Debates of Dec. 9th, 1997

Employment Insurance

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, can the minister deny that the women who choose to look after their children and subsequently return to the labour market after being away for two years have to work between 30% and 117% more hours in order to be entitled to the same benefits as regular benefit recipients? Will he acknowledge that?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, earlier the opposition was describing me as a technocrat. I have to say that I am not enough of a technocrat yet to understand the percentages of the percentages the member was referring to.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

He is not at all concerned about women.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Denis, QC]

What I can say is that for the first time—

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

He is nothing but a technocrat.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

He could care less about women.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. The Minister of Human Resources Development.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Denis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for the first time since our reform of employment insurance, women leaving the labour market to care for their children will have access to active re-employment benefits to help them a whole lot more.

Kyoto

[Preston Manning, Reform, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the prime minister just said that the costs of implementing the Kyoto treaty would be exactly the same for every nation. That cannot possibly be. Those costs are dependent on the size and the energy intensity of each economy.

On what study did the prime minister base his assertion that the costs of implementing Kyoto would be exactly the same for every country?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, everybody will have to be at the same level. At the moment the Americans will have to cut 12 points to get to zero. Perhaps I should have said we have to cut 9 points. No, I was wrong. It will be easier for Canada to go to zero than it will be for the Americans because we are in a better position than they are.

Every country will have to make a contribution. Nobody can escape. Nobody can go back to the proposition that the earth is flat. It is round and everything we do affects the others. We have to live with that reality, which is why we are in Kyoto. We have invited the provinces to be there—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Calgary Southwest.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, this is unbelievable. In the past the prime minister asked the House to believe some pretty unbelievable things, but surely he is not asking Canadians to believe that his government made a commitment to this international deal without studying the economic impacts on Canada. He cannot be asking us to believe that.

Where is the study on which he is basing these assertions about the cost of the Kyoto deal?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, a few years ago at the meeting in Rio Canada made a commitment to be at the 1990 level by the year 2000. The leader of the Progressive Conservative Party was there. It made a commitment.

We are asking Canadians to have the level that is projected for the year 2000, by 2007 or 2008. The cost is less than what was committed to some years ago in Rio. I recognize, as did the government of the day, that it is an important problem for every country.

France-Quebec Agreement On Support Payments

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. I wonder if the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs cares more about women. No fewer than 200 Quebec women are without support payments because Ottawa still has not approved the draft agreement between France and Quebec on this subject.

In accordance with the principle of extending Quebec's jurisdiction, will Ottawa finally see reason and stop standing in the way of an agreement between France and Quebec on this subject?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, we want Quebec to be covered under the Canada-France convention. We suggested very simple changes to Quebec in order to resolve the matter. Unfortunately, the Government of Quebec does not want to see the matter resolved. It does not want a convention. It does recognize we are responsible for the Canada-France agreement under the terms of the umbrella arrangements. I am certainly prepared to negotiate with the Government of Quebec, but it refuses to negotiate.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec cannot be party to an agreement between Canada and France when it has already negotiated an international agreement with France.

Does the minister not realize that his radical position goes against the position taken by the previous federal government and the Quebec Liberal Party and the resolution unanimously endorsed by the Quebec National Assembly?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the facts are simply that we negotiated an agreement on social matters with the Government of France. The Government of Quebec absolutely refused to be part of any consultation in arriving at the accord.

The French government said clearly that any agreement between a province and the Government of France must come under that accord, and the Quebec government refuses to have it come under that accord.

Frankly the Government of Quebec is simply trying to make another case, another argument for separatism, when it does not apply because it is a province of Canada.

Kyoto

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians cannot believe what they are hearing from the prime minister today. Virtually every major economic think tank in the country projected serious economic costs to all Canadians if we sign on to legally binding emissions limits in the Kyoto deal.

Could the prime minister, instead of avoiding the question again, tell the House whether or not his government has projected the possible economic ramifications of the Kyoto deal? Has it done a study? If so, where is it and will he table it today?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I am replying to the same question. Almost every party in the House has a position on this. Only the Reform Party, as I said last week, has no policy on that. It just has its interests.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, partisan rhetoric like that may have been fine four weeks ago, but right now our delegation is in Kyoto making decisions that will affect the economic livelihood of hundreds of thousands of Canadian families. The government has a responsibility to tell us what the consequences will be.

Will it do that and stop reflecting the responsibility to the opposition when it belongs to the government? What are the costs of the Kyoto deal? How many people will lose their jobs?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago all the provincial governments and the federal government met. Everybody agreed that we should have a target of going to the 1990 level by the year 2010. At the same time they said—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, it is getting as difficult for me to hear the answers as I know it is for you.

Sports And Cultural Events

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, by dragging its feet on the issue of tobacco sponsorship, the government is killing sports and cultural events in Canada, particularly in Quebec. What a mess.

Instead of wasting its time pondering the various options without ever making a decision, should the minister not do like the European Union and impose an eight-year moratorium to give the organizers of these events time to reorganize?