Debates of Jan. 31st, 2003

Canada Day Poster Contest

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, every year the Government of Canada asks young Canadians from coast to coast to design a poster celebrating their country. Unveiled at the Canada Day celebrations on Parliament Hill, the poster is a symbol of how young Canadians see their country. It is an excellent way to promote young people's understanding of what it means to be a Canadian.

This year's theme is one of particular interest to me: Celebrating Canada's Natural Beauty. As someone from the most beautiful province in the country, I clearly and completely support this topic.

In short, I encourage all members to take this contest back to their constituents so that young Canadians can develop a deeper appreciation for Canada.

Political Party Financing

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is not serious in the least about reforming political party financing. He just wants the taxpayers to pay his party's debts, because the Liberals are too busy collecting funds for leadership campaigns to pay off their debts.

Is the Prime Minister introducing this bill in order to get his party's debts paid?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would strongly advise the hon. member to read the bill. First, had he done so, he would have realized there is no retroactivity, no contribution for existing debts, nothing of the sort. These are quite simply unsubstantiated statements. Second, the bill will come into effect in about a year. Lastly, the member has no need to worry about my party; it is in very fine shape.

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, maybe the minister would like to explain to the House and to Canadians why the senior adviser to the Prime Minister the day before yesterday said to the Liberal caucus that it was one of the reasons the bill should be passed: to help pay down the $4 million debt of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Why should all taxpayers be forced to pay the debt of that party even if they do not support the Liberal Party?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think I read the same article as the hon. member. Maybe I had the sheet of paper right side up instead of like he had it, upside down.

I came to the conclusion when I read it that it had been said that the debts would be paid probably around the same time that the bill came into effect, so it had no effect at all on that.

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the problem with the bill is that the Liberals want to replace voluntary contributions by taxpayers to parties that people support with contributions that are absolutely involuntary.

I ask the question again. Why should Canadian taxpayers who do not support the Liberals have to pay for their activities? Why?

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

Mr. Speaker, this is nonsense. Canadians would be able to contribute up to $10,000 to any party, or candidates or associations that they like, the aggregate thereof, for one party.

Second, the hon. member is pretending that Canadians do not subsidize political parties and the process now. I would like to know, did his party give back the money that it got in the last election? I would guess that it did not. It kept the money.

Iraq

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, providing a deterrent, a strong coalition show of force, is the best chance we have of avoiding war in Iraq.

The Canadian Alliance has been calling for months for the government to contribute troops to the international show of force aimed at encouraging Saddam Hussein to turn over his weapons of terror.

Why will the government not stand with its allies, Britain, Australia, the United States and others, to provide this deterrent to Saddam Hussein so that he will destroy his weapons of mass destruction, to provide that message in the only language he understands?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity yesterday in Washington of standing by our ally, the United States of America, and I was very proud. Secretary Powell said to me that he appreciated the position of Canada in supporting the United Nations and supporting the U.S. in its determination to work through the United Nations process as the best guarantee of security for the world, the security of the United States and of all nations in the world.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, a show of force by amassing troops near the Iraqi border has worked before. In 1995 it forced Saddam to back away from invading Kuwait for a second time. Last year it forced Saddam Hussein to allow weapons inspectors into Iraq so they could do their work.

Now it is the best chance to force Saddam Hussein to actually back down and disarm without going to war. Why will the government not take action to prevent war in Iraq?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

In practice, Mr. Speaker, the actions of the government have been entirely consistent with the determination to do two things: disarm Saddam Hussein on the one hand and prevent war on the other.

We will consistently pursue that course of action with our allies, our European allies, the United States of America and other countries, as we go down a very difficult road at this time and ensure that we still have an opportunity to come out of this without a conflict in that very volatile region of the Middle East.

Health

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, who just last week said he wanted to reach an agreement on health, is now threatening Quebec and the provinces by saying that if they refuse to be accountable to Ottawa, there will be no agreement.

Since the Prime Minister wrote on January 22 that he wanted to do his part and work in partnership with the provinces, how does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs explain today to those who are sick his boss's new hardline approach?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it is not a hardline approach. The Prime Minister wants effective accountability. I am sure the premiers want that too.

We all count and do math the same way, based on the same indicators. This will be effective and will not prevent the provinces from introducing their own innovations. As far as I know, math is math, whether you are in Canada or anywhere else in the world.

There are indicators for making comparisons between countries. I do not see why in Canada, we cannot use those same indicators to compare what the provinces are doing and what the Government of Canada is doing for aboriginals.

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the real reason accountability to Ottawa is so important is because the federal government's true intention is to impose Canada-wide standards for health, as a senior government advisor was quoted as saying in Le Devoir .

Will the Prime Minister admit that the ultimate goal of the federal government is uniform healthcare, regardless of Quebec's specific healthcare needs?

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

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had read the plan that the Minister of Health submitted to her provincial counterparts, she would have seen that it is clearly indicated that we want to help the provinces advance their own priorities while respecting the differences from one province to the next.

That is not the issue. The issue is being able to compare results. Being able to compare results means that the indicators have to be the same for everyone. Things are done differently based on the same indicators. I do not really see the problem. I am sure the premiers are not worried—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Repentigny.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister is threatening to cut off the money supply to provinces that refuse to accept the conditions imposed by Ottawa, the Minister of Finance is acknowledging that he has a sizeable margin of $8.7 billion for 2002-03. If they want to get the negotiating process off track, there is no better way of doing so.

Can the government explain to us the Prime Minister's obvious desire to set off squabbles by throwing oil on the fire?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc are the ones looking for trouble. They seem to delight in squabbling. Things are going fine. The Quebec health minister has expressed a desire to see everyone work together in order to help him to advance his priorities.

The federal health minister has said the same. What they want is for each government to be responsible to its own population with the help of comparable indicators. Why the fuss from the Bloc Quebecois, we wonder?

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the present financial situation makes it possible to meet the provinces' health requirements, which they have estimated at $5.4 billion.

Can this government, instead of stirring up squabbles, understand that what the health system needs is less uncertainty and instead some new funding and some stability?

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

Mr. Speaker, as far as money is concerned, the Government of Canada considers health a priority. What the provinces will get is what it is possible to give them, within this government's fiscal capacities. It must be clearly understood that the $8 billion figure given by the member is from before the last quarter, which is historically always a more difficult period.

This time last year, the federal surplus was $13.3 billion, and it ended up at $7.9 billion. This year we are talking $8 billion, and it will be less than that by year end. We need to be reasonable. Based on this and given all the priorities of the provinces, we—

Foreign Affairs

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, weapons of mass destruction in anyone's hands are dangerous and must be disarmed. No one should be exempt, including George W. Bush. All nations must honour international treaties that would control such weapons. Surely we should be following our own rules. Surely we should be telling George Bush to follow these rules too.

What is Canada doing now to abolish weapons of mass destruction around the globe, including in our own backyard?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has had a long and proud tradition of working on the disarmament commission of the United Nations and with other nations around the world, including. let me say, the United States of America, in seeking to bring nuclear non-proliferation around the world. We worked with the United States in a very dangerous situation between Pakistan and India last year.

I think it is irresponsible to suggest in the House that the United States is not taking a responsible approach toward its massive power. We are all trying to reduce the danger in the world and make sure that we get rid of weapons of mass destruction, but where we have to focus is on the danger--

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Vancouver East.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it makes us wonder what happened to that Canadian tradition.

Why will the Canadian government not disclose what Canada's involvement was in discussions this week on the star wars missile defence system? Why are we allowing Canada to become complicit in this rampant militarism and escalation of weapons development? Why was this Parliament not consulted before Canada held secret talks on star wars?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the reason why Parliament was not consulted before we held secret talks on star wars was that there have not been secret talks about star wars or anything else.

We are constantly engaged with the United States in discussing how we can best ensure the security of this continent for the benefit of Canadians and Americans and all of us together. We will continue to do that in a responsible way and in a way which ensures Canadian sovereignty and Canadian interests.