House of Commons Hansard #16 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was health.

Topics

Health
Oral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Bloc

Pauline Picard Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Kirby report has proposed two approaches to increasing the share of health care funding, either a 1.5% increase in the GST or a variable national health insurance premium.

Since the federal government already has a substantial financial margin available to it, will it confirm, unequivocally, its rejection of these two scenarios?

Health
Oral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Vaughan—King—Aurora
Ontario

Liberal

Maurizio Bevilacqua Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)

Mr. Speaker, of course we will examine the Kirby report. I want to make something very clear to the House and to the hon. member. We will not be using the GST to fund health care in this country.

Health
Oral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Bloc

Pauline Picard Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, the federal government's surplus for 2001-02 was close to $9 billion. The Bloc Quebecois estimates that the surplus for the current year, 2002-03, will be about $10 billion.

Instead of getting us to debate a meaningless motion here in the House today, should the government not be consulting us on how much of the surplus ought to be transferred to the provinces for health care?

Health
Oral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Edmonton West
Alberta

Liberal

Anne McLellan Minister of Health

Mr. Speaker, I presume in today's take note debate there is absolutely nothing stopping hon. members from sharing their views as to what part of any surplus should be spent on health care. In fact, I encourage hon. members to provide us with their insight and opinions.

Kyoto Protocol
Oral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

James Moore Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC

Mr. Speaker, a declaration passed unanimously by the National Assembly of Quebec on the implementation of the Kyoto protocol states that:

The federal government's proposal does not encourage conversion to lower emitting energy sources and deprives Canada of less costly opportunities for reductions.

When will the government reveal the real estimates of the costs of the Kyoto protocol?

Kyoto Protocol
Oral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Kitchener Centre
Ontario

Liberal

Karen Redman Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, there will be economic costs associated with addressing climate change. Our analysis shows that the impact on jobs and economic growth is quite modest relative to the strong growth expected over the next decade. By spreading the burden across all sectors of the economy, regions as well as consumers, this impact will be manageable by everyone.

Kyoto Protocol
Oral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

James Moore Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC

Mr. Speaker, what every single province is looking for is a plan with real numbers, with real answers to real questions and the government does not have them.

Last week the Ontario legislature voted against passing a resolution to endorse the ratification of the Kyoto accord. The premier said that it is unworkable and would put hundreds of thousands out of work.

When will the government present a workable plan that does not endanger the jobs of thousands of Ontarians?

Kyoto Protocol
Oral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Kitchener Centre
Ontario

Liberal

Karen Redman Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that provincial views on the draft plan we tabled in the House last week will help define our approach as we move forward on action on climate change.

We are listening to the concerns of the provinces and industry and we will adjust our approach as we go forward. We will continue to consult to prepare a made in Canada plan. We also have to make decisions. Global warming will have a serious repercussion on our environment and public health.

We are looking at a slight slowdown in growth, but we will continue to create jobs in Canada with the new research and development jobs that are created by this initiative.

National Defence
Oral Question Period

October 28th, 2002 / 2:35 p.m.

Bloc

Claude Bachand Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the Minister of National Defence stated that he needed more money for the Canadian Forces.

Could he tell us for which programs and specific mission the funds he is requesting would be earmarked?

National Defence
Oral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Markham
Ontario

Liberal

John McCallum Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, it is true that I said I would seek increased defence spending, and I have yet to specify what for exactly.

It is also true that there is much public support for defence. A survey conducted by Mr. Marzolini revealed a 33% increase in public support over the past five years. We now have the support of the Toronto Star , Thomas Axworthy, Lloyd Axworthy and many other Liberals.

National Defence
Oral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Bloc

Claude Bachand Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, this is surprising. The minister is telling us that he will seek increased funding, but that he does not know what for. That is what he just said. What is worse is there has not been any substantive debate on the role the Canadian armed forces should play in the years to come.

Is it not odd for the Minister of National Defence to be asking for more money when the future role of the Canadian armed forces has not yet been considered? Is that not putting the cart before the horse?

National Defence
Oral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Markham
Ontario

Liberal

John McCallum Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, we have received several reports from the Senate, this House and experts pointing to sustainability problems in terms of defence and funding. Everyone knows this. There is also the problem of military people spending too much time away from their family.

So, the problem is clear with respect to these pressures in the short term, and that is what I was referring to last Friday.

Kyoto Protocol
Oral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Diane Ablonczy Calgary—Nose Hill, AB

Mr. Speaker, from the west coast to the east coast provinces are sounding the alarm over the government's hasty and thoughtless Kyoto scheme.

The premier of Newfoundland and Labrador states that if Kyoto is implemented, one-half of all predicted growth in that province will be wiped out. Unemployment in his province is over twice the national average.

Why would the Prime Minister need to build his legacy by adding to the unemployment problem in Newfoundland and Labrador?

Kyoto Protocol
Oral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Kitchener Centre
Ontario

Liberal

Karen Redman Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, I would reiterate that what we have said as we have consulted over the past five years, and continue to reiterate, is that the made in Canada plan by the federal government will pose no undue burden on any region or sector.

As a matter of fact the modelling that has been done by the working group over the last four years on behalf of the federal government, in partnership with the territorial and provincial governments, as well as the industry sector and Canadians, shows that we are looking at a slowdown in the growth of our GDP that is between 0.4% and 1.6%.

Kyoto Protocol
Oral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Diane Ablonczy Calgary—Nose Hill, AB

Mr. Speaker, this is a made in the PMO plan. Let us be honest about that.

The premier of Nova Scotia is warning that Kyoto could “decimate his province's economy”. He is asking the government to present a workable plan that will not destroy jobs, not devastate those on fixed incomes and not drain billions away from our social resources.

Why is the government hiding the Kyoto numbers and the fact that it will devastate the economy of Nova Scotia?