House of Commons Hansard #123 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was registration.
Pierre Brien Bloc Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Ten premiers agreed unanimously in Saskatoon: first of all, that health is a provincial responsibility; second, that, if the federal government intervenes in this sector, the provinces should be allowed to opt out with compensation; and third, that the money spent by a province must be consistent with the federal program.
What does the Prime Minister find unreasonable about this proposal?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, when the provinces recognize that we can invest money in social programs, we are in complete agreement. That is why we want to be sure that we can continue to do so in a co-ordinated manner with the provinces.
If, however, you are asking me whether we are going to rescind the Canada Health Act, the answer is no.
Pierre Brien Bloc Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Speaker, nobody is asking us to rescind the five principles of the Canada Health Act.
What we want to know is whether, if he decides to intervene in the health sector, he will allow those provinces that have programs to opt out with compensation for providing effective, quality services to the public? That is what people want to know.
Why is he refusing to agree to the principle of allowing the provinces to opt out with full compensation?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member really wants is for the federal government to withdraw from the health sector.
Jean Chrétien Liberal Saint-Maurice, QC
That is indeed what he is saying. He is saying that the provinces must be compensated instead of allowing the federal government to play a role in the health sector.
The Canada Health Act and the five principles it sets out will remain part of federal legislation and we will make sure that there is one health system for all Canadians.
Diane Ablonczy Reform Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, the Canada pension plan's independent watchdog was just fired. This was mere weeks before he was to have issued his major five year review of whether enough money will be there to pay Canadian pensions.
Yesterday the finance minister told us the firing was just an internal matter. We need to be clear on this issue. Is the minister telling this House that he had absolutely no idea that Canada's chief actuary was being dismissed from his post?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, neither the minister nor his office was involved in the decision. The minister was informed afterwards. This was a purely internal matter involving the superintendent of financial institutions and the public service.
Diane Ablonczy Reform Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is pretty hard to believe that the minister had no idea that such an important civil servant was being dismissed just before he was to give a major report on the Canada pension plan which has already given the government no end of trouble.
Is the minister saying that top officials, people who are independent and whom Canadians rely on for good independent advice, can just be thrown out the door and he does not even know that this happens?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member ought to understand the way the system works in this country. We have separated politics from the good administration of the public service. The public service takes its own decisions. The superintendent, in conjunction with the public service, had managerial differences with the chief actuary.
In addition, the hon. member will have plenty of opportunity to pursue her line of questioning. It is my understanding the House of Commons finance committee has struck a subcommittee to look into this matter as soon as the former chief actuary has had full recourse for—
Canada Pension PlanOral Question Period
The Speaker
The hon. member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière.
Antoine Dubé Bloc Lévis, QC
Mr. Speaker, the business community, the FTQ, the National Bank and all the economic stakeholders of Montreal are asking the federal government to help fund the expansion of the Montreal congress centre.
And yet, we learned this morning that the Minister of Industry has said he does not have one cent to put into this project, despite the statement made by the secretary of state for regional development.
How does the minister reconcile his statement that he has no money for the Montreal congress centre with the remarks made yesterday by the secretary of state for regional development in Quebec, who said he was working hard to come up with a solution?
Martin Cauchon LiberalSecretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)
Mr. Speaker, to repeat what I said yesterday, which was absolutely clear, we do not need anyone to tell us the economic importance of the congress centre.
I repeat, the unfortunate part is that, as a national and a responsible government, we put a tool at the disposal of the provinces called the national infrastructure program and, in the case of Quebec, it was the Canada-Quebec infrastructure works program, which was not used for this fundamental and important purpose, whereas Quebec City used the program for its congress centre and for another fair centre.
My colleague is saying that there is no fund or program as such, and he is right. However, we are working hard to come up with an alternative solution, because this is an important issue.
Paul Bonwick Liberal Simcoe—Grey, ON
Mr. Speaker, my questions is for the Secretary of State for the Status of Women.
It appears obvious the Reform caucus is prepared to sacrifice the safety of some women to move forward the agenda of the National Rifle Association.
I therefore ask the secretary of state to tell the House how the government's gun control measures have taken us forward in our goal of ending violence against women.
Hedy Fry LiberalSecretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status of Women)
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Simcoe—Grey for an extremely pertinent and important question.
When we speak about safety and security for our citizens, the government does not see women as special interest groups, as the opposition party does. We see them as members of the public. Seventy-eight per cent of spousal homicide is done by guns in this country. One woman is killed every six days with a gun in this country. So when we bring out gun control legislation, it is our first step in creating a safe society for the women of this country.
Rahim Jaffer Reform Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, can the Prime Minister tell us exactly what constitutes a clear majority for a referendum in Quebec? I ask this because the will of 91% of Albertans for an elected Senate was ignored last week.
Now that we know what the Prime Minister thinks about a clear majority in Alberta, how in the world can Quebeckers believe he is going to respect a clear majority in Quebec?
Stéphane Dion LiberalPresident of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, the clear majority that would be required to break apart a country will be the subject of a debate.
We could ask the Reform Party what majority is required to amend its own constitution. If I am to believe clause 7, it reads as follows:
<“That would include a majority vote of the delegates of two-thirds of the majority of votes cast”.
Rahim Jaffer Reform Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, section 24 of the Constitution explains how senators may be appointed. The Constitution does not mention the Prime Minister. It does not mention golf partners.
The ConstitutionOral Question Period
The Speaker
I know that you like I would very much like to hear the question.
Rahim Jaffer Reform Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Section 24 of the Constitution explains how senators may be appointed. The Constitution does not mention the Prime Minister at all. It does not mention golf partners. It does not mention hockey players and it certainly does not rule out elections. All it states is that the governor general will call qualified people to the Senate.
I would like to ask the justice minister, the so-called minister of Alberta, just what part of the Constitution she thinks would stop the Prime Minister from respecting Alberta's Senate election?
Jean Chrétien Liberal Saint-Maurice, QC
Mr. Speaker, the answer to his question is that it is the prerogative of the Prime Minister of Canada to name a senator and I named Mr. Roche with great pride because he will be a great senator. Even the members of the Reform Party agree with that selection.
Why we have done this and not called elections for senators is because we want a real reform of the Senate, not just on voting but on equality. The Reform Party campaigned against this when we had the Charlottetown accord.
Dick Proctor NDP Palliser, SK
Mr. Speaker, the minister of agriculture will know that the blockade of Canadian trucks carrying grain, livestock and other commodities which began last week in South Dakota has now shifted and spread to some other mid-western states thus destroying utterly the minister's claims that this was electioneering, posturing by one U.S. governor.
Could the minister advise the House what he is doing to resolve this dispute and to protect western Canadian farmers, truckers and their commodities?
Lyle Vanclief LiberalMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the hon. member says, the main issue in this in the United States is politics. It is not about food safety, health or the quality of the Canadian food product.
I have had a number of conversations with Secretary Dan Glickman, my counterpart in the United States. The Minister of Foreign Affairs will be having discussions this evening with the secretary of state in the United States. Just about an hour ago I asked the ambassador in the United States to have a meeting with Secretary Glickman tomorrow. We are stressing to them that it is their role to make sure that the people in the United States, like Canadians, obey international law.
Dick Proctor NDP Palliser, SK
Mr. Speaker, the minister has to date steadfastly refused an invitation to meet face to face with Mr. Glickman. I appreciate that he has had some phone conversations.
In his answer to the first question is he now saying that he is acceding to the invitation and will be meeting with his U.S. counterpart tomorrow? Is that what he is telling the House today?