House of Commons Hansard #73 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was program.
Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski—Mitis, QC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the federal government provided more details on its plan to ring in the third millennium. The government has chosen to contribute significant funds to this new initiative: $160 million over three years.
While the festivities are legitimate, could the government assure us that it will not use them for propaganda purposes?
Herb Gray LiberalDeputy Prime Minister
Mr. Speaker, our activities will be in the interest of all Canadians, and we are answerable to Parliament, as it appropriate. We work under the aegis of the auditor general.
The proof that it is not propaganda was the hon. member's presence yesterday at our launch ceremony.
Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski—Mitis, QC
Mr. Speaker, is the government prepared to comply with the rules of Treasury Board and the various departments in awarding the millennium scholarships so as to avoid the fiddling around with public funds that occurred in the case of Option Canada?
Herb Gray LiberalDeputy Prime Minister
Mr. Speaker, I totally reject the premise of the hon. member's question, but I can assure the House that we comply with the rules of Treasury Board and the auditor general.
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral Bloc Laval Centre, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Yesterday in his defence of Canadian federalism Liberal style, the Prime Minister boasted of his flexibility in areas in which the federal government is involved in provincial jurisdictions, forgetting his recent meddling in Quebec education with the millennium fund, which we could call the millennium “flub”.
Will the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs acknowledge that the millennium “flub” runs totally counter to the empty resolution on the distinct society his government passed the day after the yes side almost won the latest referendum?
Stéphane Dion LiberalPresident of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada does not meddle in education. Financial help for students is a responsibility of the two levels of government. The federal responsibility dates from the turn of the century. I found a program in this regard at the beginning of the century. So this is nothing new.
What is new is the huge challenge we face, the challenge of the knowledge economy and the need to prepare people to meet it. This means that the two levels of government must work together and avoid squabbles. It is certainly a priority of the federal government to work with all governments, including—
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral Bloc Laval Centre, QC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister dished out another contradiction on the so-called flexibility of his style of federalism by congratulating himself on having passed a resolution on spending.
Will the minister acknowledge that the Prime Minister should have congratulated himself instead on betraying the promise made in the 1996 throne speech, since he continues to refuse to allow the Government of Quebec to opt out fully and with compensation from the millennium “flub” program?
Stéphane Dion LiberalPresident of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, it is vital in this federation, which is highly decentralized compared to all the other federations in the world, to not lose sight of Canada's great diversity, including the unique character of Quebec society, which created a sophisticated grants program, with the assistance of the federal government.
I have to point out that a quarter of the provincial funds given to students right now come from the federal government, and we will continue to ensure respect for diversity in our efforts to help students across the country, including in Quebec.
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Speaker, the EI changes are preventing 60% of unemployed workers from receiving benefits and this government is still refusing to take action.
On Tuesday, the human resources development committee was unable to reach a consensus regarding preparation of a report on the impact of EI changes. The parliamentary secretary refused to give his agreement.
Why does the parliamentary secretary want to keep the committee from reporting on this important issue?
Employment InsuranceOral Question Period
The Speaker
I am having a bit of trouble because this matter is in committee. However, the parliamentary secretary is on his feet so perhaps he can clarify it.
Bob Nault LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, I can clarify it for you.
The whole issue of course which is in committee relates to whether there will be a report with respect to the B/U rate and the unemployment rate. Quite frankly the member is out of order, but that is the situation as I see it.
Employment InsuranceOral Question Period
The Speaker
My colleague, with all respect, the work of committees is usually separate from the House. I know the hon. member will phrase his next question in a manner which reflects that.
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I will be out of order again, but I will put my supplementary and you will decide.
The parliamentary secretary is contradicting his own minister. In a letter dated March 5, the Minister of Human Resources Development wrote, and I quote: “The first control and evaluation report on the EI regime will be reviewed in detail by two parliamentary committees, the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Standing Committee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities. When they have passed on their conclusions to us, I will be very happy to discuss them with you and with all our colleagues”.
Will the parliamentary secretary listen to his minister and stop obstructing—
Employment InsuranceOral Question Period
The Speaker
The hon. member for St. John's East.
Norman E. Doyle Progressive Conservative St. John's East, NL
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
In a province-wide TV address Premier Tobin indicated that the Government of Newfoundland will be asking the federal government for financial assistance in order to build a transmission line from the lower Churchill site in Labrador to the island of Newfoundland.
Is the minister in a position to say whether the federal government views that request in a favourable way?
Lyle Vanclief LiberalMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Speaker, discussions are ongoing. I think the simplest and best way to answer that question is to say that a feasibility study has to take place before any action will take place.
Norman E. Doyle Progressive Conservative St. John's East, NL
Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the development of this project will significantly assist Canada in its greenhouse gas targets, would the minister not agree that this project is just the kind of project Canada needs to meet its international obligation on greenhouse gas emissions and that funding the project should be a priority?
Lyle Vanclief LiberalMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Speaker, I think that is exactly what a feasibility study will look at. We certainly hope that the results of that feasibility study will show even more and better things to address that will be for the good of Canadians and Canada.
Rahim Jaffer Reform Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
Today is the day Canadians will find out whether or not the Oilers will remain in Edmonton. If a local group is successful in purchasing them, their long term success will still be in doubt unless we stop the hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies which U.S. hockey teams receive. We have to scrap those unfair U.S. subsidies.
Will the minister ensure that the U.S. lives up to the spirit of free trade agreements?
Sergio Marchi LiberalMinister for International Trade
Mr. Speaker, yesterday we said that members of our caucus set up a subcommittee on hockey. Thus far members of the Reform Party have refused to participate in the deliberations which address this subject.
I mentioned it to the member's leader and he acknowledged in a note yesterday that while he had asked me about the WTO and the NAFTA “I know we cannot address the development subsidies on services in both of those areas”. Nonetheless, he asked the question.
I said in the House that it is an issue of concern. However, we have to pick the right tool to fix the problem.
Rahim Jaffer Reform Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, we do not need another parliamentary committee to study the problem. We do not need more talk. Canadian taxpayers do not want to subsidize their teams either. We just want to trade fairly with the U.S.
Every day Canada's best athletes hit the ice and give their blood, sweat and tears for the game of hockey. The least this government could do is put a little effort into fighting the U.S. unfair subsidies.
Why will the minister not stick up for Canadian hockey and fight unfair U.S. subsidies?
Sergio Marchi LiberalMinister for International Trade
Mr. Speaker, at least the member should lace up his skates if he knew what he is talking about, but he does not.
We have talked to the hockey teams. We know that some of the municipal governments are building roads in the states and that there are subsidies and incentives. We pay most of our hockey players in American funds and our gate receipts are in Canadian dollars.
The development subsidies for municipalities, states, and federal governments are not covered by the WTO or by NAFTA. They only cover goods. In the future we are going to try to address development incentives for services. That is why—
René Laurin Bloc Joliette, QC
Mr. Speaker, the President of Treasury Board has just announced that the overall budget envelope for senior public sector executives will be raised by 7.96%, thus acknowledging the importance of quality executives to the Public Service of Canada.
Since the government's offer to Revenue Canada auditors is no more than 1.75% a year over two years, are we to understand that the government does not perceive the shortage of auditors to be a problem?