Debates of May 3rd, 2000

Council On Canadian Unity

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to stress the work done by the Council on Canadian Unity. I have with me a letter dated October 11, 1988, which refers to a new program.

Mr. Michael Meighen also wrote to me about the council's work in this area, as well as your new national program to raise public awareness of our identity as a nation.

I appreciate the council's support for a strong national vision and look forward to hearing more about your plans.

Yours sincerely,

Lucien Bouchard

Health

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Health proposed funding programs not covered by the Canada Health Act. This obviously encroaches on provincial jurisdiction for the delivery of services.

The health minister just does not get it. How can he justify this blatant attack on the provinces when the government does not even cover its share of basic core service funding?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the member and his party are obviously afraid of discussing new ideas. That is a pity. We will continue to talk about new ideas over here to improve access to health care for Canadians.

I guess there are some ideas over there. One of his colleagues in that party is running for the leadership of the Alliance and he says that we should go to the American style of two-tiered medicine. That is one idea we will never buy over here.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we already have a destroyed Canada Health Act, so I do not know how the minister can stand and say that he is the defender of health care in this country.

The fact really is that in the last federal budget there was $2.5 billion over four years for CHST funding. Ontario alone has added $5.3 billion to health care.

If the government is serious about supporting reforms to the health care system, why will it not at least respect the jurisdiction of the provinces and—

[The Speaker]

The hon. Minister of Finance.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, in each of the last four budgets the federal government has increased transfers to the provinces.

Last year the largest single expenditure of the government in its history was for health care. We have increased transfers for health care by over 25% in the last two years.

The bulk of the increase in funding provided by the Ontario government for health care came from the federal government.

Canada Labour Code

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the day before yesterday, the Minister of Labour said she was prepared to sit down with her Quebec counterpart and discuss the issue of preventive withdrawal from the workplace for pregnant workers.

In 1993, the Bloc Quebecois introduced a motion to correct a situation arising from the provisions of the Canada Labour Code that was unfair to pregnant workers and the Liberal Party, then in opposition, unanimously supported the motion.

Is the minister prepared to take up this motion herself, move it and have it agreed to as soon as possible, so that this unfair situation becomes a thing of the past?

[Claudette Bradshaw, Liberal, Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, I am prepared to meet with any of Canada's provincial labour ministers, and do so regularly.

In response to the hon. member's question, part II of the Canada Labour Code has passed second reading and is expected to become law before the summer. There is also an agreement to meet with employees and employers with respect to part III.

The Liberal Party wants to ensure that all Canadians are protected by the Canada Labour Code.

Trade

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade has stated that Canada's benefits from increased trade have been the best in the G-7 and that more trade will be good for Canada.

Some think otherwise, however, believing that our exports are mainly raw materials. Can the minister please set the record straight and provide some clear indicators that export trade expansion has been very good for Canada?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and for a very successful trade outreach mission in Mississauga last week.

The fact is that commodities as a percentage of our exports have fallen from 60% in 1988 to just 32% in 1998. All in all, we Canadians export 43% of what we produce, up from 25% just ten years ago.

Canada exports high technology, manufactured goods, services and value added products. Trade is vital for Canada.

Taxation

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in sharp contrast to this Liberal tax and spend government, the Mike Harris government has just introduced a massive 67 point tax cut for Ontarians. At the same time it is ploughing $1.4 billion back into health care and $1 billion more into education in the province.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing how the very mention of Mike Harris and his performance record puts fear into the hearts of these Liberals.

Here is the formula: lower taxes equal a buoyant economy. Mike Harris got it and Ralph Klein got it. The question is, why can this Liberal finance minister not get it?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I will tell the party opposite the formula. Follow the federal government and introduce indexation of the tax system. Follow the federal government and reduce taxes for middle and low income Canadians. Follow the federal government and eliminate the deficit.

Do not follow the Reform Party. Do not introduce a flat tax. If they cannot convince Mike Harris, who in heaven's name will they convince that it makes any sense?

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let us be really clear. The reason the economies of the province of Ontario and the province of Alberta are doing so well is because they did not follow the lead of the federal government.

As a matter of fact, the provinces of Alberta and Ontario are responsible for the biggest part of the overall economic growth in Canada because they did not follow the federal government.

Why is the finance minister so afraid of lowering taxes for Canadians?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. I think we had better quit while we are ahead.

The Right Hon. Prime Minister.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the best form of flattery is when a government copies another government, as the Minister of Finance said.

We told them that the best thing to do was to balance the books. It took them four years to do that. We have balanced the books for four years. As I said to the Minister of Finance, on every score they are just copying us.

I hope the Reform Party will understand that we have a good economy because we have a federal government that lowered taxes, created jobs and balanced the books long before Ontario.

National Defence

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, Canada must loudly and proudly say no to the U.S. proposed national missile defence system.

The foreign affairs minister says the missile system is dangerous. The defence minister says Canada may support the missile system.

Will the Prime Minister make a public statement on Canada's opposition to the U.S. government's plan to crank up the arms race and threaten peace and stability with this national missile system? Will he say no?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated before in the House, the government has not taken a position on this matter. Indeed, the Government of the United States has not taken a position on the matter.

The missile system has not been perfected yet in terms of the technology. Further tests are coming.

After that is done the United States will make a decision. The United States may well make representation to us as to whether there is an involvement for us through NORAD. At that point in time the government will make a decision with respect to the matter, as I had indicated before.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that the military generals are taking a position.

It has now come to light that military officials knew about the harmful effects of depleted uranium before the gulf war. Why then does the government still try to suggest that DU is safe? The defence minister has made it clear that he supports testing those suffering from exposure to DU. Why has he not taken action on an insulting and intimidating force's memo distributed to those Canadians suffering, basically telling them that the problem may be all in their heads?

Also, recently Canadians in the Halifax area suffering from exposure to this toxin have been told there is no directive for the forces to provide testing for depleted uranium. What does the minister have to say about this?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the scientific studies to this point in time do not indicate that any Canadians have suffered from depleted uranium.

Notwithstanding that, I have offered veterans of the gulf war an opportunity for independent testing, and a number of them have taken us up on that offer. I want to make sure, because this is the bottom line: if any of our troops went over to the gulf or anywhere else in the world for Canada, and if they went over well and came back sick, we will look after them.