Debates of April 4th, 2005

Committees of the House

[Greg Thompson, Conservative, St. Croix—Belleisle, NB]

Madam Speaker, that question is so fundamental to this debate and so straightforward that it is almost difficult to answer because there is no answer. I would ask the Prime Minister to give his head a shake. That is simply unacceptable.

Again, let the government do the right thing and stand up and vote for this compensation package. Let us get on with doing what is right and move in the direction in which most Canadians would like to see the government move.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I wish I could stand here today and say that I am happy that hepatitis C victims were being cared for and that they were receiving the compensation they needed. Unfortunately, we cannot.

The Liberal government has yet to do the right thing and Canadians continue to suffer. I am saddened that after all the effort the official opposition has put into getting compensation for hepatitis C victims, all we hear from the government is excuses. How long do Canadians have to wait for the care they need?

The human tragedy that has resulted from the hepatitis C crisis is truly a scandal. The Conservative Party believes that all hepatitis C victims deserve fair and timely compensation. Our members have continually addressed the unacceptable length of time that the government is taking to provide the compensation.

The federal government continues to ignore the health needs of hepatitis C victims who were infected outside of the 1986 to 1990 window. With over $1 billion remaining in the compensation fund, funding is not the problem, so why the delays?

The government passed the bill onto the provinces to provide compensation to the victims. The Conservative Party challenges the Liberal government to clearly define federal and provincial jurisdiction for this health crisis. We believe there should be an established compensation formula for public health emergencies to avoid squabbles over the money while patients suffer.

The issue of hepatitis C compensation has nothing to do with parliamentarians debating the pros and cons in the House. It has everything to do with honouring and respecting the victims who contracted this disease through no fault of their own.

My speech today will focus on some of those victims in my riding of Langley who have shown courage and commitment to share their stories with the hope that someone in this House will listen and respond with compassion. This speech is about their stories.

Dawn Brown writes this:

As my Member of Parliament I need your help to act on behalf of Hep-C victims. My father, Robert Dennis survived an aortic aneurysm and subsequent open heart surgery in 1975 and required a blood transfusion in 1976. He acquired Hepatitis-C from that transfusion and was sent home after treatment where he managed an active lifestyle due to my mother's diligence. This was until 1996 when he developed advanced liver tumours which went into his back, on his vertebrae. A responsible blood supply system would have alerted him years ago to the dangers he faced and possibly done something to avert or delay his circumstances. My father, once an active grandfather of six, died a painful death from complications of liver cancer in 1998. We were robbed of our future with him by the irresponsible acts of a few, covered up by the many.

No amount of compensation will ever satisfy me for what has happened, but my father started this compensation campaign while he was still alive and my mother continued to call for action by the Red Cross after his death. Her marriage of 51 years ended with her acting as a caregiver and as a result she developed stress-related poly-neuromyalgia and suffered until her death last November. My family and I are outraged and insulted to be excluded from the federal government's failure to compensate my father after he served his country in the Second World War and asked for nothing in return.

Please stand up for the rights of all these affected families and let me know you will support including all Hep-C victims in the existing compensation fund.

Carol Woloschuk wrote me a letter stating:

In January 1980, I was seriously burned when my clothing caught on fire during an incident in my home. During my three-month hospitalization and for approximately another ten years, I received transfusions of multiple blood products for ongoing skin grafting and correctional procedures. During this period of time, I was never warned that I might have been exposed to the Hepatitis-C virus from tainted blood. It was quite by accident that I found out of this exposure, when I myself tried to donate blood. To this day, I still have not been contacted in any official capacity of possible infection as a result of these contaminated blood products

Living with Hepatitis-C has many downsides, a few of which I will attempt to outline:

1. A certain stigma, when relatives or health professionals learn of your condition, they fear contact with you.

2. Your health varies from day to day--often you are so fatigued you can barely walk from one room to another without complete exhaustion.

3. Inability to hold down a job due to this exhaustion and lack of stamina, which in our family has caused both emotional and financial stress, almost to the point of marital breakdown.

4. Due to a compromised immune system, what is a normal cold to an average person has put me in hospital with pneumonia.

She ends:

As a Canadian citizen I have always gone out to vote, but at this time I feel very let down by my federal government. I do hope that you and other MPs will fight on our behalf to see that we also are fairly compensated.

The last letter is from a constituent who wishes to have her identity confidential. She writes:

To give you a little glimpse into my life as someone living with Hepatitis-C: In 1981 I was a sleeping passenger in a single-vehicle crash on Highway One. The driver had fallen asleep at the wheel. I received life-long injuries that every day I am aware of. I had both my feet cut off and was trapped under a collapsed dashboard and passenger seat. My lower back was broken in three places. I also received tainted blood during the resulting surgery. From the time I was 17 to 28 years I could never get up in the morning, I was weak and never hungry, my hair fell out a lot and I could never understand what was wrong with me. I did not know about my contracting Hep-C until 2000. So many years have passed that I have lived with this thing damaging my body and my life. I am now 40-years old and suffer with health problems from this infection of bad blood. I read about other people my age dying from liver problems. That is very serious to me. My children would be devastated. I have three children, who also may have Hep-C, but I will not put them through the blood-taking process.

I have not been able to work since 1985 and my pension, should I live to age 65, will be $12.00 per month. I really need to have compensation because we cannot afford to live on one income and I cannot work. Our debts are more than we can pay and our house floods and needs repairs. We have no savings or investments and have a negative amount in our bank account. Our life is a struggle because I suffer from this disease.

These people need our help: 5,000 victims receive the compensation, victims of 1986 to 1990, but 6,000 hepatitis C victims have not received the compensation they need. As of July 2004, the hepatitis C victim fund had declined from $1.2 billion to $1.05 billion. Last year that fund earned $60 million more than it paid out. Since the fund was established, $378 million has been paid out to around 5,000 victims. Offering compensation to surviving victims is a no-brainer. To not offer this compensation, instead to offer excuses, is nothing short of cruel.

As we debate this motion in the House today, people like Dawn and Carol and others do not want to hear excuses from the Liberal government. They want us together to solve this problem. They want us to bring common sense and compassion into this House. They want us to do the right thing today.

I ask every member in the House to join me in supporting the motion to immediately provide compensation to all those who have contracted hepatitis C through tainted blood.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to indicate from the outset that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Nanaimo—Alberni.

The motion really highlights the shameful way in which the federal government has handled or, in fact, not handled this file. It is not a legacy that I would be proud of if I were one of them.

In the 1997 report, Justice Horace Krever recommended financial compensation for all victims of tainted blood. He said:

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

In a similar situation, when we were looking at compensation for HIV victims with tainted blood, the federal government, under pressure, finally did the right thing and compensated all people in terms of the issue of HIV victims.

However, when it comes to the hepatitis C file, the Liberals decided to narrow the compensation window to those infected between 1986 and 1990 and offered excuses why just those people were worthy of some kind of compensation. Thousands of Canadians have suffered and continue to suffer needlessly because of the Liberals trying to close the window and narrow the number of people who could benefit from some kind of compensation.

It is interesting to note there are some here in the House on the government side who voted against this the last time we had an opportunity in 1998 to address this wrong. The Prime Minister voted against it. At that time he said that we should forget the other victims and that we should keep it to this narrow group. The Deputy Minister voted to shut out thousands of victims. Today's Minister of Finance voted no at that time and allowed the victims to suffer. The Minister of State for Public Health did the same.

In an interesting bit of irony, the current health minister, while he was the Attorney General in the Government of British Columbia, was clamouring for this compensation for all those who were suffering. What happens in the brain pattern of an individual that just because they change a political stripe they can so change in what should be a principled position for helping victims? Magically, he changes his mind and says, no, that these people are not worthy of support.

We are obviously bringing out these inconsistencies because we want to see change. We want to see minds change. We want to see hearts change.

For those people on the list I have just read out, and for others, this is a great opportunity for them to actually change, to show that they are taking a more open approach to this, a more heart based and rational approach to this and not becoming politically blinded by how they have to vote on this issue.

There was a lot of encouragement last November when, because of some changes made in the ways in which committees are designed and how we can bring motions like this forward, we were able to bring this motion forward. At that time, the minister announced that the government would “revisit” the issue.

We do not want the issue just revisited. We want the right thing done.

When the government said it would “revisit” it, which is a stalling tactic, as we all know, in politics, it said that it wanted to maybe look at compensation options. What is the option to being compensated? Is it a pat on the back? Is it to take two Aspirin and call me in the morning? What is the option the government is talking about? There is no option. There is simply one plan, and that is to do the right thing.

The government said that it wants to look at the actuarial report of the compensation fund so it is bringing this human need down to a matter of dollars and cents.

Now I am a person who is concerned about dollars and cents but dollars and cents should never trump doing what is right. As a matter of fact, in this case, the dollars and cents are not the issue. I want to quote from the 2003-04 annual report of the hepatitis C compensation fund. When the fund was set up, $1.2 billion was assigned to deal with those in that narrow window, between 1986 and 1990.

The way the federal Liberals are talking, one would think the fund has been overdrawn. The government put $1.2 billion into the fund. Do members know how much is left? The fund contains $1.1 billion. Why would the federal government wait until June to look at the actuarial report? We have the report. This fund is in a gigantic surplus. Therefore practicality is not even an issue. Suffering, however, is an issue and the number of people who continue to die without being compensated is an issue.

I would never want to presume that a tactic would be delay so that more people die and less people have to be compensated. I am not going to presume that but the government runs the risk of being accused of that.

These victims and their families should be compensated immediately. We have heard from colleagues who have constituents with hepatitis C. We just heard a heartfelt presentation from a colleague whose own father was incredibly and horribly impacted by this situation.

I have quoted the dollar amounts of the fund itself but I do not want to bring it down to dollars. I just wanted to assure other members of the government who have been told not to support this that this is not a financial issue and that they can support it knowing the money is there.

Also of some concern, which is kind of a sidebar issue, is the fact that this compensation fund of $1.2 billion, which has $1.1 billion remaining in it, has not been subject to freedom of information searches or investigations by the Auditor General. We think that is wrong just from a fiscal point of view.

More important, two nights from now, on Wednesday night, government members will have the opportunity to right some wrongs. We will not jeer and sneer if they do the right thing and vote with the opposition on this. We will congratulate them for doing that. We will simply say that it was a mistake and that they did not realize it, but let us do the right thing Wednesday night.

Thousands of Canadians will be watching. Some people may think that Canadians have a life and they do not watch this type of thing unfolding. However those who are suffering and who will be losing their lives will be watching. Their families will be watching. One by one, as every vote is counted and as each member stands, and I hope each member will have to stand, people will be watching to see who will do the right thing.

Let us do the right thing. Let us get the compensation to these Canadians who are so desperately in need.

[Greg Thompson, Conservative, St. Croix—Belleisle, NB]

Madam Speaker, I have a question that I do not think I or anyone else in the House can answer but it is a fundamental question that one of my colleagues asked me and I want the member's sense of where he thinks the government is on this whole issue.

In his opinion, what prevents the government from doing the right thing, knowing full well there is enough money in the fund to do it, that any actuary outside of that fund would say yes, there is enough money there as evidenced by the $60 million in revenue that the fund generated last year, despite the fact that it paid moneys out? In other words, there is $60 million more in it than there was a year ago.

I would like the member to respond to that in terms of where the government's head would be on this. Why would it not do the right thing? Is it political stubbornness? What would prevent the government from doing the right thing?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a compelling question and actually a fair question.

I have to admit that on this one I will join my colleague in saying that I am not sure why the government would continue to be so stubborn uncaring on this.

I think there could even be times where it could be argued that just because we care about something does not mean we should fund it, but that is not the issue in this case.

I cannot come to a conclusion on why the government continues to resist compensating people who are clearly suffering when the funds are there. If I were to start down that road, I would then presume things about the government that would be less than honourable, and I would never want to do that, or almost never.

It is a serious question and it bears a response. On Wednesday night I think the government members can answer my colleague's good question by standing and voting for it. They have to let it go. We will not jump all over them for the past mistake on this.

I will be listening very closely to the former attorney general in British Columbia, who is now the Minister of Health, who said a number of years ago that this was the right thing to do. I will be hoping he and his colleagues will continue to say that on Wednesday night.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, the motion today is to concur with the seventh report from the Standing Committee on Health on the subject of hepatitis C compensation. For the record, it reads:

That the Committee report to the House, that it not only continues to urge the government to extend compensation to all those who contracted Hepatitis C from tainted blood, but that it call on the government to do so immediately, in recognition of the First Report of this Committee, the recommendations of the Krever Inquiry and the large surplus in the federal Hepatitis C compensation fund.

I also serve on that committee.

The Conservative Party and our legacy parties have been calling on the government for some time to address a wrong that has been perpetrated on victims of this disease who were tragically infected. I have had people in my own riding, as we have heard from other members today, who have been infected through no fault of their own, some of them through traffic accidents, who found themselves in need of either surgery or blood transfusions related to some hospital procedure. This disease has drastically affected their lives.

Tragically, while the government has continued to waffle on providing compensation, many of the victims have passed away. The longer we delay many more continue to be victimized without even the satisfaction of some measure of government compensation.

Members before me have mentioned the great fund that was established, some $1.2 billion, to satisfy the needs of these people, which sounds very impressive. After all these years, of that $1.2 billion, over $1 billion remains in the fund.

Interestingly, in response to this we have affirmations from the government side that it would like to compensate but it needs to find out if there really is enough money to extend compensation to the victims. Tragically, it is apparent that most of the money that was originally promised is still there. It reminds me of so many other government programs that are created to create an illusion of action and yet the substance does not follow the great words. It is an illusion.

It reminds me of the gun registry which was purported to protect the public. After we spent a billion dollars, we find that really it is not about protecting the public. It is more about penalizing duck hunters and farmers who are not the criminals in the country. It has very little to do with public safety but has more to do with providing employment in Miramichi. No doubt they need employment there, but there is secondary gain to the government in other manner.

Military funding is another example. We just had a promise of great increases in military spending from the government, yet within a week we had an announcement of a $186 million clawback out of the some $800 million promised. Then in the following year, of $600 million, there is a $245 million clawback. While all the media is assembled, there is a great announcement. While all the media attention is focused, there is a great illusion created of action. In reality we find out that the substance does not bear witness to the intent.

We might also talk about sponsorship programs which are purported to promote Canadian unity, but we find in effect there is secondary gain to the party opposite in the millions of dollars that go into a program.

We might wonder why the government does not just do the right thing and advance compensation to those who have been waiting, those who have been disappointed and those who tragically have been so ill-treated by the government and suffered as a consequence. It is time for the government to do the right thing and provide compensation to all the victims who have been so tragically affected by this disease.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

We have one minute left for questions and comments. The member for New Brunswick Southwest.

[Greg Thompson, Conservative, St. Croix—Belleisle, NB]

Madam Speaker, the question is very fundamental, but given the fact that we have a surplus today in the fund, that the fund is still generating revenues and in fact there is $60 million more in the fund this year than there was last year, why is the government so hesitant to do the right thing? Why does it not just simply compensate all victims, admit it was wrong, and carry on with doing what most Canadians would believe is the right thing to do?

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, there are so many government programs that result in illusions. I can only speculate as to why the government would not be keen to do the right thing, to jump in there. It has the opportunity. The money is in the bank. The government has been boasting about the great surpluses. If it turned out that there was a shortage, the government could easily top it off to meet the needs

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

It being 6:30 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings. There are two minutes remaining in the three hours provided to debate a concurrence motion on a committee report.

Pursuant to Standing Order 66 the debate will resume at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on a day to be designated by the government after consultation with the House leaders of the other parties. This date must not be later than 10 sitting days after the interruption.

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

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to revisit an important topic that concerns the safety of the brave men and women in the Canadian armed forces who put their lives on the line to defend our security and our safety in this country.

I have the honour of having CFB Moose Jaw located in the great constituency of Palliser. It is a base which not only houses the NATO training facility but it is home to Canada's own Snowbirds.

I would like to take this opportunity once again to say how honoured I am to represent the men and women of CFB Moose Jaw in the House of Commons, and how fortunate both I and the residents of Palliser are to have this symbol of Canadian excellence located in our own backyard.

As the members of this House are well aware, Canada's Snowbirds and everyone at CFB Moose Jaw experienced a great tragedy last December, when the planes piloted by Captain Miles Selby and Captain Chuck Mallet crashed mid-air. That crash resulted in the death of Captain Selby and injury to Captain Mallet. The loss of Captain Selby was truly a national tragedy, as was evident by the outpouring of emotion and sympathy from Canadians across the country.

While we know that the military continues to take every precaution to ensure that such a tragedy will not happen again, we also have in place a 15 member emergency ground search and rescue team, or GSAR, whose job it is to rescue downed pilots in cases of emergencies.

The GSAR team on that fateful day last December responded quickly and professionally. They reached the crash site 72 kilometres away in 47 minutes, which is an incredible response time by truck. As the investigation into the crash confirmed, there was nothing that the members of the GSAR team could have done that day to save Captain Selby. Thankfully, Captain Mallet's injuries were not life threatening.

The question I have raised is: What can the government do in the future to ensure that we have the best possible emergency rescue system to support the pilots at 15-Wing Moose Jaw?

Cuts to the military authored by the Liberal government in the mid-1990s were responsible for the loss of three military helicopters at CFB Moose Jaw, three helicopters which used to be on standby for emergency rescue duties and ready to rescue downed pilots. It is imperative that in the event of an accident in the air that a rescue team have the capability to reach downed airmen as soon as humanly possible.

This government has a responsibility to reconsider its decision of a decade ago to eliminate the military helicopters at CFB Moose Jaw. Those helicopters were there for a reason and bases in Cold Lake and Bagotville have rescue helicopters.

The Minister of National Defence has told this House about the network of grid roads in Saskatchewan that rescuers can use. These same gravel roads existed in the mid-1990s. Many of these roads are virtually impassable in the snow and ice of our winter and the mud of spring. What if a downed airman parachutes into a coulee or into Old Wives Lake, as has happened?

The Minister of National Defence has indicated to me privately outside this chamber that he would take another look at this issue. I ask for a commitment in this House. Will the minister or his designate commit today to doing the right thing and take another look at providing funding for a helicopter at CFB Moose Jaw that would support the efforts of the ground search and rescue team?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Palliser for his comments and his question, which is extremely important given the tragic accident that occurred.

Over the years, the Snowbirds have embodied the bravery, professionalism and teamwork that is displayed by all of our military personnel here in Canada and throughout the world.

The Snowbirds are excellent ambassadors for Canada and the Canadian Forces. The discipline, skill and commitment to excellence that they demonstrate on a daily basis can be found in all of the men and women who serve in the Canadian Forces.

Millions of spectators across North America have seen the Snowbirds perform over their 35 years in existence and can attest to the inspirational qualities of this impressive unit.

However, the tragic accident that took the life of Captain Miles Selby on December 10, 2004, was a reminder of the risks that the men and women of the Canadian Forces face on behalf of their country, as the hon. member has pointed out to the House this evening.

I would like to again take this time to express to the family of Captain Selby the condolences of the Government of Canada, as well as the appreciation of all Canadians for Captain Selby's dedicated service. He was a fine young man. He had a great wife and it was a great opportunity for the two of us to meet. I also met with his family and shared with them their sadness at the funeral.

The Canadian Forces try to train their personnel as well as possible in order to minimize the risk of accident. The Canadian armed forces are, in fact, among the best trained in the world, and we can take pride in their performance in Canada and abroad.

The Canadian Forces also make every effort to maintain the highest search and rescue standards in order to keep loss of life to a minimum if there is an accident.

The most appropriate rescue response depends on a number of important factors, including terrain, weather and the quality of local infrastructure.

The hon. member has raised in the House and with me the appropriateness of the use of helicopters in these circumstances. I want to assure him that the force has looked at this option.

Helicopter rescue is not always the best option. For example, an ambulance can travel by road in weather that would ground a helicopter. Helicopters must also identify safe places to land while road vehicles can negotiate through rough terrain.

In southern Saskatchewan, local topography and northwest flows of cold Arctic air make winter flying conditions unreliable at the best of times. This is not to say that helicopters do not make good rescue vehicles, but rather that their use must be evaluated based on all of the factors involved.

In 1994 the air force wing in Moose Jaw conducted a thorough examination of its search and rescue requirements. It took into account factors such as the nature of flying being conducted, common types of accidents, the distance of most crashes from the base, common weather conditions and terrain. The study concluded that the wing did not require the support of a dedicated search and rescue helicopter fleet which explains to the hon. member for Palliser why that was discontinued.

This is an area of training that has very good road access as the member pointed out and civilian infrastructure, unlike other more remote training areas such as Cold Lake and Bagotville.

The study determined that within a 100 kilometre radius of the wing, there were more than 600 kilometres of provincial highway open for the entire year, and more than 6,000 kilometres of municipal roads that were designated as all-weather roads.

The decision to rely on ground search and rescue in Moose Jaw was validated by the fact that in this case civilian rescue responders arrived at the scene within minutes, well before medical assistance could have arrived by military transport either by air or by road.

We are satisfied with the search and rescue response to this incident. The crash site was accessible by road and the rescue team acted immediately. In fact, the commanding officer of the Snowbirds said the response was entirely appropriate and that he was extremely impressed with the reaction time.

As the hon. member mentioned, an investigation is presently going on. If any recommendations come out of that investigation, we will look at what additional measures should be taken on the base.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the minister's comments regarding the fact that the Snowbirds represent the excellence of our military. I too would like to again take this opportunity to express my deep condolences and those of my wife to Captain Selby's family.

The request that I put forward though is fairly simple. I have asked the minister to commit his government to reviewing whether or not a rescue helicopter is needed at CFB Moose Jaw. Will the government at least give those best equipped to make this decision the ability to make the decision?

Our men and women in uniform know all too well that there are finite resources available. I think all members would agree that they do a remarkable job for this country with the resources that they have been given. However, we cannot try to save money when it comes to issues of basic safety.

Given the vast expanse of land and some water over which planes from CFB Moose Jaw fly, and the circumstances which could be encountered in a search and rescue scenario, one could certainly make the argument that a helicopter is warranted. That was the conclusion reached at one time, a decision that was reversed with Liberal funding cuts to our military in the mid-1990s.

Now that the government has started to move toward restoring much needed funding, is it willing to revisit the decision to withdraw military helicopters from CFB Moose Jaw?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member made the point that at one time there were helicopters there. I explained to the House that this was looked at, and in terms of the terrain, it was the logical reason to remove the helicopters. In fact, access by road made a much better solution to the problem. In this case, the response time, as the hon. member himself admitted and stated quite rightly, was excellent.

I have told him that, if the board of inquiry in the investigation of the accident reports something that would show us that we need to re-examine that decision, I will re-examine it. We should certainly wait for that accident investigation report. We should not act just because of speculation, but rather look at what has been planned well by our military to deal with this situation.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, all over the world, courts and authorities are reacting to the various security certificate processes in place in their respective countries.

In Great Britain, New Zealand and even the United States, the conclusion has been reached that it is impossible to imprison an individual without laying charges against him. It has also been concluded that permanent residents have rights and that those rights are being trampled on by certain procedures such as security certificates.

The Bloc Québécois understands the importance of public security and understands that special measures need to be taken in special circumstances.

I would, however, like the minister to explain to us how he can go so far as to hold men in detention for years without any charges being laid, as he is doing at present.

Let me explain. The Bloc objects to the burden of proof, which requires the certificate to be maintained as long as there are reasonable grounds to believe the person is guilty. This belief in guilt is contrary to the concept of presumed innocence, which is one of the foundations of our legal system. We want to hear the minister's justification for contravening the very basis of our legal system in this way, even if it is in the name of public security.

The Bloc is also very concerned that the decision with respect to the reasonableness of the security certificate is left to the discretion of a single judge, without any possibility of appeal. The basic principles of law should apply to all refugees and all permanent residents.

Moreover, the Bloc condemns the double role of a judge who has to both decide the issue and act as defence counsel in hearings from which the accused and his or her lawyer are excluded. The Bloc asks that the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which allows foreign nationals and landed immigrants to be arrested without warrant, be amended.

It is requested that the definition of the rights of permanent resident be considered on its merit by a tribunal, and not by a member of the executive, given that, like a citizen, a permanent resident has the right to be treated fairly, without secret evidence or ex parte procedure, that is, without the presence of a witness.

The Bloc Québécois believes that the current provisions and standard of proof are excessive and discriminatory.

Like a citizen, the permanent resident has the right to be heard before an independent tribunal. He has the right to equality before the law. He has the right not to be exposed to arbitrary detention and the right to be released on bail. He has the right to appeal and to request a judicial review.

We are therefore anxious to understand the minister's arguments supporting such a procedure depriving permanent residents of their most fundamental rights and to understand why he is denying them a fair and equitable trial like anybody else. Canada's credibility and transparency would be improved.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, I rise today in response to the request put to this House by my colleague, the member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges, as to whether the government intends to review the legislation governing the security certificate process.

To begin, allow me to clarify a few misconceptions regarding security certificates.

First, the security certificate process is pursuant to provisions in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and not the Anti-Terrorism Act. The use of security certificates predates the September 11 attacks. In fact, security certificates have existed in one form or another for over 20 years.

Second, the security certificate provides a means to ensure that Canada's immigration laws are not misused by the very few who would seek to undermine the security of Canadians and the multicultural society we have built together. Given the serious consequences of issuing such a certificate, it is only used on a limited basis in very serious cases for individuals who present the highest level of risk.

Third, the certificate process allows for the removal of permanent residents or foreign nationals who are inadmissible to Canada on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, serious criminality or organized criminality. A Canadian citizen cannot be the subject of a certificate.

Over the years, there have been several constitutional challenges to the security certificate process, yet Canadian courts have repeatedly upheld it. The Supreme Court of Canada, in fact, has validated the security certificate process, ruling that the process does not breach the principles of fundamental justice and that the process strikes an appropriate balance between the individual's right to procedural fairness and the interests of the state in national security.

While the courts have repeatedly upheld the security certificate process as constitutional, the government acknowledges the decision of the Subcommittee on Public Safety and National Security of the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to undertake a review of the security certificate provisions. As such, we welcome its review and await its recommendations.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is obvious that the current process lacks a framework. The security certificate process puts families in the terrible situation of seeing one of their members imprisoned and threatened with deportation, all as part of an unfair process that interferes with the balance between security and individual rights.

The current process involves serious violations of fundamental rights, particularly hearings held in the absence of the accused and the lack of an appeal procedure.

If there are fears of threats, let there be a trial. In fact, it is not true that we have the right to arbitrarily throw people into prison. If they are guilty, if there is evidence against them, let them be charged and not held improperly without charges. It is simply unreasonable and abusive.

Moreover, I am pleased to hear that the discussion here is not about the Anti-terrorism Act but the Immigration Act. That is the one I was referring to.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Madam Speaker, let me remind my honourable colleague that the government has a responsibility to ensure the public safety of all Canadians.

Canada has a legitimate and compelling interest in protecting national security. As we all know, in matters of national security the cost of failure can be high.

That being said, only 27 security certificates have been issued since 1991. As I have already stated, the security certificate process is undertaken in exceptional circumstances.

The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld this process and the government will continue to issue security certificates in those exceptional cases where it is deemed necessary to protect public safety.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to address an important issue for my constituents. Specifically I rise with respect to the offshore oil and gas moratorium that exists right now in the Hecate Strait off the Queen Charlotte Islands, sometimes known as the Haida Gwaii.

I chose to speak again on this issue, as I have raised it a number of times in question period and perhaps the rhetoric is too strong and the emotions too high for the minister to take the chance to offer me a direct and clear answer. I seek an answer again because there is much confusion and there are mixed signals coming from the government on this important issue.

Just recently I was talking to members of the Haida on the Queen Charlotte Islands, who are engaged in a battle over resources allocation, in this case timber supply. This issue also speaks to this control.

Recently the government engaged in three processes to look at lifting the offshore oil and gas moratorium. Two of them have come back very conclusively letting the government know without a doubt that the people engaged in, first, the Priddle panel, and second, the first nations engagement process, are decisively against lifting the moratorium for offshore oil and gas exploration in Hecate Strait. Seventy-five per cent of the people engaged in the Priddle panel's investigation said not to lift the moratorium and 100% of the first nations consulted said not to do this.

This is about the ability of first nations and people in the northwest of British Columbia to have and maintain the right to control and make decisions about the resources that affect their lives and their futures.

The government said that there is a need for more and sound science, but I will quote from the report:

There was near consensus among participants that there are significant information gaps regarding biophysical [baseline] data and environmental and socio-economic impacts for the [Queen Charlotte Region]....

This is significantly important. One of the questions I hope the parliamentary secretary's notes address is how much the government will be investing in this baseline research, in this need to cover off the abhorrent lack of knowledge that we have of this region before any concept of seismic testing or any far-fetched notion of drilling could exist.

There is also a question of certainty. Industry and people who live in resource-based economies are often looking for some sort of certainty within legislation.

The government will say that it is endeavouring to set up a regulatory environment similar to the east coast's, which will provide certainty and safety. The recent oil spill off the east coast and many of the other spills that have existed in other regulatory environments that were claimed to be safe are disproving the ability of that assurance to make people feel safe about the ocean, the most important thing in that area of the world.

The last question I would put to the parliamentary secretary, and I am sure his notes will address this, is whether there is good faith existing on this file, whether there is good faith on the part of the government. Or is there a sincere effort to have negotiations with the province of British Columbia, which is rabid for this project, regardless of how inconsistent the proof is coming back and regardless of how little industry is actually interested?

Is the federal government engaged in this process of setting up a regulatory environment? If so, does that not speak against what I heard from the minister when I asked him about this in the House? It was on the day that the Kyoto accord came into effect, by the way, and he said the government will have full consultation with the government and with the industry stakeholders, until, it seems, it gets the conclusion it wants, which seems to my mind to be that it would like to lift the moratorium.

I would like the parliamentary secretary to clear the air on this, to provide certainty for people and to return the feeling and strong sentiment that people in the region are ultimately the ones who will control the risk associated with resource extraction.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member. I know this is a critical issue for his riding and that he is very thoughtful of the environment. I appreciate hearing his views on this topic.

It will take some time for the government to review all the information on this important issue. It is premature to speculate when exactly we will be making the decision. To answer now before giving due consideration to all the reports submitted to us would be irresponsible.

Three reports were completed under the federal review, one on science, one from the public review, and one on the first nations engagement. These will help the Government of Canada to assess whether or not to lift the moratorium and under what conditions. Additional information such as the report provided to the minister by the Nisga'a nation will also be considered. Impacts on the environment and mitigation measures will be important considerations in our assessment of the B.C. offshore moratorium.

The Royal Society of Canada's report released in February 2004 set out to identify scientific gaps that may need to be filled should activity be resumed offshore B.C. The report studied extensively the issue of potential environmental impacts. It is this type of thoughtful scientific input that will inform our deliberations on the B.C. moratorium.

One of the key drivers behind our examining the federal moratorium is the significant resource potential off the west coast. Relative to the east coast offshore resources in this area have scarcely been explored. Where there has been exploration and development of that potential off the coasts of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia in a span of less than five years of production the offshore industry has become a critical component of the economies of those provinces.

The government is committed to ensure that the development of our natural resources strikes a balance between our economic goals and our social and environmental obligations.

The public review panel provides four options for consideration by the Government of Canada. Concerns noted include the need to identify and address first nations issues, conduct socio-economic and biophysical studies, define the regulatory and fiscal regime, and define marine protected areas. It is better that we focus on looking at how to reply to those who raise concerns in a thoughtful and analytical way than put all our efforts into debating whether the panel's head count is the best way to take public policy decisions.

The first nations report indicated unanimous support for maintaining the moratorium at this time, but it also indicated that given more time and resources many first nations would be interested in continuing the discussion regarding offshore oil and gas. Here, too, the first nations raised similar concerns as to those raised by the public review panel which warrant further consideration. These include, as the member mentioned, filling in information on scientific gaps and capacity development.

The Government of Canada is committed to ensuring the development of our natural resources strikes a balance between our economic goals and our social and environmental obligations. The B.C. offshore holds a potentially significant resource, as much as that identified in the Jeanne d'Arc Basin off Newfoundland and Labrador, but it is also home to some ecologically sensitive areas that will also need to be considered as we move forward in making our decision on the moratorium.

I would encourage anyone who has asked for a hasty decision on the west coast moratorium to sit down and give all the reports and other information a thorough read before jumping to any conclusions as to the best outcome.

The government will give thoughtful consideration to all this information before making any final decision.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, there was an obvious omission so I will ask the question again. With respect to this thoughtful consideration, is the government at this point involved in negotiations over the regulatory environment? That is important. What investment in the obvious research is required? There was a near consensus among participants that the information is missing. Because money is required for this, what is the amount of money needed to enable the first nations and also the communities up and down the coast to make the research happen that is required as the government says for this thoughtful process?

Lastly, there is an interesting irony that is constantly put forward that we need to lift the moratorium to understand how much oil is out there, because we do not know and at the same time there is always this indication that the resource is vast. We cannot have it both ways. Either we do not know and it could be nothing, or we do know and we do not need to lift the moratorium.

Specifically, are we in negotiations to set up the regulatory environment? This is important. What amount of investment is the federal government making in filling in those crucial scientific and socio-economic gaps that have been identified time and time again as being imperative to any consideration on offshore oil and gas exploration?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, as I said before, we have to deal with the massive amounts of information that we already have. The public review panel provided four options and included a number of things that need to be addressed, such as the first nations issues, the socio-economic and biophysical studies, the regulatory and fiscal regime, and the marine protected areas. We need to spend our time studying and analyzing all the information and reports.

The member asked me to speak from the heart. This is a very significant decision in terms of the environment of the area and the potential socio-economic impacts on the economy and on the lives of British Columbians. I would not want to be part of any government that did not significantly consider all the information that there is to date and explore any unanswered questions before making a final decision.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

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 7:01 p.m.)