House of Commons Hansard #14 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was accord.

Topics

Health
Oral Question Period

3 p.m.

NDP

Svend Robinson Burnaby—Douglas, BC

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Recently studies for the Romanow Commission have noted that trade deals like NAFTA and the GATS may block the expansion of medicare to include a national plan for home care, pharmacare and dental care.

Will the government take immediate steps to prevent any further privatization in the health care field to prevent private health care companies from claiming massive compensation under NAFTA and GATS? Will it stand up for public health care in Canada?

Health
Oral Question Period

3 p.m.

Madawaska—Restigouche
New Brunswick

Liberal

Jeannot Castonguay Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health

Mr. Speaker, clearly, under the existing legislation, all Canadians are assured to be provided with all medically necessary health care services.

Also, it is clear that this government is very aware of the importance of restructuring our health care system for the future. That is why we are enthusiastically awaiting the release of the Romanow report and the Kirby report, which will help us determine the way ahead.

I can assure all Canadians—as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs indicated—that our health system will be protected in spite of all—

Health
Oral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

Kyoto Protocol
Oral Question Period

3 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

André Bachand Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Mr. Speaker, the government of Quebec has voiced objections on the federal plan for ratification of Kyoto. This plan does not acknowledge the efforts of the provinces, Quebec included, which have already begun to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There is no provision whatsoever in the plan for reduction objectives by province.

Instead of a sectoral objective, why not, if as the minister claims, the provinces are necessary and mandatory for implementation of the protocol, use them as the unit of measurement for achievement of the objectives of the Kyoto protocol?

Kyoto Protocol
Oral Question Period

3 p.m.

Victoria
B.C.

Liberal

David Anderson Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, the measures taken so far by the province of Quebec and other provinces to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, have been quite considerable. I commend the provinces and industries that have taken steps.

At the same time, what we need is a system that applies the same rules across the country. We do not, for instance, want different rules from province to province for the lumber industry, since it operates in all ten provinces.

That is the reason we feel it is better to go by industrial sector rather than province. We are prepared to discuss this, prepared to speak about it with—

Kyoto Protocol
Oral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. minister, but that is all the time we have for oral question period.

Presence in Gallery
Oral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

Order, please. I would like to inform hon. members of the presence in the gallery of His Excellency, Henri Plagnol, Secretary of State for Government Reform to the Minister responsible for the Public Service of France.

Presence in Gallery
Oral Question Period

3 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear.

Business of the House
Oral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

John Reynolds West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government House leader if he could tell us what the business is for today, tomorrow and next week.

I also ask him if the government has any plans for legislation with changes to the Canadian Wheat Board that would allow western Canadian farmers to do the same thing as central Canadian farmers without having to go to jail.

Business of the House
Oral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell
Ontario

Liberal

Don Boudria Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I will take the last issue as representation by the hon. member for legislation. Meanwhile though, I will announce to him and to all colleagues the business of the House.

This afternoon we will obviously continue with the debate on the allotted day motion by the official opposition on this excellent initiative of the government to ratify the Kyoto protocol.

Tomorrow we will consider a motion for referral to committee before second reading of Bill C-15, the amendments to the Lobbyists Registration Act proposed by the hon. Minister of Industry.

I wish to announce that on Monday we will begin a take note debate during the day on the national discussion on the future of the Canadian health care system. There were questions even today, several of them actually on this issue. The government feels it is an important topic.

Tuesday and Thursday of next week shall be allotted days.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Supply
Government Orders

October 24th, 2002 / 3:05 p.m.

The Speaker

When the debate ended for question period, the hon. member for Western Arctic had the floor for questions and comments, which we will resume at this very moment.

Supply
Government Orders

3:05 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Jim Gouk Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, BC

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the presentation by the hon. member across the way.

She mentioned that there are scientists who back the concept of global warming. I acknowledge that there are many eminent scientists who do, but there are an equal number of eminent scientists who challenge those very same statements.

Her speech focused primarily on global warming. Does she feel it is industry that is largely causing a lot of this now and it is man-made problems in the generation of greenhouse gases? How does she explain the fact that a little over 20,000 years ago when this planet was covered in ice, there was no industrialization, there was no movement by man that caused the ice to melt yet the planet warmed up and the ice melted?

In 950 A.D. the planet entered into another global warming period which lasted approximately 400 years until 1350 A.D., at which time the planet, without shutting down non-existent industry, cooled down and went through a cool period from 1350 A.D. until about the mid-1800s. How does she explain these cycles in the environment on our planet when there was no industrialization to blame it on? Why does she blame it on the industries now?

Supply
Government Orders

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

Ethel Blondin-Andrew Western Arctic, NT

Mr. Speaker, rather than blaming or picking sides, I believe there is a great deal to be had by collaboration. I will not go through the history of world evolution and how we went through various stages and ages. I would like to deal with the issue that we have right now.

There has been irreversible damage done to our environment in various parts of the world. There is the whole issue of climate change to deal with. We as Canadian citizens, and especially as representatives of all Canadians, are very challenged to find ways to work together to come to some resolve on reversing those effects.

What we need to do is not look at the people who are vitriolically opposed to each other and who are so divergent in their views that they cannot come together. I believe there are more who would like to come together to collaborate, to mull over those partnerships that will allow the stakeholders to take ownership and responsibility for what has happened and help carve out an implementation plan that is workable for everyone. There is a possibility of doing that.

If we think that by offering explanations we can avoid our responsibility, we are sadly mistaken. We have to work together and collaborate. There is room for that. I think industry wants to play that role. There are many in industry who are responsible.

For example, BP Amoco has undertaken numerous steps to deal with the reduction of emissions. It plants trees. It has a huge project on that. There are many environmentally friendly industry stakeholders that want to be part of the process.

I do not think that being divergent in views and putting our best arguments forward is what it is all about. It is about putting our ideas forward that will work for the environment.

Supply
Government Orders

3:10 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Brian Fitzpatrick Prince Albert, SK

Mr. Speaker, I have visions of Kyoto meaning bigger government. We are getting into something called emissions trading. It seems that every single entity in the economy will have to be audited by somebody and there will have to be monitoring and tracking of this procedure. This would mean more government, more regulation and more government civil servants in Ottawa just to administer and deal with the matter.

Does the hon. member have any idea of how many new jobs in the public sector Kyoto will mean?