Debates of Feb. 18th, 2002

Species at Risk Act

[Betty Hinton, Canadian Alliance, Kamloops, Thompson And Highland Valleys, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is an unusual circumstance for me today. I find myself, for the first time in a year, being on the same side with my colleague from Burnaby--Douglas. That does not happen often so it is a rare moment.

I agree wholeheartedly with many of the comments that have been made today. I suppose, besides expressing my concern and sympathy to the Canadian public if this bill passes as it stands today, I would like to express my concern and sympathy to members on the government side of the House who worked on the committee.

On the opposition side of the House it is not uncommon for us to have worked very diligently and very hard to put through very well thought out amendments which are defeated. It happens. We are on the opposition side and quite often that is what happens. However, for members on the government side to have worked so diligently alongside all other members in the House and to have put forward with great diligence amendments that would work, thoughts that would make the bill workable and to have that shot down must be very disappointing. They have my sympathy.

The government wants to amend Bill C-5 to reverse many of the positions that were taken by the Liberal MPs on the environment committee. This is another example of top down that has been happening all year. It has to stop. There is not a single Canadian in my opinion who would not want to protect endangered species. When a species is eliminated from this world, it never comes back again and we are all the worse for that.

This piece of legislation could be made very workable. The biggest obstacle it faces is the fact that there is no fair compensation in this package. It is unreasonable to expect anyone to allow someone else to walk in and say “This is for your own good. I am going to take your land away because there is a species on there that needs to protected and no, I am sorry, I will not compensate you for it”. Who in their right mind will accept that?

My colleague from Wild Rose has said in the House several times on this piece of legislation that it is promoting shoot, shovel and shut up. I agree with him completely. If the intent of this is to protect species, we have to do it with fairness. If we do not, then that is precisely what will happen. If we ask people to make a choice between the preservation of a spotted owl, for example, and their ability to make a livelihood out of a woodlot, they will choose their livelihood.

In the current situation with the softwood lumber deal, it will have a more significant impact. We cannot ask people to choose between their livelihood, their living and the species. It will not happen so there has to be adequate compensation. To do otherwise will ensure the demise of a lot of species, which would be a very poor thing to have happen in this country.

I do not understand a government that treats people like children. That is one of the hardest things for me to accept. There should have been a consultation process that worked. I am certain that during the consultation process members on all sides of the House relayed the feelings of their constituents on how this piece of legislation would affect them negatively.

I would think that our role in government would be to take all that into consideration and put together something that would work for all concerned. There were 130 amendments that came forward. I am proud to say that 60 of them came from our caucus. Unfortunately, after all the wrangling, all the discussions and all the talk that took place, they were thrown out.

Is it any wonder that people in this country have less and less faith in politicians, in the system and in law. If we want people to respect law and respect the decisions that are made by politicians, they have to make sense. The bill does not make sense. I cannot possibly support the way this is going. If there is not adequate compensation, I do not think the public of Canada will support it either. If the aim is to destroy species, then the bill is going in the right direction.

Request for Emergency Debate

[The Speaker]

I indicated to the House earlier today that I would return on the subject of the request for an emergency debate by the hon. member for Cumberland--Colchester respecting softwood lumber.

An emergency debate took place on this issue on October 4 last year and again on November 6. I note that it was the subject of debate of an opposition motion on March 15 last year on a supply day. In fact a motion was adopted on March 15, 2001.

The hon. member for Cumberland--Colchester indicated in his remarks that there was a deadline approaching on March 15. In the circumstances I have doubts about whether in fact there is a real emergency in this case, given the timeframes involved.

I note the various debates that have been held on the subject. I also note that there are five allotted days remaining in the supply period after tomorrow's allotted day, and the supply period ends on March 26.

Accordingly I feel there is ample opportunity for this matter to be discussed and not being satisfied of the urgency of the matter I am inclined therefore to disallow his request for an emergency debate at this time.

The House resumed from February 8 consideration of the motion that Bill C-49, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in parliament on December 10, 2001, be now read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.

Budget Implementation Act, 2001

[The Speaker]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, February 7, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill C-49.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

[The Speaker]

I declare the amendment lost.

The next question is on the main motion.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think you would find consent that the vote just taken on the amendment be applied to the main motion in reverse.

[The Speaker]

Does the House give its consent to proceed in this way?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member for Fundy--Royal added to this vote.

[The Speaker]

I assume the hon. member for Fundy--Royal will be added as a nay to this vote. Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

The House resumed from February 8 consideration of the motion that Bill S-22, an act to provide for the recognition of the Canadian Horse as the national horse of Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

National Horse of Canada Act

[The Speaker]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill S-22 under private members' business.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

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

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise again to speak to an issue I raised in October with respect to the drug Cipro. It reflected a lack of respect for the law when the then Minister of Health totally disregarded Canada's patent laws and purchased drugs which were not approved for use in Canada because a patent was already held by another company. The then Minister of Health is a former justice minister and now ironically the minister in charge of patent law in Canada.

The patent law is like the approach the Liberals have taken to GST and free trade. They campaigned against them but changed their minds as soon as they were elected. It means nothing to the Liberals to campaign against issues or policies and then change their minds.

Returning to the question I asked in October, the minister said twice in the House that there were two different versions to the Cipro story. I asked if he would indicate what the two versions were and what the correct answer was. I hope I can get an answer to the question tonight.

The question again is: What were the two versions and what is the correct answer?

[Jeannot Castonguay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to shed some light on this for the hon. member.

First, at the time we were in what many have described as a crisis. I think it is important today to remember what the context was back then.

The minister made a statement and I will reiterate it for him. He makes no apology for the actions of his officials. At the time, officials took steps to ensure that appropriate levels of antibiotics would be available for Canadians to protect them in the event of a biological attack involving anthrax. That was the situation we then faced.

The House knows very well that the affidavits of officials at Health Canada are within the public domain. They show quite clearly that Bayer was contacted not once, but twice, to supply the national emergency stockpile system with the antibiotic Cipro, but that Bayer could not supply the Cipro.

The obvious question then is this: If Bayer could provide enough of the antibiotic to ensure the health security of Canadians, why would Health Canada officials have to look elsewhere to secure the supply?

The only logical answer is that Bayer had said that they could not supply the Cipro. If Bayer could have supplied this antibiotic, Health Canada would not have had to seek a source of the antibiotic Cipro elsewhere.

In fact, it is Health Canada's responsibility to guarantee the security of the citizens of Canada by protecting the health of all Canadians. It is Health Canada's responsibility to ensure that sufficient quantities of health service supplies are available for Canadians in times of emergencies. Health Canada secured a supply of antibiotics for Canadians on Canadian soil.

Health Canada has taken measures to deal with a potential anthrax attack. The national emergency stockpile system is stockpiling the following drugs that are usually effective against a variety of organisms: Ciprofloxacin, Doxycycline-including Vibramycin-Amoxicillin, Tetracycline and Penicillin. The target number is 100,000 Canadians, while it was only 40,000 a bit earlier, before this crisis occurred.

These drugs are recommended as standard treatments for this infection by leading American health authorities, including the Centre for Disease Control, NATO and the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases.

In the United States, it is the most recommended drug for this disease, although it can cause side effects like any good medication, which is why we keep in our Canadian reserves other kinds of medication in order to be able to deal with this situation, if need be.

Instead of impugning the integrity of public servants who were acting in good faith at the time, we should congratulate those public servants for making the right decisions in a time of crisis.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I was not casting down on the officials who did this as the interpreter said. I was asking a simple question. The minister said in the House there were two versions of what happened. I asked what they were and which was the correct version.

We are not arguing there was a crisis or anything. We understand there was a crisis and the minister had to react. However, will the Minister of Health break the law in the future if there is a crisis? There are other alternatives but the easy way is to break the law. That is what happened in this case.

[Jeannot Castonguay, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, the member wants to know which of the statements made at that time is the right version.

Twice calls were made to Bayer to find out if it could supply Cipro, and it could not do it at that time. Again, the minister wanted to make sure that we had the drug needed to deal with a potential anthrax attack. We had to be certain that we had this drug should we face such an attack.

So the right version is that two calls were indeed made to Bayer, and the company could not meet our needs. Later it said that it could supply the drug to us in less than 48 hours, should we need it.

[The Speaker]

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 7.21 p.m.)