House of Commons Hansard #231 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was environment.
Sheila Copps LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the third party exhibits his ignorance on environmental issues when he says that. There were 11 annexes-
The EnvironmentOral Question Period
The Speaker
Colleagues, the reason I took a few seconds is my own fault. I was distracted and apologize to the House for that. After having what was said explained to me, I will go on to the second question of the member for Calgary Southwest. Once again colleagues, I would urge you to be very judicious in the use of your language.
Preston Manning Reform Calgary Southwest, AB
Mr. Speaker, of course we did not get an answer to the first question but we could see where it was headed.
There are two sides to this story and it is particularly important that the side of the provinces be known in the House. The Alberta government believes the minister deliberately scuttled the agreement because of an unfounded fear that somehow the federal government's role in the environment might be weakened, a fear of decentralization. This was despite the fact that every province was prepared to recognize in writing the need for a strong federal presence.
Why does the government consistently reject every provincial attempt to streamline government services, harmonize regulation and eliminate costly red tape if those attempts include any significant element of decentralization?
Sheila Copps LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, there were 11 annexes in the environmental management framework agreement. The federal government is prepared to proceed with 10 of those annexes. The reason the annexes were not put forward to the public was that the provincial governments led by the province of Alberta refused to publish those 10 annexes.
I will quote what the minister of the environment said about the role of the federal government under his vision for Alberta. He said: "You can have the national parks and the Indians. We want to look after all the rest".
Preston Manning Reform Calgary Southwest, AB
Mr. Speaker, the environmental management fiasco is a symptom of a deeper problem with the government. There are too many old style ministers who cling to the obsolete notion that any change in federal-provincial relations is to be resisted if it includes any element of decentralization.
The Minister of Health resisted when we talked about decentralizing the financing of health care. The Minister of Human Resources Development resisted in his department and now the Minister of the Environment resists an agreement unless it makes Ottawa the centre of the universe.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Why does he not send a clear signal to all Canadians and all provinces that Ottawa is prepared to accept the principle of decentralization? Why does he not send it by removing those ministers who consistently obstruct the implementation?
Sheila Copps LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, since I became the Minister of the Environment I have signed environmental agreements with every province including the province of Alberta.
I would ask whether the public believes there is a national role to play for a national government. When we are talking, for example about automobiles, does it make sense to have 10 standards for 10 provinces? Or would it make much more sense to the Canadian consumer to have one national standard for vehicle emissions? There is a way of doing things logically, not through the knee-jerk decentralization being proposed by the leader of the third party.
Francine Lalonde Bloc Mercier, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. While the budget announced additional cuts of over $1.5 billion on the backs of the unemployed, the unemployment insurance account was heading toward a surplus of nearly $5 billion for 1995 alone. We must not forget that the government has not put a penny in the unemployment insurance fund since 1991. Worse yet, Ottawa is using the account surplus to fund new intrusions into training.
Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that increasing the unemployment insurance fund surplus by cutting benefits to the unemployed and using this surplus to fund new federal intrusions into manpower training is totally disgusting?
Lloyd Axworthy LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises an important question about the application of the UI surplus.
The UI fund is set up over the period of the business cycle to be self-financing. In those periods when there is a recession or a heavy draw on the UI fund, the government finances the UI system, as we had to do during the late eighties and early nineties in the previous government when the fund went into a deficit of close to $11 billion.
We are now simply paying off that deficit, but the government had to finance it through its own borrowing during that period of time. When the economy improves, as it is now doing under this administration, we begin to build up a surplus-
Lloyd Axworthy Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
It is clear that over the life of the business cycle it is important to make sure there is a reserve in the UI fund so that we will not run into a position as the previous government did, of which the Leader of the Opposition was a member, where all of a sudden it dropped premium rates and then had to jack them way up. As a result, it made the recession even worse.
I remind the hon. member that she was a member of a committee of the House of Commons that looked at the whole UI question and recommended: "The UI account be permitted to accumulate a surplus to accommodate changes in premium rates over the business cycle". That was a recommendation of a committee in which the hon. member was a full participant.
Francine Lalonde Bloc Mercier, QC
Mr. Speaker, the minister should have read the minority report. While there has been no net job creation in the past eight months, the government has insisted on repayment of $6 billion in less than two years creating a surplus this year of $5 billion, which is being used to impose decisions and guidelines on the provinces that they do not want.
How can the Prime Minister use the money from cuts made to the unemployed to get round the provinces, going over their heads, in order to impose its views directly on organizations and individuals? If he says this is not true, let him table his reform.
Lloyd Axworthy LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member puts in her question the idea that there has been no major change in employment or unemployment rates in the country.
I point out that since the government came into office the unemployment rate in the constituency of Mercier, which the hon. member represents, has dropped by 4.5 per cent. What will put in danger the thousands of jobs we created in the hon. member's riding is if Quebec decides to separate, which it will not do. The threat and uncertainty of the separation movement endangers job creation for Canada and Quebec. If the hon. member really wants to protect jobs in her riding, she would vote no in the coming referendum.
Stephen Harper Reform Calgary West, AB
Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago the government said that a yes vote was a one-way ticket to separation. Last week the government refused to say that yes means yes and accused the Reform Party of being disloyal for suggesting the government make the consequences of a yes vote clear.
Today the finance minister said in Quebec that a yes vote would mean "the certain destruction of Quebec's economic and political partnership with Canada".
My question is for the Prime Minister. Is the government now prepared to be clear to Quebecers that this referendum is a yes or a no to separation and that the no side must win for Quebecers to enjoy the benefits of Confederation?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Finance was clear in the very good speech he made today explaining the consequences of a no vote for the economy of Quebec.
Stephen Harper Reform Calgary West, AB
Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is also for the Prime Minister.
Did the government explain that its statements regarding a political and economic union are not a threat but represent the best interests of the rest of Canada; that Canada will never allow a foreign country to become involved in this Parliament, in its monetary policy, in its equalization payments; and that, if Quebec votes No, it will become a foreign country like any other?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, this is what we have always maintained. What the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois are proposing is Quebec's separation, except that they are trying to hide this behind all kinds of words designed to obscure the truth.
They tried to come up with what they said was a winning question, but look at the confusion they have created. A third of the people who say they will vote Yes think Quebec will remain a Canadian province after separation. That is what poll takers are reporting today.
They should be completely honest and tell Quebecers that they are separatists. They know full well that Quebecers will vote to stay in Canada. I know that, and the Leader of the Opposition knows it too because, as recently as last March, he was saying: "We must change the question because if we tell the truth, we cannot win; we need a winning question". Quebecers can now see through the opposition leader's game.
Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Yesterday in the House the minister stated that he was going to follow the recommendations of the task force on seasonal work.
Now, the key recommendation by that task force is to not create two classes of unemployed persons through penalty clauses for seasonal workers such as those in the minister's document which were made public this past weekend.
Does the minister confirm the Canadian Labour Congress analysis that he will be coming down heavily on seasonal and part time workers by requiring "twice as many weeks and hours of work before they are eligible for benefits".
Lloyd Axworthy LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification
Mr. Speaker, I indicated three or four months ago, following publication of the report and looking at the analysis of the seasonal works report, that we would not be pursuing the notion of a two-tier system.
Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC
Mr. Speaker, seasonal workers are fed up with being treated like ping pong balls by the federal government.
Is the minister aware that all the proposals for reform originating within his department include direct attacks on seasonal workers in Quebec and on what awaits them if they vote no in the referendum? If you want to clear away this doubt once and for all, well then just table your reform now.
Lloyd Axworthy LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member was truly in touch with various groups representing seasonal workers, he would know that we have been consistently and constantly working with them. We have had meetings with construction workers. We have been taking a number of recommendations they have been putting forward. We have worked on the sector councils which represent agricultural workers. We have been working consistently with them to get their recommendations.
The difference is that the hon. member takes a piece of paper put forward by the CSN in Quebec and tries to treat it as the gospel truth. Whereas our view is to sit down with the people who really know what is going on, talk with them and get their recommendations.
Grant Hill Reform Macleod, AB
Mr. Speaker, in the health minister's January 6 letter to the provinces she stated:
I am convinced that health care facilities providing medically necessary services that operate outside the public system present a serious threat to Canada's health care system.
Today reports say that she will allow those very same private clinics.
Can we get a straight answer from the health minister on private clinics? Is she for them or agin them?
Diane Marleau LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member referred to my January 6, 1995 letter. That is exactly the way I felt then, exactly the way I feel now, and exactly the way our government feels about these clinics.
One of the beauties of medicare is that it provides equality of access which is extremely important for all Canadians. We, the Government of Canada, will continue to protect that access for Canadians.