Debates of Oct. 6th, 2000

Suzanne Tremblay Rimouski—Mitis, QC

Mr. Speaker, the semi-conductor plant planned by Mosel Vitelic for the west of Montreal is the type of positive job creation project that deserves the utmost attention.

While the key players have made known the concrete measures they intend to put into place for the coming Mosel Vitelic plant, the federal government has yet to be heard from.

Can the Minister of Industry tell us whether the government has reached a decision on its participation in this project?

John Manley Minister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, the federal government is the one who proposed that Mosel Vitelic set up a semi-conductor plant in Canada. We are the ones who invited them to come here and consider various sites.

As for financial participation by the government, however, we need to be satisfied with their business plan and their technological plan, and negotiations are ongoing. We are not going to conduct them publicly.

Suzanne Tremblay Rimouski—Mitis, QC

Mr. Speaker, I can understand the minister's position of not wanting to negotiate publicly. But at a time when there is greater and greater consensus in Quebec—the Banque Nationale, the Mouvement Desjardins, the key western leaders—the minister is hiding behind pointless procrastination and pussy-footing.

Is he, or is he not, waiting for an election call before announcing his participation in this project?

John Manley Minister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I listened with interest to what these bankers had to say, but they did not indicate how much they were prepared to invest in the project.

We are all in favour of a project such as this. It is a great opportunity for the Greater Montreal area and also for Canada, but not at any price. The taxpayers' money must be administered with care. I am sure the hon. member agrees.

Francine Lalonde Mercier, QC

Mr. Speaker, the peace process in the Middle East is in serious jeopardy: at least 70 people have died in the past week, and the region has become a powder keg.

This week, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said he was concerned about the situation. Yet he could not find anything better to do than to ask Palestinian and Israeli leaders to negotiate.

What initiative does the government, which is a member of the security council, intend to take so that Canada can make a concrete contribution to the efforts that will bring a long awaited peace to the population of that region?

Ronald J. Duhamel Secretary of State (Western Economic Diversification) (Francophonie)

Mr. Speaker, we condemn the violence that led to these casualties.

We regularly, almost on a daily basis, urge both sides to find a solution, to negotiate and come up with a peace plan that will bring stability to the region. We do so regularly and energetically.

Francine Lalonde Mercier, QC

Mr. Speaker, this week, the Paris meeting failed when the Palestinian request for an international inquiry was rejected by Israel. Israel accepts Washington's involvement, but the Palestinians find that involvement too biased.

Canada is a friend of Israel and also a friend of the Palestinian people. In light of this status, could it not take the initiative and offer its contribution to help end the conflict in that region?

Ronald J. Duhamel Secretary of State (Western Economic Diversification) (Francophonie)

Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to do just about anything to ensure stability.

We even brought the matter up at the security council two days ago, in an attempt to bring together the two sides to find a solution. We will continue to urge them to find a way to get along and to work and live together.

Allan Rock Minister of Health

Mr. Speaker, it appears the Alberta health minister was musing aloud. There may be more details he wishes to make public.

All I can say from what little I have seen of these statements yesterday is that we have always believed that the responsibility for funding the health care system, as well as access to services under the health care system, should be universal. That is the principle from which we start and that principle should be respected throughout the system.

Alexa McDonough Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Bill 11 revisited. What prevents the government from mustering up the courage to say, plain and simple, that this is a tax on the sick? This is a tax on people with chronic illnesses, with mental infirmities, with physical disabilities.

Why does the government not take the opportunity today to say that it is wrong, that it is unfair, that it is not acceptable, and that it will not be permitted?

Allan Rock Minister of Health

Mr. Speaker, the member may know more than we do or the public does about what Minister Mar intended or said. Let us wait and find out what the man is saying.

The member can rest assured that if there is any proposal that will undermine the Canada Health Act we will be there to respond. The member should be joining with us in responding to and opposing the pernicious platform unveiled by the reform alliance yesterday with respect to health care. There is the real threat to medicare, sitting right over there.

Joe Clark Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of agriculture. It relates to the market revenue insurance program, which is cost shared by the federal and the Ontario governments. The minister knows that is an amber program under WTO rules like NISA and like crop insurance.

Will the minister give the House a firm commitment today that the federal government is prepared to extend the MRI program beyond 2001?

Lyle Vanclief Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food

Mr. Speaker, a year ago we extended that program for two years. We have said to the Ontario government, my counterpart in the province of Ontario, that we are prepared to discuss the future of that program. It is a companion program, and the right hon. member will know what I mean by that. We have been discussing the safety net program in the province of Ontario with the industry and with the minister in Ontario, and we will continue to do that.