Debates of Feb. 6th, 2003

Health

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

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

This morning the three northern territorial premiers condemned the new health accord, pointing out that the Prime Minister ignored the appalling third world health conditions among aboriginal peoples and the failure of per capita funding to provide the desperately needed resources in the north.

Why did the Prime Minister ignore Romanow? Why did he ignore all of the premiers in this shameful betrayal of northern and aboriginal Canadians? Specifically, why will the Prime Minister not establish a separate northern health fund of at least $60 million for the three northern territories?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we were discussing a formula on a per capita basis and, of course, the per capita basis is not satisfactory for the territorial governments.

I said to the three leaders that this is a different type of problem. It makes no sense to treat them exactly the same way as the provinces because their populations are too small.

I said there will be other meetings. We will adjust the health requirements for the people of the north on a bilateral basis because it could not be treated the same way as the provinces on a per capita basis. That makes no sense at all for them.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made the same promise in 2000, and northern and aboriginal Canadians are still waiting for that promise to be kept.

One of the greatest threats to medicare in Canada is the growth of private for profit health care delivery combined with the impact of corporate trade deals.

I want to ask the Prime Minister, why is it that his health accord is totally silent on the new public health dollars going into private for profit health care and why did the Prime Minister try to appoint Don Mazankowski, the king of the privatizers, as the new chair of the Canada health council?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I had the agreement of all the premiers of all the provinces that the five conditions of medicare will be respected.

It is the law of the land that all of the provinces must respect and if they do not respect the five conditions of medicare, they will face the normal penalties that we had to carry out previously when some provinces did not respect the five conditions of medicare.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister stood in his place yesterday and admitted that the government is playing a shell game with new money versus old money in health care.

As evidence of that, the provinces are saying they are getting $12 billion, the federal government is saying $17 billion, and the health minister is saying something else. She is completely confused on how much new money is going in.

Will the Prime Minister stand up and tell us how much money is really going into the new health care accord?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, new money, above the budget for this year for every one of these provinces, represents $17.3 billion of new money.

They say that the money that we had promised three years ago that is new money this year is not new money any more. We have not paid it yet. It is old new money versus new new money. For me, new money is new money. Paying in $5 or in $10, it is the same money.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, would it not be nice if the Prime Minister learned to add and subtract? He knows how to subtract, but his addition is still off.

Is it not interesting that yesterday the provinces grudgingly accepted the deal, yet the territorial ministers could not and that is where the need is the greatest? Our aboriginal people suffer the most in terms of health care. Is that the final chapter? Is that the legacy the Prime Minister will leave in the aboriginal community, this scanty bit of money for those people with the greatest need?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, it makes no sense to deal with the territories on a per capita basis. It is why I told them that we have to make a special agreement with them in the weeks to come, and it would be new new money, no doubt about it.

What is surprising is that none of those members talk about the sick people who will be benefiting from what we did yesterday.

Iraq

[Dale Johnston, Canadian Alliance, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Prime Minister said in the House:

...if the opposition believes that the government is not doing its job properly, it can always vote non-confidence.

The motion before us today gives the House the opportunity to express its confidence in the government by voting on any decision it might take before sending our military into a war with Iraq.

Here is a chance for the Prime Minister to back his words with action. Will he support the motion before the House today?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition wants us to vote today about a decision that we might never have to make because if Saddam Hussein obliges and respects resolution 1441 there will be no need for any vote at all.

If it wants to vote, it can always use an opposition day the day after the decision. It can use one of its 14 days where it can have a votable motion, and we will vote. But it depends on the opposition. If it wants to use its privilege of one of those 14 days where we can vote, it must use one of those days for that occasion.

[Dale Johnston, Canadian Alliance, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish the Prime Minister would read the motion.

However, since he is suggesting that we do not need this motion today because the rules already provide for motions of opposition non-confidence, if that is what he is saying, well then I will take the Prime Minister up on his offer.

If he will guarantee that he will schedule an official opposition allotted day the day after the government makes a decision to involve Canadian troops, then we will withdraw our motion right here, right now.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, if the opposition wants to do that, I have no objection. It is exactly why we have opposition days, for serious matters, not the usual frivolity that it puts on the floor of the House of Commons.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Foreign Affairs described Secretary of State Colin Powell's evidence as convincing.

Is the doubt that Mr. Powell raised in the mind of the minister not in itself enough to show the need to increase the effectiveness of the inspections and the number of inspectors?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, as I explained this morning before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, that is precisely what the Security Council is seized of. Mr. Blix is going to Baghdad. What Mr. Colin Powell presented yesterday was extraordinarily well documented. Baghdad has to give answers. Mr. Blix is committed, he will go there and appear again before the Security Council on February 14. At that time we will know if inspections are no longer needed or what decisions need to be made.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is all well and good to say that we support the inspections process, but that is not enough. Yesterday, France and Russia offered resources. Canada talks only of taking part in the war.

Concretely, in terms of materiel, personnel, transport facilities and communications, what does the government intend to offer the inspectors so that they can fully and peacefully disarm Saddam Hussein?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, as I explained this morning in committee, the Canadian government has always offered Mr. Blix and the inspectors all the support they want from our country.

I personally spoke with Mr. Blix and we wrote to him. There are Canadian inspectors on the team. We are very proud of the work they are doing for the international community. We continue to support this inspection process with everything in our power.

[Rahim Jaffer, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a multilateral predeployment of military forces to the gulf is necessary to force Saddam Hussein to respect resolution 1441. Unfortunately, yesterday the defence minister said that Canadian Forces are “...making contingency plans in terms of various possibilities in Afghanistan...” This is unacceptable. Canada's place should not be on the sidelines.

To prevent war, does the minister not agree that predeploying troops to the gulf would help pressure Saddam Hussein to comply with resolution 1441?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member only captured part of what I said yesterday. I said that as is always the case for the military, we are always considering contingencies of various kinds for the future so that we are ready when the government instructs the military what to do.

We were in Afghanistan last summer. It is conceivable we may be there at some time in the future. We are also discussing with the Americans, as I have said many times, the possibility of our participation in Iraq should the government so decide.

There are many possible contingencies and we are considering many of them at the same time.

[Rahim Jaffer, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this morning the foreign affairs minister said that Canada was not absent on this issue.

Regrettably, the government's record of engagement has been to sit on the fence. In fact, the minister has ruled out every option available to the Canadian government and has instead insisted that Hans Blix, France or the United Nations should decide Canadian foreign policy.

How can we pretend Canada is engaged when the minister allows the veto power of other governments to decide our participation in any potential action?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the government is engaged in a very active policy of supporting a UN system which is a possible solution to an enormously grave problem in the world. That is our policy and that is why we pushed it.

It may not be the policy that the opposition likes. I know what the opposition's policy is because it has said it over and over again: if the Americans ask, go for it. We have heard that.

I do not consider that a policy. It is a nice easy thing to do, but we have followed a much more complicated, much more difficult, but responsible policy that responds to the needs of the world and the needs of this particular crisis.

Softwood Lumber

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade has indicated that he is open to temporarily imposing an export tax on Canadian softwood lumber destined for the United States, in exchange for free access to the American market.

Is the minister aware that Canada is weakening its position by voluntarily imposing an export tax on itself, because the Americans could then claim that this voluntary tax is proof that countervailing duties were justified?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, my position has not changed. We adopted this position last year with the support of all the provinces. My position has always been to say that we will take our case against the Americans before the WTO and NAFTA. We have a very good case, and the initial decisions were in our favour.

However, since this process takes a long time, we have determined that it would useful to have a dialogue with the Americans to establish a long-term policy for unlimited access to the American market for Canadian softwood lumber.

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

Mr. Speaker, in this matter, the minister has made several commitments, in particular, not to resort to a voluntary tax. Despite what he has said today in the House, the minister is changing his position.

Will he make a formal commitment not to enter into any provisional agreement that would continue to penalize our businesses and would result in abandoning legal actions already before the WTO and NAFTA?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I will continue to work with the Canadian industry all across Canada. I will continue to work with the Government of Quebec and the Government of British Columbia. I will continue to reflect a consensus that we developed in our approach, which is to obtain unlimited access to the American market for Canadian softwood lumber companies, on the basis of free trade, throughout North America.

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the mandate of the federal government includes responsibility for international trade agreements. At the softwood talks in Washington the provinces and industry tabled various export tax proposals.

Why is it that everyone but the federal government is taking the lead?