Debates of Sept. 29th, 2003

Pharmaceutical Industry

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen the walrus and I guess this minister will not be the carpenter.

Let us move on to the record of the government which helped raise drug prices.

Canadians need cheaper drug prices and Africa needs them too to fight AIDS. Last week some ministers said that they wanted cheap drugs for Africa, but as we know the big drug companies have come down very hard on this issue.

Therefore Canadians really want to know where does the government stand. With Stephen Lewis or with big pharma?

My question for the Prime Minister is this. Will Canada stand up to big pharma and let cheap drugs fight AIDS in Africa? Is the government willing to take on big pharma to help the people of Africa?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, let me tell the House how proud I was, like all Canadians, when we made the TRIPS agreement and when the whole WTO membership agreed to give privileged access to Africans so they could fight these pandemics of AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis.

Of course, we will want Canadian companies to be part of the effort and to contribute to alleviating the suffering and the difficulties they are having in Africa while respecting of course the intellectual property, as the TRIPS agreement requires us to do.

Justice

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in 1997 the same Liberal justice minister who said the billion dollar gun registry would only cost $2 million also promised Canadians that he would crack down on dangerous offenders by imposing tougher sentences.

Not surprisingly last Friday the Supreme Court of Canada told us that his changes in the law actually made it easier for dangerous criminals to avoid prison.

When will the Liberal justice minister bring forward legislation that protects the public by keeping dangerous offenders behind bars?

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the Criminal Code is composed of a mosaic of ways in which we deal with our criminals. Within that, the dangerous offender category has been very helpful.

What the Supreme Court said is that our approach to dangerous offenders is lawful and proper, and we will continue to use it.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is not a mosiac. It is a kaleidoscope and he is looking at the wrong end.

The government supports an open door policy of house arrest for drug dealers, rapists and child molesters. Dangerous offenders must be held in custody to protect the public from these predators.

Why does the government continue to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into a failed gun registry instead of passing laws and providing resources to police that would actually keep dangerous offenders in jail?

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the Supreme Court has been very clear and it said that it was lawful and proper for us to use the dangerous offender category.

What it did set out for the courts were ways and means of approaching this and how to deal with it within the court system. We believe in that. It is very important, vital, that we use the dangerous offender category to protect our citizens.

Cinar

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, another mysterious case involving the government is the CINAR affair. Our information indicates that the government has received a damning report, but is refusing to follow up.

Will the government tell us whether or not it received a report on the CINAR affair from the RCMP?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether a report such as the one the hon. member is describing was in fact submitted to the government, let alone whether it is in the public domain.

However, I will find out whether that is the case and get back to the hon. member as soon as possible.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, according to the same information, the RCMP report found that there were grounds for taking legal action against CINAR and its former directors.

Will the government tell us why no legal action was taken in this case? Who is blocking what?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, since I am unfamiliar with the alleged report and do not know whether it has been released, I can hardly comment on its content when I know nothing about its existence.

Of course, I will inquire about it, as I just told the hon. member I would, in order to give him an answer as soon as possible.

National Defence

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

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend Canada was host to the president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai. He was here to secure our commitment to send more troops to help his wartorn country. However only days before the visit, Canada's chief of defence staff said that the Afghanistan mission was stretching our military to the point that we may not be able to deploy troops overseas for up to 18 months after its completion.

Why did the Prime Minister waste the president of Afghanistan's time when he knew full well that due to the former finance minister's cuts, Canada simply did not have any more troops?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, 2,000 troops is a very substantial contribution, representing 40% of the ISAF contribution. Mr. Karzai came here, I was at the meeting and was grateful to Canada for providing 2,000 troops.

Not only that, but for the first time in many years Canada is providing a three star general to lead that mission. We are providing $250 million in aid to that country. We are focusing on Afghanistan. We are making a major contribution on several fronts, and this was recognized by President Karzai.

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

Yes, Mr. Speaker, but my question dealt with a year down the road.

If Canada is to extend our year long commitment to provide peacekeeping troops in Afghanistan, a decision needs to be made now to begin the planning and the preparation. For the current holder of the title of Prime Minister to state that Canada will not consider sending troops until our current 12 month deployment ends, is simply not practical.

Has the defence minister discussed the Afghan request with the real Liberal leader, and if so, what was his response?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should be aware that the principal focus of the government at this time is on the very important mission in Afghanistan. We are only a month or two into a 12 month mission. This is my highest priority. We are sparing no money and no effort to ensure the success of this mission. We have just been told, we have insisted upon the fact and they have accepted it, that a Canadian will be leading this mission in February.

We are thinking about what may happen in the future, but our primary focus is on the mission in which we are involved today.

The Environment

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government claims that in the Belledune matter we are asking it to intervene in an area of provincial jurisdiction, but this is not true.

Will the government admit that under section 35 of the Fisheries Act it has the power to intervene in and to suspend, for an undetermined period, a project like the one in Belledune, which could have a negative effect on fish stocks in this area? Will it admit that it indeed has the authority to act?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is surprising that we are being asked to get involved in an area of provincial jurisdiction. The province has the complete authority and ability to determine if the emissions meet federal standards, as it did. No water from the plant will be discharged into the waterways; it is a closed circuit. We will continue to monitor this company and to play our role in accordance with our responsibilities and federal legislation.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, according to the government, no pollution from the Belledune incinerator will enter the atmosphere. However, the only studies on this subject were funded by Bennett itself.

If the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans can obtain a full analysis of the project's impact, why does he not use section 35 of the Fisheries Act, which gives him the full power to act in this matter?

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

Mr. Speaker, we are confident in New Brunswick's ability to pass its own legislation and its own regulations. With regard to the fisheries, we looked into whether waste water was being discharged into the waterways. The company amended its applications and plans. This is now a closed circuit. So, no further investigation by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is necessary.

National Defence

[Rob Anders, Canadian Alliance, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Aurora aircraft patrols are crucial to maintaining Canada's national sovereignty. Over the past decade the navy has seen a 54% reduction in the number of Aurora flying hours. To cope with this shortfall, the government is now looking to hire private companies to conduct patrols along its east and west coasts.

Why are the remaining 18 Aurora aircraft in such bad shape that the government is contracting out their mission and selling Canada's sovereignty?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, that question is a little weird. Here we have arguably the most right-wing member of a right-wing political party telling us that privatizing part of the job is to deny our sovereignty.

The government takes a practical approach to this. We have a coastline longer than any other country's. It is likely that a mix of traditional military, a mix of high tech, like radars and satellites, cooperation with fisheries and some use of the private sector will provide the best solution.

[Rob Anders, Canadian Alliance, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in 1991 the air force had 725 aircraft. Today it has 350.

We have to defend our country from deadly drugs like heroin, from snakeheads' illegal cargo, and terrorists, yet the government is passing the buck and handing its national security over to private operators. My question is, will the smugglers get a chance to bid?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party on practical issues takes a practical approach. The opposition seems to be mired in ideology. The only problem with the hon. member is that he is mired in the wrong ideology because here we have a right-wing party mired in a left-wing ideology that says that any use of the private sector is a denial of our sovereignty. If you can figure that one out, Mr. Speaker, you are a wiser man than I am.

Government Assistance

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. He has already answered this question in a very fulsome way, but I am sure he would like to expand.

The maritime and Atlantic provinces have been hard hit by hurricane Juan. What is the government doing to help the maritime and Atlantic provinces cope with the effects of this hurricane?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for a very intelligent question. I have answered that question, but I have new information because between the first question and now, new information came to light.

I had earlier reported that there would be at least 200 Canadian Forces personnel in Halifax helping to clear the debris. I have since been informed that we will have 600 Canadian Forces personnel on the streets of Halifax.

National Defence

[Gary Schellenberger, Progressive Conservative, Perth—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence recently stated:

In light of the impending change in government and the uncertainties in the next few months, I don't think now is the time to make a big pitch for additional long term base funding.

We have an exhausted navy, submarines that will not float, Hercules that cannot fly, Auroras that cannot patrol, army trucks that will not run and Sea Kings almost as old as the minister. Is he telling this House that the present Prime Minister is responsible for these problems in the military and that his new leader will cough up enough funds to fix them?