Debates of March 11th, 2002

The Environment

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, those standards will not be tougher. Let me talk about another point that is more pertinent to what is happening now. As I said, the government has already waffled on Kyoto. In addition it has refused to renew the funding for the research group that did the research which I referred to earlier.

Will the federal government commit today to extend the funding for the toxic research initiative under Health Canada and Environment Canada to ensure that the work of this lab and others continues? Yes or no.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, funding from the government on all environmental matters has been unsurpassed in history. We have worked with all institutions and provinces and will continue to do so. It is a priority of the government.

The member raises a specific point that I will take under advisement, and the minister will respond once he returns to the House.

Health

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last fall when officials from Health Canada ordered a generic version of the anti-anthrax drug Cipro, they broke Canada's patent laws. The minister said that his officials were responsible and argued that they acted in good faith and, besides that, he knew nothing about it. Now an access to information request has shown that the minister was indeed informed about the problems with the patent laws ahead of time but chose to ignore them.

Why did the minister pass on his chance to do the right and legal thing and instead break the very laws which he is now responsible for as the Minister of Industry?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, first, it is important to note that the documents released last week confirm and support exactly what was said all along about the series of events between Health Canada and Bayer. It is also important to note the memorandum in question simply lays out what should have been followed as the process under the law. What has been made clear is that the officials acted in good faith when they took another course.

As minister, I did not see that memorandum until after the order was placed with Apotex. Of course, as I have said all along, I did not direct anybody to place that order with any particular company.

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is not good enough to be in good faith. We have to follow the law. The minister knew that the drug Cipro was protected under Canada's patent laws, yet he chose to ignore them.

He could have done one of three things. If it was an emergency, he could have declared an emergency and got the drugs that way. Second, he could have asked the patent commissioner for authorization to produce the drugs under a generic producer, but he failed to do so. Finally, he could have picked up the phone and phoned Bayer and said “Listen, we need the drugs. Could we infringe upon your patent protection?”

He did not do any of these things. Why did he choose to break the patent laws of Canada instead of obeying the law like he should have?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, the member is going over ground well trodden.

It is very clear. First of all, the officials acted in good faith in doing what they did. In fact, they acted to protect the public interest at a time of emergency when people wanted access to medications. In any event, the record is clear. The documents of last week confirm and support all that has been said. At the end of the day, this government, as always, acted to protect the public interest.

Foreign Affairs

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last week the foreign minister and the Prime Minister were playing a good cop, bad cop routine over Israel, but they ended up just looking like the Keystone Kops.

The foreign minister was rightly booed by the Canada-Israel committee when he suggested that the Israeli government and Palestinian terrorists are equally at fault for civilian casualties.

After this weekend's suicide bombings in a Jerusalem café, does the minister still believe that military action to root out terrorists is the moral equivalent of those terrorists killing innocent civilians?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I categorically reject the suggestion in the question that I made any moral equivalence whatsoever. My speech was very clear. We condemned all acts of terrorism. The member is playing petty politics.

I suggest that the member check with his lords and masters in Washington. He will find that General Powell said very much the same thing I did.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it sounds like we hit a nerve, and that minister hit a nerve with the Canada-Israel committee last week when he suggested that in fact the Israelis are guilty of escalation when what they are guilty of is defending their security.

How can this minister continue to suggest that they are putting pressure on the Palestinians when they are continuing to finance the Palestinian authority through CIDA and when they have not yet banned Hezbollah?

When will this minister put serious pressure on Yasser Arafat so that he knows that his continued sponsorship and toleration of terrorism will not be accepted by this country?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, we have put pressure on Mr. Arafat. The Prime Minister has continually put pressure on Mr. Arafat. I put pressure on the speaker of the Palestinian assembly when he was here, in the House. We have continually put pressure on the government to do what they do.

We have also, as friends of Israel, urged Israel to do everything that will bring peace in the Middle East. That is all we urge, as friends with Israel, as respective partners in a search for peace.

Groupaction Marketing

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this morning's Globe and Mail reported that the public works minister is unable to locate a study which his department ordered from Groupaction Marketing Ltd, and for which it paid over half a million dollars.

Will the public works minister tell us whether he thinks it is right that his department should be unable to locate a study that cost us an arm and a leg?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in response to an earlier question today, I am certainly not happy that the document in question, which was prepared three years ago, is no longer available today.

That having been said, the letter which accompanied the document, in addition to supporting documentation, was provided to the journalist in question or, in any event, was offered to the Globe and Mail journalist, who was invited to consult this material later.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, the letter is costing us a half a million dollars. But it is the report we are interested in.

A responsible government is one which is accountable to the public for moneys spent or committed on its behalf.

Either the report does not exist, and we paid a half a million dollars to Groupaction in exchange for its $70,000 contribution to the Liberal Party of Canada, or the contents of the report are not fit to be seen. The minister can take his pick. Which is it?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, not surprisingly perhaps, neither, because that is not the answer to the question.

Both contracts were in fact prepared in accordance with Treasury Board guidelines. This is known; it has already been established. In both cases, there is administrative proof that the work was done.

That having been said, I agree with the member that the documents should still be available today.

Zimbabwe

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, by all accounts the election in Zimbabwe has degenerated into chaos as President Mugabe uses every means at his disposal to cling desperately to power.

The Commonwealth had an opportunity last week to take a forceful stand against a murderous regime, but thanks in large part to the actions of the Prime Minister, it failed to do so.

Why did the Government of Canada refuse to stand up against the Mugabe regime, which was responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people over the last two decades?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, Canada thought that one week before an election the wise thing to do was to let the people of Zimbabwe express their wishes.

The vote was held on Saturday and Sunday, and they are voting again today, because the people of Zimbabwe have decided to speak with their votes.

If it is proven after the vote that the election was not a fair election, the Commonwealth can suspend Zimbabwe, but I thought the best thing was to first let the people of Zimbabwe speak. If the election is not a fair one we made provision in Australia to make sure that action will be taken against the government.

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, all too often we see a wait and see approach from the government. Unfortunately we cannot tell that to the 20,000 people murdered in Matabeleland and in Congo in recent years. Over 20,000 have been murdered by this regime.

Over the weekend, the Prince of Wales said “if the Commonwealth could not stand up for liberal democracy and human rights, it deserved to be treated with international contempt”.

Why did the government choose to ignore human rights violations in Zimbabwe and further undermine the credibility of the Commonwealth process?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the actions of the Canadian government made sure that the Commonwealth remains united and that action of the Commonwealth can be proceeded with after the election. I think it was better like that. Some people who were at the conference told me that the opposition might wait. I said, of course, if the opposition waits it is because democracy might work in Zimbabwe. We will see next week if it is true or not. At that time the Commonwealth will be able to act, knowing all the facts.

Persons with Disabilities

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is essential that all Canadian children get off to a good start in life, including children with disabilities. These children and their parents often face additional challenges and need extra help.

Could the Secretary of State for Children and Youth please tell the House how the Government of Canada is helping children with disabilities and their families?

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Secretary of State (Children and Youth)]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada recognizes that children with disabilities and their families face additional challenges and we are committed to ensuring that they have the necessary supports to reach their full potential by having measures in place like the national child benefit and enhanced tax based support to persons with disabilities, which includes the families of these children.

In addition to that, we have early childhood development that recognizes that effective programming should be inclusive of and sensitive to children with different abilities.

We will continue to play a leadership role in empowering disabled children and their families.

Kyoto Protocol

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government has promised Canadians that there will be public consultations before a final decision is made regarding Canada's role in the Kyoto accord.

To date, consultations with the provinces and industry are ongoing, but Canadian consumers need to have input into the issue. When will public consultations begin and what form will these consultations take?

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, we believe it is extremely important that we have consultations in regard to Kyoto. That has already been started. There are extensive consultations at the provincial-territorial level. There are ongoing consultations with industry as well.

Of course Canadians will also have an opportunity. That has already started so that we get input from Canadians. This was outlined at the last ministerial meeting. We will continue to make sure that stakeholders and Canadians have meaningful input into the Kyoto issue.

Employment Insurance

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all across Quebec and Canada, seasonal workers in the softwood lumber industry are very concerned. They were laid off earlier than usual in the fall, and they have no idea when they will be called back in the spring.

In light of this situation, is the Minister of Human Resources Development prepared to follow up on the Bloc Quebecois' proposal to add 10 weeks of benefits for the unemployed, particularly those in the regions affected by the softwood lumber crisis?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, we have been very concerned about those who have been laid off in the softwood lumber industry and have been happy to know that the majority of them have been well served by the employment insurance fund.

In the context of partnership, we are working with the provinces as well, including that of the hon. member, which receives almost half a billion dollars every year, to support Canadians who are laid off, including those in the softwood industry.

Immigration

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

Mr. Speaker, before the parliamentary recess, both I and the member for Fraser Valley questioned the minister of immigration regarding the fraudulent use of IMM 1000 forms. The minister referred to two different issues in his answers. We know there is an ongoing investigation on the issue of the stolen forms, but my question is about the illegal use of recycled forms.

The minister said the RCMP was investigating this matter. My question does not require that he reveal any sensitive details about the investigation. Will the minister just simply tell us the specific date on which the RCMP began this particular investigation?