Debates of Feb. 19th, 1999

Health Care

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is the one who has been pushing two tier medicine on behalf of the Reform Party. Why do they not look at themselves in the mirror and admit what they have been doing?

The hon. member said not long ago that he proposes removing the existing restrictions to the Canada Health Act. What does that mean if it does not mean two tier medicine? No wonder the Conservative Premier of Alberta said about the budget, including what we are doing to preserve and strengthen health care: “The feds did the right thing in the budget and I have to admit that”.

Why does the hon. member not admit that and get on the right side of what Canadians want?

Social Union Agreement

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in 1995, that is four years before decisions were made on the budget brought down this week, the current President of the Treasury Board, who was the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs at the time, stated that the per capita formula for distributing the Canada social transfer would not be used as it would put Quebec in the most unfavourable position.

My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. How can the minister's successor proclaim from the rooftops, four years later, that the per capita formula is now the best for everyone?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

The answer is relatively simple, Mr. Speaker. As long as the Canada transfer was being reduced, it could not be restored to its previous level on an equal footing.

We had to wait for the transfer to grow, in conjunction with equalization, before we could do that. And all the provinces save Quebec have asked us to.

The Government of Quebec was the only one to disagree, even though it receives 34% of all federal transfer payments. It should be very pleased that the equalization portion of the transfer keeps growing since it comes with no strings attached.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

What happened at the Privy Council during these four years that could bring about such a drastic change in philosophy?

Was it the arrival of the minister who once said that Quebec had to suffer for support for sovereignty to drop?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, what we have just heard qualifies as a false allegation, as the Bloc knows full well.

But since members of the Bloc have decided to stoop that low and I have no intention of sinking to the same level, I would like to tell my colleagues from the other provinces that the pathetic show put on by the Bloc this past week has nothing to do with Quebec culture, which is one of trust and solidarity, not petty jealousy.

Employment

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the human resources minister dodged legitimate concerns about the integrity of the Canada jobs fund. The best he could do was call the fund remarkable.

It sure is remarkable. It is a remarkable slush fund to reward Liberal friends. It is a remarkable misuse of public money for political purposes and there is a remarkable whiff of corruption hanging over it.

When will the minister get out of denial, do his job and clean up this mess?

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, no one is in denial on this side. We have a research and evaluation report on the transitional jobs fund which is very positive.

For example, it says that by the time the program ends more than 30,000 new jobs will have been created, most of which would never have been created without the program. The report says that the program was creating real sustainable jobs and that the majority of the partners were impressed with the rigor and partnership approach of the program.

In terms of the reference about political presence in the program, there is a difference between legitimate political presence—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if everything is on the up and up with the jobs fund, why can we not get to the bottom of the $164,000 grant that was given to the man who took a money losing hotel off the Prime Minister's hands? Why is the correspondence of the Prime Minister supporting this grant being hidden?

If everything is all right, and to lay concerns about the fund to rest, will this correspondence be tabled in the House today? Will he do that?

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, only members of the Reform Party can take a piece of good news like the research report and turn it into bad news.

When it comes around to this project to which she refers, I must assert that all cases have the same criteria applied. The project must create sustainable jobs, the department's contribution must not exceed 50%, and the project must be consistent with local and regional economic priorities. This project, as with all others, did measure up to those criteria.

Professional Sports

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the owner of the Ottawa Senators just added his voice to those of other team owners to put pressure on the federal government to get some tax relief, as was recommended in the report of the subcommittee on the study of sports in Canada.

My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Could he tell us if, in its budget, the government kept the necessary margin to lower taxes for sports tycoons, or has that possibility been totally ruled out?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just asked a question about a committee report. She knows that the government has 150 days to provide a response to that report.

It is clearly this government's intention to comply with that deadline and to provide a timely response, as it always does.

Official Languages

[Réginald Bélair, Liberal, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the budget just brought down, the official languages envelope was $285 million, a $70 million increase over last year's budget.

Can the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell us more about this increase and explain to the House what impact it will have on official language communities?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, we were expecting our colleagues opposite, especially the Bloc Quebecois, to congratulate the government on this announcement, but they are silent.

This substantial increase of $70 million, or 33%, over last year's budget will go to official language communities throughout the country. Details on how and where this money will be used will be given in the coming weeks.

But this confirms the government's firm commitment to linguistic duality, the cornerstone of Canadian public policy.

Immigration

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Staff Sergeant Rockwell of the RCMP has called the people-smuggling problem in the Vancouver area mind-boggling. He says that passport forgery is now so common that people have become blasé about it and they do not even consider it to be an offence.

The B.C. government will not use Canadian passports for identification purposes because there are so many forgeries around.

Why has the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration completely ignored this problem when she has known about it for at least three years?

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, people-smuggling across international borders is a global phenomena affecting many countries.

Canada is committed to combating this problem. CIC co-operates closely with the RCMP, CSIS and Revenue Canada, as well as with local and provincial police to combat the trafficking of human beings.

I make it clear that when CIC officials discover someone who is abusing the provisions of the Immigration Act they initiate enforcement actions.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that answer is a good example of why there is Liberal alienation in the west.

When an immigrant comes to Canada a T-1000 landed immigrant form is stapled into his or her passport. When the immigrant becomes a citizen it is that T-1000 form that can be sold to the passport forger.

Why is the minister not doing the obvious when she knows that a policy of simply removing or destroying the T-1000 form would put the passport forgers out of business overnight?

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the department and the government take very seriously the whole issue of Canadian passports.

Let me state again that permanent residents refugee claimants and visitors are subject to the laws of Canada. They can be charged under the Criminal Code and other acts of parliament for offences committed in this country.

The CIC takes very seriously any matter that relates to commissions of crime within Canada and every effort is made to remove those individuals.

Kosovo

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the minister indicated during the take note debate on Kosovo that he did not know the details concerning the involvement of troops in a peacekeeping mission. The details would be worked out after the signing of a peace agreement. A formal request by NATO would be made of Canada and we would have two weeks to respond.

If this happens, will the minister commit to bringing the detailed request before parliament for a debate and a vote so that he might respond to the request with the full and open backing of Canadians through parliament?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that we had a debate the other evening about this very matter. That was the purpose of it.

We clearly said that it would be between 500 and 800 troops. He has outlined the conditions under which NATO would request and then we would respond. That is the parameter of it.

Certainly we will divulge all the further information we get as it is finalized in Brussels or in the talks, should they succeed, in Rambouillet. All hon. members will be so informed.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that the debate the other night was not based upon a specific detailed request from NATO.

In light of the fact that the Prime Minister said on TV last night that before any final decision is taken there will be a full debate in the House of Commons, will the minister commit to bringing the detailed request before parliament for a debate and a vote?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, we had the debate the other evening. In fact the House leader of the NDP agreed to having that debate that evening. It has been done.

The government must now make a final decision and must make one expeditiously as the matters unfold. We will do so and we will keep everybody fully informed.

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, NATO's secretary general confirmed that Canada would be directly involved in an air strike on Kosovo. This appears to contradict the Government of Canada's position.

To set the record straight, and in the event of an air strike on Kosovo, with the predictable loss of lives, can the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell us what position Canada will adopt and the implications of that position?

Will Canada officially support an air strike? Will Canada be taking part, as NATO's secretary general said, in one way or another in this strike, or is Canada opposed to any participation and not going to give any support for such an air strike on Kosovo?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear. Last October we had a debate in the House where all parties endorsed the notion that if it were required NATO would be asked to activate a force in order to try to deal with the humanitarian crisis in Kosovo.

We are still hopeful that before tomorrow there can be an agreement arrived at Rambouillet. We are working very hard. We are in active consultation today to make sure it happens. If it does not happen the Secretary General of NATO will have to consult the permanent representatives of the member countries to see whether the activation order will be brought into effect.

[David Price, Progressive Conservative, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in Wednesday's debate on Kosovo the Minister of National Defence said “As the Minister of Foreign Affairs clearly stated we are not going in under some warlike condition”. The same day the Russian Duma passed an unanimous motion that in the case of force they would have the right to help Belgrade defend itself. NATO says today it will have to use force.

Did the minister change his mind between Wednesday and today, and under whose authority? Was Wednesday's debate just another PR exercise?