Debates of Dec. 3rd, 2002

Kyoto Protocol

[Stephen Harper, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, that is not what it says in the plan. There is still a gap between the reductions that the government can identify and the Kyoto targets. Kyoto was made in Japan by the way.

The international trading credits scheme is a dollars for jobs scheme. We send our jobs overseas and they get the dollars too. Without an implementation plan we cannot know how many credits the government will buy and we do not know how much they will cost.

Therefore, let me ask the minister, is the government open or not open, under any circumstances, to purchasing emissions credits to meet its Kyoto targets?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by correcting the hon. member's preface which led to the inaccuracies in his question. On page 43 of the plan, at the bottom of column one, he will see the reference to the possibility of buying surplus permits from Russia.

He will go on to see that we have no intention of buying any such permits from any country unless in fact it results afterwards in a reduction of emissions. That is what I put to him before. He must understand that if he is to understand the plan.

[Stephen Harper, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the plan says they are both open and not open, which I guess does not surprise me.

Let me give an example of what happened when the government set targets without a plan, the gun registry. The Auditor General today said that cost overruns are without precedent. Instead of costing taxpayers $2 million, the gun registry has now cost $1 billion.

How can Canadians trust the government on Kyoto or anything else when it is running 500 times over budget on the gun registry?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General today tabled her report regarding the question of the gun registry. I totally accept her recommendations. We are committed to accountability and we will do our very best to answer her recommendations.

Having said that, what will we do now with the policy? On this side of the House we are strongly committed to the policy which is a sound policy and we will keep proceeding with the policy. At the moment we are starting to see the benefit of it and we are firmly committed more than before.

Firearms Registry

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General reported today that the justice department knew more than two years ago that it would spend more than $1 billion on the gun registry. It failed to report the true costs to Parliament as required by its own regulations.

How much is the government willing to pour down the drain before it admits this is a failure, $1 billion more, $2 billion more, or $3 billion more? What will it be?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, we totally accept the Auditor General's recommendations. It is sound policy. The question is could we do more, could we do better? Yes, we can do better. We are firmly committed to do so.

With regard to the process, of course, there was a question of accountability and the question of the interpretation of the charter given to the justice department. We intend to ensure that in the future, in the main estimates, we provide Canadians with all the total numbers including those of other departments.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, he has not been accountable to Parliament yet. Why should we believe him now? The Auditor General said the issue is not gun control and not even the astronomical cost overruns. What is really inexcusable is that Parliament was kept in the dark.

Can the justice minister give Parliament one reason why we should believe a single word that comes out of his mouth now when we know that he has been spouting complete and utter nonsense? That includes the industry minister, the health minister, the former finance minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister himself. They have all misled Parliament.

Why the cover-up?

[The Speaker]

I think the hon. member will want to use caution in his words. The hon. Minister of Justice has the floor.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, what has been mentioned is simply not true. All the numbers regarding the gun control registry have been reported through Justice Canada and have been reported as well through other ministries that are involved in the program delivery.

There was some discussion regarding the way we should report, the justice department being the single point of accountability. It is more than a coordinating body. Therefore, in the future we will ensure that the report will be in the estimates, not only for Justice Canada but for all the other stakeholders involved in taking good--

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Laurier--Sainte-Marie.

Health

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

Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Quebec mentioned creating a health fund into which would be transferred all of the federal money the Romanow report said needed to put back into health care.

With a guarantee like the health fund, does the Prime Minister realize that the federal government does not need to impose conditions on Quebec to ensure that all of the money goes to patient care?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we will meet with the premiers at the end of January or perhaps in early February. We will sit down with them and try to work together on finding a solution that will benefit health care services across Canada.

We managed to come up with an agreement in October 2000. I am confident that everyone will work in the interests of patients, medical service providers and all citizens and will do their best to avoid constitutional squabbles.

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

Mr. Speaker, I did not mention squabbles, but what other condition does he want on top of the Government of Quebec saying, “All of the money will go toward health care and will be used only for health care”?

What further condition does he want? Why would the federal government need to say exactly where the money will be spent, or even maybe administer it? Should it not be enough for us to say to the government “It will all go toward health care”? This would avoid any squabbles. If the government wants to avoid squabbles, that is the solution.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes the provinces have found it very useful to have funding earmarked for a specific purpose, such as the purchase of badly needed equipment. The money was earmarked for needed equipment and could not be used for collective bargaining.

Sometimes it is very useful to have funding that is earmarked for a very specific purpose, so that people can have needed equipment. This is what happened with the one billion dollars we provided at the time to help the provinces purchase new equipment.

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

Mr. Speaker, in no way will it be acceptable for the federal government to take advantage of the needs that it itself created in health in order to become directly involved in an area outside its jurisdiction.

Does the Prime Minister not realize that his proposal to get the federal government involved in the planning of health care only adds yet another layer of officials who will make things even more complicated in the health care sector?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we still have not made any decision. We received the report of Mr. Romanow and that of Senator Kirby. There is Mr. Clair's report. There is the Mazankowski report. Many people have examined these issues. They will all meet. The ministers will meet this week and later in December and in January.

When we will hold our first ministers' meeting, then we will decide what is the best agreement that we can have. However, we will always act in the best interests of those who receive health care, and not with an eye to a future election.

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

Mr. Speaker, the federal government dares to make provincial governments accountable to its officials for their management of health care.

Does the Prime Minister not realize that provincial governments are directly accountable to the public for their management of health care and that there is no question of their being accountable to federal officials, as proposed in the Romanow report?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the important thing is that they be accountable to everyone. If they are accountable to the federal government and to the public, it is somewhat the same thing. What the public needs to know is what these governments are doing.

Under the October 2000 agreement, we agreed on a mechanism to inform the public. This mechanism was acceptable to the federal and provincial governments. It was signed by all provincial and territorial governments, and by the federal government, in October 2000.

Employment Insurance

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Prime Minister showed his disdain for Parliament, but he is not the only one. The Auditor General has reminded us for the third time that the $100 million Parc Downsview Park Inc. was created behind Parliament's back, that the $1 billion cost of the firearms registry has been concealed from MPs, and that the EI surplus is $30 billion higher than necessary. Still the government refuses to disclose how premium rates are calculated.

Will the government finally comply with the Auditor General's recommendation for the third year in a row and table the formula used to set EI premiums?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know that just last week we reduced the premium rate for the coming year by 10¢. That will save Canadian employers and employees more than $800 million next year alone. It is part of a $100 billion tax reduction package over five years that was introduced only two years ago. I do not really know what the hon. member is complaining about.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, what I am complaining about, and I am not alone, is that the government has skimmed off $40 billion in the EI surplus belonging to workers and employers.

Simultaneously the government has failed to collect hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenues because of lack of enforcement and loopholes. Canadians are anxious to know how the government plans to finance new investments desperately needed in health care.

Will the government go after tax cheats and tax havens, or will it continue to ignore Parliament and milk the inflated EI surplus? Which will it be?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, who does she think the some $800 million a year goes to except to employers and employees? They are the people who benefit. What about the other $100 billion in tax reductions? Who does it benefit? It benefits Canadians.

Of course we will do everything we can to enforce our tax laws and try to close any loopholes that exist to collect taxes that are owing. That is the duty of government. That is the job that we have to do, but let us not lose sight of the big picture. This is a government that has cut EI premiums and tax--

[The Speaker]

The right hon. member for Calgary Centre.

Firearms Registry

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

Mr. Speaker, two years ago the Department of Justice told the justice committee that it had spent $327 million on the firearms registry. That same year the same department told the government the registry would cost $1 billion by fiscal year 2004-05. The government did not tell Parliament, a $700 million secret.

My question is to the Prime Minister, what minister in his government authorized the deliberate withholding of this information from Parliament?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, it is a question of accountability. Based on the charter of the program the justice department is accountable, not just for the justice department, but all other departments as well. We will ensure to do an audit, which has been demanded last November. We will be able to come forward with our books in a format that the Auditor General would like to have.

As I said, could we do better? Yes, we can do better, but we must also look at the benefit to society. When we look at the stats they actually show the benefits to society. We have a more secure society and we will keep going--