This week, I changed much of the tech behind this site. If you see anything that looks like a bug, please let me know!

House of Commons Hansard #14 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was health.

Topics

Canada Millennium Scholarship FoundationStatements By Members

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Mario Silva Liberal Davenport, ON

Mr. Speaker, in 1998 the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation was created by an act of Parliament. The objective of the foundation was to assist Canadians to meet the challenges posed by an economy that is changing ever more quickly.

The Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation provides, among other things, financial assistance to students to assist them as they pursue post-secondary education.

I am very pleased to recognize two constituents in my riding of Davenport who have been named as millennium excellence award laureates for the year 2004. On behalf of the residents of Davenport, I am pleased to congratulate Vera Bieber and Julia Popova on their receipt of the Canada millennium scholarship award.

The millennium excellence award is recognized across Canada as one of the most prestigious national scholarships.

In being chosen for the award, laureates have to be successful in a nationwide competition that recognizes achievement in four key areas: academics, community service, leadership and innovation.

The people of Davenport are justifiably proud of Vera and Julia, and I am pleased to extend to them the best wishes on behalf of their community.

Natural ResourcesOral Question Period

11:15 a.m.

Calgary Southwest Alberta

Conservative

Stephen Harper ConservativeLeader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, after opposing the spirit of the Atlantic accord for years, the Prime Minister did one of his famous complete about-faces in the election campaign and promised that he would end the clawback in offshore resources. In fact, he promised Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia that they would get 100% of the revenue from offshore oil resources.

Given that there are now mixed signals in negotiations, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Is this still a 100% commitment from the Prime Minister that these provinces will get 100% of their offshore resource revenue?

Natural ResourcesOral Question Period

11:15 a.m.

Scarborough—Guildwood Ontario

Liberal

John McKay LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, I can confirm for the hon. member that there are in fact discussions ongoing between the Minister of Finance and the respective ministers of finance. As to the result of those negotiations, they have not been finalized.

Natural ResourcesOral Question Period

11:15 a.m.

Calgary Southwest Alberta

Conservative

Stephen Harper ConservativeLeader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, that was nothing less than a complete assurance. The government should have let the Minister of Natural Resources, who also made these commitments, answer the question directly.

I will ask again. Yesterday and again today this government suggested it would reach an agreement if possible, but that was not the promise. The promise was that they would get 100% of their offshore resource revenues and there would be a deal by October 26. I ask the Minister of Natural Resources, is that still a commitment of this Prime Minister and this government?

Natural ResourcesOral Question Period

11:15 a.m.

Scarborough—Guildwood Ontario

Liberal

John McKay LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance

The only commitment that is made, Mr. Speaker, is that this issue will be resolved in the shortest time possible. As to how those negotiations take place, I would ask the hon. member to defer until such time as the provincial ministers and the federal minister resolve their negotiations.

National DefenceOral Question Period

October 22nd, 2004 / 11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC

Mr. Speaker, on October 5, the Minister of National Defence stated that the fire on board the HMCS Chicoutimi was “a small setback”. We now know that was not true. The submariners themselves immediately reported the tragic event that claimed Lieutenant Saunders' life as a major fire that left the Chicoutimi adrift in rough seas without power.

Why did the Minister of National Defence mislead Canadians by downplaying the severity of the problem?

National DefenceOral Question Period

11:15 a.m.

Toronto Centre Ontario

Liberal

Bill Graham LiberalMinister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, I think in the House around issues of this nature we owe it to each other to be forthright. When I used the term “setback”, the question I was asked was if this was a setback to the program. I never minimized the seriousness of what took place on board. The navy responded with great seriousness. The member can read my transcript. I will read it into the House record if he wants. I made it very clear that we were treating this very seriously.

What we have to do is that we clearly have to make sure we get accurate information and convey it to the public. That was done day after day in the context of a difficult storm at sea where we were all doing our best job to report to the--

National DefenceOral Question Period

11:15 a.m.

The Speaker

The hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre.

Sponsorship ProgramOral Question Period

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Mr. Speaker, yesterday's arrest of Mr. Paradis clearly shows there was a money laundering scheme within the Liberal Party of Canada. Thousands of dollars in sponsorship money were given to Quebec advertising firms and then funnelled back to the Liberal Party of Canada. Obviously someone at the highest level within the Liberal Party must have authorized this corrupt scheme.

My question is for the Prime Minister or his designate. Will the Prime Minister honour the commitment made by his transport minister and instruct the Liberal Party of Canada to return any dirty money received from the sponsorship--

Sponsorship ProgramOral Question Period

11:20 a.m.

The Speaker

The hon. Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

Sponsorship ProgramOral Question Period

11:20 a.m.

Kings—Hants Nova Scotia

Liberal

Scott Brison LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services

Mr. Speaker, it is not appropriate to discuss the day to day testimony at Gomery, because we run the risk of making errors based on today's testimony being contradicted by next week's testimony or in fact by poor interpretation of ambiguous testimony. That is what has happened to members of the opposition three times now this week when they made mistakes on this file.

I would urge the hon. member to not prejudge Justice Gomery's work and to wait for that report. That way we will have the full truth upon which to base our decisions on a go forward basis.

Sponsorship ProgramOral Question Period

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Lee Richardson Conservative Calgary South Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was not speaking of any testimony. He was speaking about the Minister of Transport, in a press conference with the Prime Minister, saying that $650,000 was given to the Liberal Party by sponsorship ad agencies. The head of one of those ad agencies, who gave $43,000, was arrested this week. That minister said dirty money will be immediately returned to the Canadian taxpayer.

I ask the minister, how much dirty money has been returned to date?

Sponsorship ProgramOral Question Period

11:20 a.m.

The Speaker

I had reservations about the first question. I have continuing reservations about this question. It seems to me that party finances are not a matter of the administrative responsibility of the government and I am concerned that this kind of question is improper in the House.

All parties may have taxpayers' money, but party finances are not the subject of the administrative responsibility of the government. They have not been allowed in the House in question period and I am not going to change that practice.

TaxationOral Question Period

11:20 a.m.

Bloc

Monique Guay Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC

Mr. Speaker, in reference to the final version of the Speech from the Throne, Quebec's minister of intergovernmental affairs said that even the Prime Minister of Canada has, in a way, accepted that the fiscal and financial pressures are what some call the fiscal imbalance.

Since financial pressure is now synonymous with fiscal imbalance, does the government, which made a commitment in a vote, intend, at the October 26 meeting, to find comprehensive solutions that will completely eliminate the fiscal imbalance?

TaxationOral Question Period

11:20 a.m.

Scarborough—Guildwood Ontario

Liberal

John McKay LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, the notion of a fiscal imbalance is an intellectual conceit largely put forward by the party opposite. There is no such thing as a fiscal imbalance. Each level of government has access to revenues. Sometimes they are similar revenues and sometimes they are revenues that are dissimilar. I put it to the hon. member that there is no such thing as fiscal imbalance.

TaxationOral Question Period

11:20 a.m.

Bloc

Monique Guay Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would remind him that this is now part of the Speech from the Throne.

The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said on the program Question Period that the final version of the Speech from the Throne should, “Be considered as part of the government's intent”.

Since the fiscal imbalance is now part of the Speech from the Throne, will the Prime Minister agree to address the fiscal imbalance fully at the October 26 meeting?

TaxationOral Question Period

11:20 a.m.

Scarborough—Guildwood Ontario

Liberal

John McKay LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, if there is anything such as a fiscal imbalance, it is actually the other way from what the hon. member thinks.

In the fiscal year 2002-03, the revenues of the federal government were in the order of about $170 billion. The revenues of the provincial governments were in the order of about $166 billion. Out of that $170 billion of the federal government, $40 billion or so gets transferred to the provinces. The provinces end up with slightly over $200 billion and the federal government ends up with $140 billion. Meanwhile, the federal government has a $500 billion debt on which it pays 20% of its revenues and 10% for the others.

TaxationOral Question Period

11:20 a.m.

Bloc

Guy Côté Bloc Portneuf, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the government that the solution to the fiscal imbalance is not limited to transferring tax fields to Quebec and the provinces.

Does the government intend to accept the proposal by the Séguin commission, which recommends transferring the GST to Quebec and the provinces as a lasting solution to the fiscal imbalance?

TaxationOral Question Period

11:20 a.m.

Scarborough—Guildwood Ontario

Liberal

John McKay LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, recently the first ministers concluded quite an extensive negotiation and worked in a 10 year timeframe. Over that 10 year timeframe, equalization will be increased by $33 billion, a pace that is almost twice the expected rate of growth of the economy. Similarly, there is a $44 billion increase in the Canada health and social transfers.

Whatever issues the hon. member has with respect to revenues flowing to the provinces, I think they have been adequately addressed by the first ministers.

TaxationOral Question Period

11:25 a.m.

Bloc

Guy Côté Bloc Portneuf, QC

Mr. Speaker, on September 16, the Prime Minister acknowledged that Quebec and the provinces were experiencing financial pressure and that it would be discussed at the October 26 meeting. They expect more than that. They want concrete and lasting solutions to eliminate the fiscal imbalance.

Is the government prepared to make proposals to that effect at the October 26 meeting?

TaxationOral Question Period

11:25 a.m.

Scarborough—Guildwood Ontario

Liberal

John McKay LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, all levels of government, the Quebec government, the federal government and all other provinces, are subject to fiscal pressures. There is nothing new about that.

Let me say that if we look at the current equalization levels, we are at about $8.9 billion. There is an immediate increase to $10 billion and then in 2005-06 up to $10.9 billion. Over the course of the period of time, it averages out to a 7.5% increase over that five year period. It is a 42% jump in equalization payments.

Those folks do not seem to be able to take prosperity, Mr. Speaker.

HealthOral Question Period

11:25 a.m.

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. We know that the minister has done nothing to stop credit card medicine as he gets cozier with his new friends. Now we have the Prime Minister's office claiming that he would never touch the Canada Health Act. Here is another example of their saying one thing and doing something else.

Does the Minister of Health deny that his friends deleted section 6 of the Canada Health Act in 1995, yes or no?

HealthOral Question Period

11:25 a.m.

Edmonton Centre Alberta

Liberal

Anne McLellan LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Mr. Speaker, let me be absolutely clear for all members in the House and all Canadians. Any allegation that the Prime Minister would do anything in relation to the Canada Health Act other than support it and reinforce it on behalf of all Canadians is simply untrue.

This is the Prime Minister who just weeks ago was able to negotiate a unanimous agreement with 13 provincial and territorial leaders to ensure that our health--

HealthOral Question Period

11:25 a.m.

The Speaker

The hon. member for Vancouver East.

HealthOral Question Period

11:25 a.m.

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the record, because section 6 was deleted in 1995 and as a result home care services in this country were privatized.

The Minister of Health's job is to protect the health of Canadians, not abandon them, so why is he siding with big tobacco? Can he explain to Canadians why he cannot afford a pharmacare program but he can afford to help big tobacco in a lawsuit that is against the interests of Canadians?