Debates of Nov. 27th, 2002

Health

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment on what Commissioner Romanow may or may not recommend.

What I can say is that on this side of the House we have worked very hard to work in partnership and collaboration with the provinces. We acknowledge the fact that the provinces are the deliverers of health care. In fact, the accord of September 2000 spoke to not only more money for health care but a new partnership in delivering health care to Canadians.

Budget Surplus

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois has been saying so for five years, and now the Minister of Industry is also publically criticizing the government's decision to put 100% of its surplus toward the debt, rather than half, despite what the Liberals had promised.

The former Minister of Health, who incidentally is pretty slow on the uptake on this, has suggested that by doing so, the federal government is largely responsible for creating the problems that the health care system is experiencing.

Will the Prime Minister agree with the Minister of Industry and acknowledge that his government's budget practices have exacerbated the problems that we are experiencing when it comes to health care?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I am always very honoured when I am criticized for having to manage a surplus. As for whether of not we managed it well, I believe that it was split about 45-55%. It is impossible to calculate it down to the penny, but we kept our promise to divide it between tax cuts, debt repayment and investments to address existing problems in the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is ridiculous. Every year, the size of the surplus has been hidden, as we know, intentionally. The public has been kept in the dark about the size of the surplus and the full amount was put toward the debt. All of the money was used on the debt, when there was a promise to divide it 50-50.

Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that if there is a responsible party, one that is most responsible for all of the problems with health care, it is this government, which has made cuts to health care on the backs of the provinces, and on the backs of the sick, just like it did with the unemployed for EI?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, when we met in September 2000, we came up with an agreement. Each of the premiers present signed it. At one point, they were running after me in the hallway to speak with me. The Premier of Quebec was adamant at the time that the federal government must do something, which we did, and he congratulated me publicly. I hope the member can recall this.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, had the government listened to the provinces, monitored how expenditures evolved and maintained its contribution to health at the same level, as the Bloc Quebecois has been requesting for five years now, there would have been no need for the Romanow commission.

Will the Prime Minister admit that, had he invested as little as one third of the huge surplus, as suggested by his Minister of Industry, the health system would be in much better shape now, and the Romanow commission would therefore have been totally unnecessary?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon. member that the Romanow commission was a suggestion of the provincial governments and that—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

Indeed, and that the selection of Mr. Romanow was approved by the premiers.

Mr. Romanow was very interested in this problem. He had indicated his interest, and several premiers recommended him to me. I knew him and thought he would make a good commissioner. We will receive his report tomorrow and will determine what in that report we can or cannot accept.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to health, the government is like the firefighter that sets a fire so that he can put it out. It has cut funding, and now, it is playing saviour with its billions of dollars.

Does the Prime Minister realize that, by pouring billions into health as he is preparing to do, he is fooling no one and is, at best, making up for the havoc his cuts have caused in the health system?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, what we have done to manage public finances has been to take the $42 billion deficit we inherited when we took office and put the fiscal house in order. And the provinces greatly benefited from this, because when we took office, they were paying 11.5% interest on their debt, while now, it is down to a mere 5% or 6%.

Persons with Disabilities

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

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

A week ago today the House voted unanimously to support a motion to withdraw the proposed changes to the disability tax credit released on August 30, 2002. Yesterday in the House the finance minister showed breathtaking contempt for democracy making it clear he had no intention of respecting the will of Parliament as expressed in that 234 to 0 unanimous vote.

In view of the finance minister's contemptuous performance, has the Prime Minister now instructed the finance minister to withdraw the disability tax credit changes immediately.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member's question, the Minister of Finance has heard and respects the will of Parliament. The proposal of August 30 is off the table. He has advised his department to respond with alternate proposals and they will be brought back in a timely fashion.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, not only did the finance minister not show that he had heard the unanimous vote, he thumbed his nose at the unanimous vote of the House yesterday when he stood in his place.

Maybe the finance minister thinks 234 people voting together are nobodies, but there are five million persons living with disabilities in the country who want to know that the government has withdrawn those draconian measures and, by the way, that they have been removed from the government website immediately.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, can the hon. member not take yes for an answer? The issue is very clear. The proposals have been withdrawn. The minister is engaged both with the department and with stakeholders and at an appropriate time will come back to the House. The answer is yes, they have been withdrawn.

Kyoto Protocol

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question about the Kyoto protocol.

Yesterday, I asked the Prime Minister to confirm that he would negotiate with Quebec a bilateral agreement that would respect provincial jurisdictions. He did not answer the question.

Can the Prime Minister tell us if he received an indication from the Quebec government to the effect that it is prepared to renounce its jurisdictions? Otherwise, will he confirm today that Ottawa is committed to signing a bilateral agreement with Quebec?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, as regards Kyoto, we are prepared to sign bilateral agreements with each of the provinces if they want to, and also with the various sectors of the Canadian economy.

We only have 10 years to adapt. We will have a vote very soon, I hope, in the House, so that we can ratify the Kyoto protocol. This will help us sign agreements at the earliest opportunity and eliminate the uncertainty that creates problems for everyone.

By voting immediately, we will ensure that all sectors of the Canadian economy know exactly what to expect.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the implementation of Kyoto.

There is a major disagreement between Ottawa and the provinces over the use of credits relating to carbon sinks.

The federal government wants the credits to be applied to the country in general. However, the provinces insist that the credits should be given to the province where the carbon sink is located.

Can the Prime Minister tell us if he is prepared to negotiate on this issue?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, first, I am very pleased to hear the Conservative Party leader talk about carbon sinks, because this is a major victory for this government. We convinced foreign governments to give us credits for carbon sinks, which represent about 60 megatonnes.

As to how these credits will be divided between the provinces and the central government, this is something that we are prepared to discuss with the provinces.

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Kyoto protocol states, “Each Party...shall, by 2005, have made demonstrable progress in achieving its commitments under this Protocol”. The Prime Minister has repeatedly stated that Canada has 10 years to meet our obligations under the treaty. Clearly the Prime Minister is confusing Canadians.

Does the Prime Minister really not understand the Kyoto penalties, or is it that he does not want Canadians to know the truth about the consequences of not meeting our targets?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member simply points out how wrong-headed the approach of the Canadian Alliance is in opposing ratification of Kyoto. If in fact we have to meet certain obligations by the year 2005, surely we should get going now instead of holding things up with filibusters.

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, under the government's latest plan, our greatest industrial emitters will be allowed to miss their targets, with the government making up the shortfall. Between those emitters and the government's own planned shortfall of 60 million tonnes, Canada will have to pay billions in buying international credits.

How does the government expect to spend this kind of money on hot air and still be able to fund health care, education and the military in this country without raising taxes?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, at least the hon. member in this question is making it clear from his assumptions that he expects there to be ratification and that he expects us to proceed with the Kyoto agreement. At least I give him that credit, he recognizes that his party's position is wrong-headed.

As for achieving our goals, we have said repeatedly that we do not intend to purchase what he called hot air from Russia or any other country. Any purchases overseas by the corporate sector or by a government would have to be a real reduction, not something that has happened in the past by reason of a change in the economy.

Softwood Lumber

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in connection with the softwood lumber situation, when the Minister for International Trade says that there is no question of negotiating concessions and that he intends to continue with legal proceedings, he has our support. He must, however, understand that his delay in unveiling phase two of his industry assistance plan is putting companies at risk of closure.

Is the minister aware that every day that passes has a heavy impact on these companies and that the government needs to provide them with prompt assistance, primarily in the form of loan guarantees?

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon. member's question. As he knows, this file is a work in progress. It is in the interests of both Canada and the U.S. to resolve this issue, and my colleague, the Minister for International Trade, is working every single day. It is our priority for the government to resolve it. It is in the interests of both the U.S. and us to resolve it.

Meanwhile we are supporting our workers and industry and it is a work in progress. If we need to do more we have said we will, but let the opportunity be there that we try to resolve it first, and if we cannot we will do more.