House of Commons Hansard #52 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was children.
Elinor Caplan LiberalMinister of National Revenue
Mr. Speaker, in fact I think that I said exactly what Ambassador Kergin said. Our border has posed challenges for us for many years and in fact will always do so.
However, I can tell members that we take proposals very seriously. We are working very closely with the Americans. It is really important when something is just a proposal that we not try to give the impression that this is something that is being implemented, which is something that the opposition party tries to do frequently.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, unlike the Prime Minister, who wants to let Cabinet decide on its own whether there will be any future participation in a war against Iraq, British Prime Minister Tony Blair has said “Of course we want a vote in the House of Commons”.
Will the Prime Minister also admit that a vote in the House is needed prior to any Canadian participation in military intervention against Iraq, even if sanctioned by the UN?
Don Boudria LiberalMinister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, this is far from the first time this type of question has been raised by the hon. member and his colleagues, I believe. The hon. member is, no doubt, aware that last week I gave an overview of the measures taken in the past, starting at the end of the second world war.
Despite what he claims, there is no historical tradition of holding votes every time, or anything of the kind. The contrary is true, moreover. We have instituted a system since our government came into power of holding debates every time there is a military intervention. At the present time, there is not even that, and yet we are holding debates. I am even offering to hold another one tomorrow evening.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, let us review the major military engagements by this country in the past century. There was a vote held before World War I, another before World War II, one before the second deployment of troops to Korea, and two others prior to the Gulf War, and each time these were, moreover, demanded by the Liberals, then in opposition.
When he refers to tradition, if he is referring to the one they instituted in 1993 when they started preventing the government from voting, it is all very fine to have take note debates but, instead of talking just for the sake of talking, we would rather vote and decide. That is why people elected us. I again ask the minister, why we are being prevented from voting?
Don Boudria LiberalMinister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is selective in his choice of references. There was no vote on Canada's participating in the Korean War and, in several other of the instances, these were votes on estimates. There was no vote in connection with Operation UNIFIL, nor on Canada's participation in the Sinai. Most of the time there was not even a debate. The same goes for the former Yugoslavia.
Since this government came into power, there has been a debate each time. Even if only a handful of personnel were being deployed, there has always been a debate in the House, or in parliamentary committee if the House happened not to be sitting.
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
Mr. Speaker, we are calling on the government to legitimize the participation of our soldiers in a war with a vote in the House of Commons. Great Britain will be holding a vote. It should be done here; it is being done everywhere.
The Prime Minister or the government House leader believed the ratification of the Kyoto protocol to be so important that members of Parliament had to vote on it—that was the opinion of the Prime Minister. If Kyoto was important enough to warrant a vote in the House, is sending our soldiers to war not equally so?
Don Boudria LiberalMinister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, we are all aware of the major contribution of Canadian soldiers in the past. That has nothing to do with the current issue. There was no vote regarding the Korean war. No one said our participation was not important. In some cases, there was a vote. Most of the time, there was not even a debate.
In our case, there has always been debate, since the Prime Minister's excellent initiative in 1993. We are pleased about this; we take part in these debates. Incidentally, I have proposed one such debate for tomorrow night. If members believe we need more evenings of debate, I am even prepared to offer a Thursday night and other nights to accommodate everyone.
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
Mr. Speaker, when I meet people in the street, they do not ask me if I will be taking part in a debate on the war; they ask me if I will be voting on the war. They elected me to vote on important issues.
If the government House leader is prepared to allow evenings and nights of debate, could he not provide a half hour in the House for members, who represent their constituents, to vote and give their opinion?
Don Boudria LiberalMinister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member somehow seems to be claiming that there is no opportunity to vote in the House. Every week, there are opposition days in the House and the subject of debate is chosen by the opposition parties.
There was a vote on the estimates here in the House a few days before Christmas. Members have the right to choose the terms under which they want to vote and they did not do so. I think members on the other side are suffering from a guilty conscience.
Svend Robinson NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. Today the national leader of the Assembly of First Nations, Matthew Coon Come, accused the Prime Minister of deliberately shutting first nations peoples out of this week's meetings on health care. He noted, as did the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, that Canada has a shameful, third world record on aboriginal health issues, from infant mortality to AIDS to TB to life expectancy.
I want to ask the minister, why is the Prime Minister deliberately excluding first nations leadership tonight? When will the government finally move to implement the long overdue recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples?
David Collenette LiberalMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that when first ministers meet, first ministers are there. Obviously there is a dialogue among the government, the premiers, the Prime Minister and other stakeholders in society. Of course the first nations are a very important part of our society and the leaders of the society have every chance to give their input, but a first ministers meeting is a first ministers meeting.
Svend Robinson NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Obviously they are not important enough to the government, Mr. Speaker.
I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Health.
The Prime Minister managed to get all of the provinces and territories, led by five different political parties, on board to support the recommendation that the federal government provide 25% of health care funding.
After the massive cuts by the former Minister of Finance and member for LaSalle—Émard, will the government accept this key recommendation by the Romanow commission? Yes or no?
Anne McLellan LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, as a government we have been absolutely clear that new funding is required to sustain and renew our health care system. We have also made it absolutely clear that the federal government will be at the table to do its fair share.
Therefore, obviously, I think all Canadians can expect to see an infusion of substantial, significant new dollars from the federal government into our health care system tomorrow.
Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Health, the Prime Minister insists on the creation of a new advisory body to monitor provincial health care systems. Would the Minister of Health tell us to whom this council would report and would its members be appointed jointly by the federal government and the provinces?
Anne McLellan LiberalMinister of Health
In fact, Mr. Speaker, if agreement is reached around enhanced and increased accountability provisions, any accountability is not one level of government to another, but in fact accountability would be from the federal government or a provincial or territorial government to the people of the country.
Let me reassure the hon. member that no such body or board would be appointed without the joint agreement of federal, provincial and territorial governments.
Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the acting prime minister. Members of the Liberal Party insisted on a vote on Canadian participation in the gulf war. There were two votes. Why is the government afraid of a vote now?
Don Boudria LiberalMinister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the right hon. member perhaps was unprepared for the fact that this question had been asked previously, but I will repeat to him that in 1950 there was no vote, no resolution. On a number of occasions, there was no vote, no resolution. There was no debate.
Since the government came to power, there have consistently been debates on all military participation because, specifically, the right hon. the Prime Minister is not afraid of such issues.
Garry Breitkreuz Canadian Alliance Yorkton—Melville, SK
Mr. Speaker, it is becoming obvious that gun registration is not gun control.
Yesterday the justice minister tabled two reports that failed to tell Parliament how much it was going to cost to fix the big problems with the gun registry, and there are many. Even the minister's own reports indicate that it will cost another half a billion dollars. Past estimates were so out of whack that Canadians want to know, how much will it really cost? Another half a billion? Or one billion? Or two billion?
Martin Cauchon LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, obviously that question tells me that the hon. member was not at the briefing session that we gave them yesterday afternoon. If he would read Mr. Hession's report, based on his own numbers over the next 10 years we are talking about an economy of around $50 million.
Having said that, there are 16 recommendations in the report. We will have a close look at those recommendations. We will come forward with a good plan of action which will make the system more user friendly and as well more cost effective.
Garry Breitkreuz Canadian Alliance Yorkton—Melville, SK
Mr. Speaker, the minister says that with a straight face. I cannot believe it.
The issue is still that this is not about gun control. This is about government out of control.
Parliament has been waiting two months for answers. Now the justice minister says we have to wait a few more weeks for his action plan. He will not have a final total of the program's costs until fall now, he tells us. At this rate we will be into an election before taxpayers know the truth about this billion and a half dollar boondoggle.
My question is, where in these reports does it show that the gun registration is effective in reducing violent crime--
Martin Cauchon LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that obviously the opposition is totally out of control.
They do not support the policy. They do not want the government to keep proceeding with a policy which is highly supported by Canadians.
We said of course that there are some problems. We will fix the problems. The two reports that were tabled yesterday are very good reports that are giving us the foundation in order to proceed with a very good plan of action.
We are talking about public safety. We are heading in the right direction--
Francine Lalonde Bloc Mercier, QC
Mr. Speaker, while even Tony Blair is now adding his voice to that of President Chirac and Chancellor Schroeder regarding the importance of a second Security Council resolution before proceeding to an armed intervention, Canada is the only country still waffling.
Does the Prime Minister realize that he is out of the loop? Will he agree that this attitude, in addition to weakening the UN, does the greatest disservice to Canada by helping to marginalize it on the world stage?
Bill Graham LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, it is quite the opposite. I believe that the Prime Minister's attitude strengthens the Security Council's position. The Prime Minister said that a second resolution was perhaps not legally necessary, but that Canadians prefer to have a resolution from the Security Council. However, that is up to the Security Council.
We are letting the Security Council do its work. We support resolution 1441. We have always done the same thing. The same course of action is being followed and UN procedure is being supported.