Stephen Harper

[Health, November 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister I suppose makes the point that health care has not really been the priority of the government.

Last year it raised spending in health care by less than other things like corporate welfare, hiring more bureaucrats and other departmental spending. This is why the finance minister is now warning that the government may not have enough money to spend on health care.

I ask again, it is something we have asked before, will the government commit to finding money for health care within the existing budget envelope and commit to ruling out tax increases for health care?

[Health, November 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, that is true, but it started that process by cutting spending for health care. I see the Prime Minister applauding that.

For nine years the government has opposed structural reform of the health care system. The government and Roy Romanow have opposed harnessing private investment and alternative delivery within the public health care system. The government has dealt with problems by spending more tax dollars.

Does the government still believe that spending more tax dollars alone will solve the problems of the health care system?

[Health, November 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government's health care commissioner, Roy Romanow, said yesterday that health care will need an additional $7 billion. With federal spending rising at the rate of about 8% a year, and the government talking about another $20 billion of spending in the throne speech, the finance minister has already been suggesting that spending is out of control and a new fiscal watchdog is needed over there.

Where does the government intend to get the additional dollars it says it will need for health care?

[Canada-U.S. Relations, November 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed he is still dragging his feet on an apology.

On the anniversary of September 11, the Prime Minister made disparaging remarks about the United States and western allies. He has ridiculed the President's Texas roots in caucus, and now he has failed to deal quickly with these disparaging remarks.

At a time when Canada is facing significant issues on things like wheat, softwood lumber, agriculture and international relations, would the Prime Minister enlighten us as to what useful purpose any of this strategy serves?

[Canada-U.S. Relations, November 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the only constant is the Prime Minister's refusal to take full responsibility. It is time he admitted that he should have done the obvious, admit this was wrong and take responsibility for what has happened.

I know the Prime Minister does not find it easy to apologize, but I wonder if he will now simply issue an apology to the President of the United States so we can put this matter behind us.

[Canada-U.S. Relations, November 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, five days ago we witnessed the insult that was heard around the world. Three days ago the Prime Minister refused to accept the resignation of his communications director because, he said, “I don't think it was a major offence”. Today we have learned he has accepted that resignation.

Could the Prime Minister offer clarification on what has happened to change his mind?

[Points of Order, November 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this is, as I am sure members opposite will point out, my third point of order in regard to the government's motion on the Order Paper in which the House is being asked to call upon the government to ratify the Kyoto protocol.

However, unlike my two earlier points of order, one on which the Chair has reserved, my argument here is not that the motion is not properly on the Order Paper and should not be received by the Chair, but rather that even if it is properly on the Order Paper, it cannot be brought on for debate at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I know you have reserved on a previous matter, but this matter comes down to whether we can proceed at all today.

The issue on this point of order is that the government has failed to follow critical customary practices of the House. In particular, it has failed to ensure that accompanying any motion asking that the House call upon the government to ratify a treaty, that the treaty be properly laid before the House.

Professor Peter Hogg, one of the leading constitutional scholars in Canada, when speaking about the practice of government seeking parliamentary approval for ratification of a treaty, states at pages 11-4 and 11-5 in the latest edition of his Constitutional Law of Canada :

The government will lay the treaty before Parliament and move a resolution in each House approving the treaty.

The motion before us is the government's attempt to move the necessary resolution, but the government has not actually laid the treaty before the House.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, whenever Canadian rules of parliamentary procedure are silent on a matter in terms of either our standing orders or Beauchesne's and others, it is open to you to look to the authority and practices of the British House of Commons. In that regard, I would refer to page 251 of Erskine May, 18th edition, which states:

When a treaty requires ratification, the government do not usually proceed with ratification until a period of 21 days has elapsed from the date on which the text of such a treaty was laid before Parliament.

In this case, the government has not laid the text of the Kyoto protocol before the House. Therefore, I would submit that even if the government has properly placed this motion on the Order Paper, it is not open to the House to proceed to consider it until the text of the treaty is laid before us and 21 days have expired after the government has done so.

Erskine May also talks about this 21 day rule not applying in a situation where there is a national emergency concerning the ratification of a treaty, but this obviously is not the case here, notwithstanding the Prime Minister's sudden post-August rush to get ratification.

Therefore, the motion cannot be taken up for debate at this time because the government has not followed the necessary steps in order for the House to consider it.

[Kyoto Protocol, November 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to seeing the minister quoted every time the government floats one of those lines.

Provinces and industry are asked to have blind faith that the accord will not bankrupt them. Yet the latest version of the government's PowerPoint presentation is devoid of any cost estimates at all or any guarantees to the provinces.

Once again, given these rumours that the government keeps floating, should Canadians assume from the government's failure to produce cost estimates that it is not serious about actually paying for and implementing the accord?

[Kyoto Protocol, November 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister only dropped his conditions once he knew he would not have to face the Canadian people again. His actions are irresponsible.

Without a definitive plan there are no guarantees that our industries and businesses will be protected or remain competitive. The government is trying to deal with this is by putting out reports reassuring Canadian businesses that they will not have to meet Kyoto's punitive targets due to the lack of any implementation plan.

I ask the minister, is it true that the reason the government has failed to provide implementing legislation is because it is not serious about actually implementing the accord and meeting the targets?

[Kyoto Protocol, November 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on March 26 the Prime Minister wrote to the hon. Perrin Beatty, of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, assuring him, as he did many others, that Kyoto would proceed only under the following conditions: a workable plan; progress internationally on clean energy exports; progress domestically on consultation with the provinces, stakeholders and other Canadians; and no artificial deadline.

My question is simple. Since none of the Prime Minister's conditions for ratification have been met, other than his sad hunt for a legacy, why are we now pursuing Kyoto ratification on an end of the year deadline?