we will see ongoing cooperation--

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the Minister of Health that we are still far from the funding levels that were in place before the Liberals took office. A quick calculation reveals that the region of Lanaudière was short close to $32 million for health care in 2000-01 because of the cuts the federal government has made since it came to power.

Does the federal government not understand that the only way to repair the mess it has made of health care is to at least restore funding to its 1994-95 levels?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to look at what the September 2000 accord provided in additional dollars, new dollars, for the province of Quebec: $5 billion in CHST transfers, $5 billion of new cash over the next five years; $239.5 million for medical equipment in the province; and $133 million under the primary health care transition fund.

In fact, we are all committed to renewing health care in this country and in fact the accord of September 2000 speaks to the commitment of the government.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Diane Ablonczy, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if the killers of more than a dozen innocent people in the recent U.S. sniper tragedy had made it to the Canadian border, they may never have faced justice.

These Liberals have decided that convicted and accused murderers will be welcomed in at our border even as other claimants are turned back due to the new safe third country agreement.

Why does the Liberal government pretend it will help fight terrorism at the same time that it is writing regulations to give safe haven to terrorists and murderers?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I find the way my hon. colleague has phrased her question rather unacceptable.

When we established the safe third country agreement, the main purpose was always to make the system consistent. However, given that the hon. member is herself a lawyer, she will understand that the rule of law must be respected. And we fully respect the Supreme Court ruling in this regard. However, there is no question of welcoming murderers. We are fully committed to protecting Canadian citizens in this country.

[Diane Ablonczy, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that the government does not want the U.S. rule of law to be respected. The U.S. snipers would be guaranteed Canada's protection under the new Liberal safe third country agreement regulations. Canada would fight to make sure they did not have to face U.S. justice for their murderous acts.

The new regulations set up a Liberal open door policy for migrant murderers and capital criminal fugitives and escapees. How does the government square this with its professed support for the war against terrorism?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, first, the safe third country agreement is one of the major tools that we are using to regulate, and we all know that security is a priority of this government. Not only are we respecting the rule of law of the Supreme Court, but there are also some cases like the Suresh case, where in some issues and some matters, we can, for the sake of the protection of our own security, use those proper tools.

I think that not only are Canadians willing for us to regulate the system, we have that balanced approach between openness and vigilance and we are doing our job.

National Defence

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at the NATO Summit, the Prime Minister announced an increase in military spending in the next budget. Such an announcement is at the very least surprising, given that the defence policy review is not yet complete, the government has yet to set its priorities and there has been no real public debate on the issue.

Does the Prime Minister not think that before he goes announcing that the defence budget will be increased to please his American neighbours, he should at least have the decency to wait until the ongoing review is complete and to launch a public debate on the mandate and role of the Canadian armed forces?