Debates of Feb. 21st, 2000

Bill C-20

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

We agreed to define the term technical witness broadly. We agreed to have the deliberations of the committee broadcast and so on.

Naturally, we want to co-operate with the opposition, so long as this does not delay the work of the parliamentary committee.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, introducing closure after hearing three witnesses is a first. It has never been done after three witnesses.

There are unreasonable time frames given for the witnesses' travel to Ottawa.

Is it the government's intention to turn this committee into a show, to bulldoze all deliberations on the pretext of quickly passing this bill, and to prevent people from coming to testify, because the government is not giving them time to get to Ottawa to testify?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member opposite has raised the topic of being reasonable.

Is his party being reasonable by tabling hundreds of clippings from old newspapers in the House of Commons instead of sharing the views of his party? No. This is not being reasonable.

The government has simply tried to advance the bill to the next stage. We have said we were ready to hear up to 45 witnesses in committee, provided that doing so did not delay proceedings. The members opposite have not, to date, managed to call more than a few.

[An hon. member]

Liar.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

As we all know in this place, words like “liar” are not permitted in the House of Commons.

[Some hon. members]

Oh.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.

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

Mr. Speaker, the more we question the government about its clarity bill, the more its answers are evasive and confusing. The clarity bill is becoming less and less clear.

My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Can the minister tell us what the value of the distinct society motion passed by his government is, considering that 49 of the 75 federal members of parliament representing Quebec are about to vote against Bill C-20?

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

Mr. Speaker, even if the Bloc Quebecois voted against the resolution on distinct society, that resolution means a lot to Quebecers and all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, because of this undemocratic bill in the Canadian parliament, the Quebec National Assembly had to introduce its own Bill 99 on the fundamental rights and prerogatives of the people and the state of Quebec.

Can the minister clearly tell us today which of the two acts will take precedence in determining the clarity of the referendum process: Bill C-20 in the House of Commons, or Bill 99 in the Quebec National Assembly?

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

Mr. Speaker, I already answered that question. We live in a constitutional state. If, in a constitutional state, one act complies with the law and another does not, it is the act that complies with the law which will apply.

Health

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

Vital eye surgery in Calgary today costs $750; for two eyes, $1,500. The choice that patients face is paying up or doing without.

Does the Prime Minister think it is right that patients face a choice between paying $1,500 or risking loss of eyesight?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the clinics that the member refers to comply with the Canada Health Act because this government took action to make sure they did. The government has also shown its commitment to health care in Canada through the budget last year. It has significantly increased the transfers to the provinces. It said at that time that it would do more when circumstances permitted.

It will take more than money to make sure that we fix what is wrong with medicare. That is why I have invited provincial health ministers to join me at the table to plan changes that will make a difference over the long term. I expect they will.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, those words are nothing but hot air as long as the government is paying less than 15% of health care costs in the country. It is time for the feds to butt in with cold cash. That is what the federal government needs to do.

Will the Prime Minister make the commitment today to move toward restoring the 50:50 health partnership so that Canadians can get the health care they need, whatever their financial circumstances or wherever they happen to live?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I will reply to this question because I want to reaffirm again that we have restored the level of transfers to the provinces to the level it was in 1993-94. This is the only program that we have restored entirely since the period of cuts. It is up to the provincial governments to decide what they do with the transfers. They can apply it to health care, education or welfare.

Gasoline Prices

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.

Now that the Department of Transport is enjoying huge surpluses as a result of increased fuel tax revenues, will the minister reduce the fuel taxes on trucks, at least in the short term, to assist the trucking industry, which is fighting hard to make ends meet?

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, we have had under consideration the entire tax burden as it impacts on Canada and on individual Canadians. If the member looks at it he will realize that a only very small portion of the price increase for fuel relates to the tax.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary. The Department of Transport has gone from a zero surplus to a three thousand million dollar surplus in a very short time. At the same time, the trucking industry cannot even make ends meet because of high taxes.

Again, will the minister reduce the taxes in the short term to help this troubled industry?

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, ever since we have taken office the question of tax reduction has been a priority of the government. As a matter a fact, in the last two budgets, when we were in a surplus, we cut taxes by $16.5 billion over three years.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have assured the House that tax cuts will be part of this budget and future budgets.

Human Resources Development

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the ways the minister has tried to explain public money going into areas that did not qualify under her own rules was to talk about “pockets of high unemployment”. She actually does not seem to understand this concept herself and in the House has explained what these pockets mean in three different ways.

Today in a rather interesting effort at damage control her department released an undated document which purported to explain this concept of pockets. She did not tell MPs about this, but she said that the pockets were applied differently in different regions.

I wonder if the minister could explain this whole—

[The Speaker]

The right hon. Prime Minister.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate to the House of Commons that yes, there were some areas in the country where the level of unemployment was lower than 12%. Because of the pockets of unemployment we decided that they were to receive grants. The riding of Kootenay—Columbia had six projects. The riding of Nanaimo—Alberni had seven projects. The riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan had six projects. I have a long list which I will keep for the next answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, is it not interesting that the Prime Minister does not feel enough confidence in his minister to explain such a simple concept of pockets. Not only is the minister not clear on the concept but her own document says each region was using its own approach in considering if a pocket was or was not eligible.

Is it not pretty clear, and I would like the minister to confirm this, that this is simply a transparent attempt to bend the rules, to get the political results the Liberals wanted?