Paul Martin

[Taxation, May 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is a shame when the leader of the opposition reads a letter and does not read the whole thing. Perhaps I should tell the House what I said, which was that the Government of Canada recognizes the financial pressures the provinces are under and is working closely with them in several key areas such as health.

I went on to say that this summer we plan to discuss a long-term action plan for health. This demonstrates the Government of Canada's commitment.

[Health, May 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, of course the Minister of Health speaks for the government. He also speaks for a publicly funded universally accessible health care system. That is the position of this government. That is the position of this party. This is the party that brought medicare into being and we stand behind it today.

[Sponsorship Program, May 4th, 2004]

The answer to the question, Mr. Speaker, is no, absolutely not.

[Sponsorship Program, May 4th, 2004]

It is quite the opposite, Mr. Speaker. What in fact the government wants and what the Liberal members on the public accounts committee want is to have as many witnesses as possible. They want to have an indepth review. At the same time the government has created a commission of inquiry under Mr. Justice Gomery and has brought in special counsel to seek as much recovery of the money as possible.

In terms of the Auditor General, Mr. Speaker, the fact is that if you talk to the President of the Treasury Board what you will find is that he has brought in a fundamental reform on the way in which government controls its spending. He has done that in very close consultation with the Auditor General.

[Ethics, April 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the preamble and assumption upon which the question was based were simply not factual.

[Ethics, April 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the assumption upon which the question has been based is simply not true. Certain ministers were given extensions. I can assure the hon. member that every single minister will live up to the conflict of interest guidelines.

[Employment Insurance, April 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, right from the start, when changes needed to be made to employment insurance, the government made them. We recognize quite clearly that there are flaws in the system that need to be fixed. I can assure the House that it is in our interest and we intend to fix it.

[Health, April 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, not only did I support the health accord, but I also supported the provision of $37 billion over a five year period to finance it.

Let us be very clear. The fact is that the vast majority of health care experts, including the major provinces, support the idea of a 10 year plan. In fact, they want to see us put in a solution that will last for a generation. We are not here to cast into doubt the basic fundamentals of what is one of the most important parts of the Canadian social fabric and that is the way we take care of our health care: based on need, not on wealth.

[Health, April 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Alliance Conservative position on health care is one that is not acceptable to Canadians and is of very little interest to us.

This party, the Liberal Party, brought into being the universal, accessible public health care system. That was our position at the time it was brought in, that is our position today, and that will be our position tomorrow and for the years to come.

[National Defence, April 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the issues of mad cow disease and softwood lumber are two subjects we will discuss in depth and, of course, we will go as far as we can with these topics. At the same time, we will talk about other subjects such as energy and the environment. We will also talk about Canada's role in the war on terrorism and about the very important document tabled by the Deputy Prime Minister.

And I should at least thank the hon. member for having raised the question of—