House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 50% of the vote.
Social Union October 28th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says he needs a consensus to act.
In Saskatoon, the premiers agreed that the federal government should refund the $6.3 billion in cuts to the social transfers.
My question is for the Prime Minister. If he is serious, why does he not act?
Election In Quebec October 27th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, if Jean Charest's friends are asking the Prime Minister to shut up during the election campaign, is it not proof that what Jean Charest is promising is precisely what the Prime Minister calls unachievable hopes?
Election In Quebec October 27th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister should give a call to his friend Jean Charest, who said that it is not Bouchard or Rochon, but the Liberal government of Jean Chrétien that should be blamed.
Election In Quebec October 27th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the federalist camp is in disarray, and some people have even asked the Prime Minister to shut up for the duration of the election campaign in Quebec.
Does the Prime Minister intend to follow the advice of his Quebec federalist allies, who are asking him to shut up for 36 days and to wait until after the election campaign to say what he thinks?
The Constitution October 26th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
When he is out canvassing, will the minister be offering people an explanation of the position taken by his leader, the Prime Minister, who says that everything has been sorted out, or the position of their protégé, Jean Charest, who says it has not? Which position will he be explaining to voters?
The Constitution October 26th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, in addition to telling us that he had met all Quebec's traditional demands, the Prime Minister told us that his ministers would be giving the Liberal Party of Quebec a hand during the upcoming election.
When the federal ministers are campaigning for Jean Charest in Quebec, will they be telling voters that all Quebec's traditional demands have now been met?
Scrapie October 5th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
The Minister of Agriculture has announced that there would be no retroactive compensation for sheep farmers whose flocks are affected by scrapie.
Does the minister consider it acceptable that the people first affected by this problem, those who respected the law and reported the problem to the department, thus preventing spread of the disease, are those ones now getting the least compensation and being penalized by this government?
Supply October 5th, 1998
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for sharing his concerns about the social union. I am sure we will have an opportunity in the coming weeks to address some of his concerns, particularly those regarding aboriginal peoples.
On the subject of compliance with the Canada Health Act, we will let the provinces speak for themselves. However, the provinces have been saying all along that they want to maintain a universal health care system, which should alleviate the member's concerns as to how the health system would be managed if they were to become more actively involved than they are now in its management.
I am sure we agree on the need to put new money into health care. I would like to know if the member thinks the priority to put new money into the health system is best met through the current Canada Health and Social Transfer or if he supports the federal government's plan to initiate new programs on its own. For instance, if $2 billion were to be invested in health care next year, should it go into the existing Canada Health and Social Transfer or into some new initiative unilaterally put in place by the federal government? I would like to hear him on how new money should be invested in health care.
Supply October 5th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the minister began his speech with the old refrain. I have the feeling I have been listening to the same tape for a number of years now. It all sounds the same. He is even using the same figures, when in fact things have changed.
One of the things the minister mentioned was fluctuations in the EI fund. I would have liked him to tell us that, in Quebec's case, the fluctuations are all on the positive side of the ledger, with that province contributing $475 billion more than it receives in EI. Quebec contributes to the EI surplus but the government leaves it out of those programs where we receive more than we pay. This is simply not right, and he knows it. Quebec does indeed make a contribution, leaving us behind and the federal government ahead, with our money to throw around as it sees fit.
He cleverly avoided saying anything about the Saskatoon consensus. Nowhere in his speech was there any reference to it. Will he tell me which of the four principles in the motion about the Saskatoon consensus is not worthy of implementation? Which of the four components in the motion—which he probably has in front of him—is he unable to approve and support? I would dearly love to hear what he has to say about this.
Supply October 5th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for pointing out in his preamble that what happened affected not only health care but also education.
I could have made similar remarks about the education system, where the government had the nerve to put forward an initiative like the millennium scholarships, meddling in a provincial jurisdiction, when Quebec's priorities might have been slightly different from the federal government's, had the same amount been available. But that is another debate.
I thank him anyway for pointing out that what is true for health is also true for education and, I might add, for social assistance.
As for an eventual framework agreement on economic development, no one can be against that. I come from a border riding. Across the lake from us is Ontario. For many of our businesses in Quebec, it is easier to trade with the United States than with a Canadian province. Standards and regulations governing transportation for instance are often extremely complex. This creates somewhat artificial trade barriers, which nevertheless make some aspects of our system archaic.
The objective is good, but it is very difficult to reach an agreement on an issue identified by all Canadians as a priority, namely health care. This government is not very responsive. Imagine what it would be like with interprovincial trade. In this respect, I have greater confidence in the provinces and their ability to come to an agreement among themselves than in the federal government.