Debates of March 1st, 2002

Committees of the House

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 47th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented earlier this day be concurred in.

[The Speaker]

Does the deputy government whip have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

Petitions

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present three petitions this afternoon. The first petition is signed by hundreds of residents of my constituency of Burnaby--Douglas on the issue of energy prices. The petitioners note that energy is a Canadian natural resource, but that we have little control over this important resource. They note that the big oil companies that dominate refining and gasoline sales are free to set whatever price they want at the wholesale level and at the pumps and that these prices do not have to be justified in any way to the federal government. They note as well that Canadian households and businesses rely on energy and therefore have no alternative but to pay the higher prices.

The petitioners therefore call upon parliament to urge the government to set up an energy price commission that would hold the big oil companies accountable for the energy prices that they charge Canadians.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition which is signed by residents of British Columbia and Alberta on the issue of Conscience Canada. It notes that the Constitution Act of 1982 guarantees freedom of conscience and religion in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It points out that the rights of conscientious objection have long existed in Canada and urges parliament to establish peace tax legislation by passing into law my private member's bill, the conscientious objection act, which would recognize the right of conscientious objectors to not pay for the military and within which the government would declare its commitment to apply that portion of their taxes to be used for military purposes toward peaceful purposes such as peace education, war relief, humanitarian and environmental aid and housing.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, lastly I have the honour of presenting a petition on the subject of the free trade area of the Americas. As the Speaker will see, this is a petition signed by literally thousands of Canadians, including many from my constituency of Burnaby--Douglas, and as well I note a number of signatures from the magnificent city of Kingston, Ontario.

These petitioners note that the Liberal government has conducted secret negotiations on the proposed free trade area of the Americas while refusing to make public the text that is the basis for these negotiations, although I will say it finally did do that. They note that the proposed FTAA would effectively extend NAFTA to the hemisphere, vastly broadening the reach of its investment provisions and would give corporations unprecedented rights to sue, intimidate and override democratically elected governments. They go on to talk about the impact of the FTAA on universal public education, health care and the environment.

Therefore the petitioners request that all texts that are the basis of the negotiations be made public and that any trade deals, including the proposed FTAA, which would preserve NAFTA style provisions that put the rights of corporations and investors ahead of the rights of citizens and government, be rejected.

Finally, they call for the adoption of a new approach to globalization that places social, economic and ecological justice above the profits of multinational corporations and establishes an alternative rules based system that promotes and protects the rights of workers and the environment, respects cultural diversity and ensures the ability of governments to act in the public interest.

[The Speaker]

I am sure the House appreciates that brief summary of the petition given by the hon. member for Burnaby--Douglas.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief. It is certainly a pleasure to present this petition to parliament on behalf of the citizens of the South Shore, who are calling upon parliament to enact an immediate moratorium on the cosmetic use of chemical pesticides until such time as their use has been scientifically proven to be safe and the long term consequences of their application known.

Committees of the House

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if the House agrees, I would like to propose again the following motion: That the 47th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.

[The Speaker]

Does the member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

Questions on the Order Paper

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, Question No. 100 will be answered today.

Question No.100—

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

With regard to xenotransplantation experimentation in Canada, can the government identify: ( a ) all research projects in progress or completed since 1995 within Canada that are known to the government or funded in whole or in part by the government; ( b ) the objectives, starting dates, sites, lead researchers, and sponsoring organizations for each project; and ( c ) the source (both commercial and geographical origin) of live animal materials used in these projects?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Health]

With respect to human research, xenotransplants, the live cells, tissues and organs from animal sources, are considered therapeutic products, drugs or medical devices, and are subject to the requirements of the Food and Drugs Act and the Food and Drug Regulations or the Medical Devices Regulations.

Pursuant to these regulations, sponsors of human clinical trials involving xenotransplants would be required to submit an application to Health Canada for approval before a clinical trial may proceed. The clinical trial review and approval process conducted by Health Canada applies to all clinical trials involving xenografts, cellular, tissue or whole organ, in Canada, regardless of who the research is conducted by, for example, hospital, university or pharmaceutical company.

On March 29, 1999, Health Canada issued a notice to hospitals on the clinical use of viable animal cells, tissues or organs to treat patients, notifying hospitals that any studies involving xenotransplants could only be conducted under the auspices of an authorized clinical trial.

To date, no requests for clinical trials involving xenotransplantation have been received or approved by Health Canada.

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, ON]

I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-49, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on December 10, 2001, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will continue by making some comments on Motion No. 2 which was moved by the Minister of Transport. I do wish he were in the House. He is not here right now. I think what happened in terms of Motion No. 2 is absolutely outrageous in terms of the procedure of the House of Commons.

To summarize again, the finance committee accepted a motion that I proposed to add two representatives of labour to the new board of directors for the new crown corporation that looks after security at the airports. This airport authority would have a board of directors of 11. The airports or the aerodromes would have two members on the board and the airlines would have two members on the board.

We had a representation made by Lawrence McBrearty, the national director of the steelworkers union of Canada asking for trade union representation on the board because there are a number of unions that represent the security workers. There are about 3,000 security workers in this country. The steelworkers union is the largest union representing those workers and represents most of the airports in the province of Quebec, in the city of Ottawa and in many other places around the country. There are also other unions that represent other workers and it only makes sense that the working people who are out there doing the screening have a voice on the board of directors.

The committee in its wisdom passed the motion, which would have two members of the trade unions representing the workers on the board of directors. This is what the committee did on Tuesday. On Tuesday it accepted the idea. Of course the trade union movement was pleased with this openness. It provided some fairness, justice and equity with two members on the board of directors from the airlines, two from the airports, two from the trade union movement and another five, including the chair, chosen by the governor in council, the cabinet.

It makes sense that the workers would be represented at the board of directors table. They are the frontline people. They do the screening. If we want to have a smooth process let us have both workers and management on the board of directors. It is not exactly a revolutionary idea. There are many companies in the country and around the world, public companies, privately owned companies and crown corporations, that do have labour representation on the board of directors.

Now here is what happened, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure it will interest you. We got a message from a member of the government saying that the Prime Minister's Office had a problem with two labour representatives but assuring us that there would be one labour representative on the board of directors and that the government would move an amendment at report stage to reduce the two to one.

I did not like that idea because I thought there should be two. There are several unions involved and this would have offered an opportunity not to divide the workers among the various unions but to provide a bit better representation for the people who work at the airports. However, I can understand the Prime Minister's Office being a little nervous. It really does not want to have too many trade union representatives on boards of directors of crown corporations.

That assurance was made to us. As a matter of fact, I think it was around 12 noon yesterday that the assurance was passed on by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance to the United Steelworkers public affairs director here in Ottawa at a meeting in the office of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. I was in attendance at that meeting where the parliamentary secretary said that there would be one member from the trade union movement on the board of directors, that the government or the powers that be were nervous about having two. The parliamentary secretary was acting in good faith. He is an honourable man. He had been told this.

He had been told this but then, later on yesterday, about 6.30 or 7 o'clock, I got a call from someone in the government informing me that the Minister of Transport would be moving a motion to reduce the two directors to no directors and no labour representation whatsoever. The minister obviously hung the parliamentary secretary out to dry and hung members of his own caucus out to dry and he shows utter contempt for the work of the finance committee of the House of Commons.

Why do we even have parliamentary committees? Why do we spend millions of dollars a year in terms of parliamentary committees and committee travel when a committee moves an amendment, accepts an amendment, proposes it to the House and the minister just says “no way, that's not good enough, we're not going to listen to the finance committee, we're not going to take it seriously”?

My friend from the Alliance Party--

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would seek unanimous consent of the House to immediately dispose of this amendment and reject it.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It seems to me that I have been caught flatfooted. I have just arrived. I just heard the end of the intervention of the hon. member for Regina--Qu'Appelle. I was conversing with the hon. Speaker making sure a transition was going to be made as smoothly as possible.

To catch up, we have a request for unanimous consent from the hon. member for Burnaby--Douglas.

[An hon. member]

To do what?