Debates of Oct. 17th, 1995

Health Care

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a survey conducted last year by the Alberta Consumers' Association found that ophthalmologists who only operated in hospitals had waiting lists for surgery of two to five weeks while those who worked in both private clinics and hospitals could perform surgery on a private patient in two to four weeks but a hospital patient could wait up to 20 weeks.

Private clinics are not necessarily the answer to long waiting lists.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, these are facts. The wait for elective heart surgery in Manitoba is over two years; for a hip replacement in P.E.I. it is over one year.

This minister clings to her bureaucrats and her beloved legislation-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Macleod.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

The minister clings to her beloved bureaucrats and her old-fashioned legislation. In the nineties that means medicare is literally bad for everyone.

Will the minister put health before petty politics and arbitrary deadlines, sit down with the provinces and reform the Canada Health Act so we will not have to choose between death on a waiting list or travelling to a foreign country?

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I will work and I am working with the provincial governments to shape the future of medicare. The National Forum on Health is also working and will be consulting with Canadians.

When it comes to waiting lists in this country, allowing the wealthy to get to the head of the line does not shorten the line; it only pushes others to the back.

Francophones Outside Quebec

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

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

After two years of Liberal government and 25 years of the Official Languages Act, the situation of francophones outside Quebec continues to worsen. One third of them now speak English at home. In British Columbia, the assimilation rate is even 75 per cent. So now we are not speaking of more than a million francophones outside Quebec but rather of 640,000 who are still using French.

Will the Prime Minister admit that the poor results obtained from the Official Languages Act shows the failure of his vision of Canada, since it has not been successful in blocking the increasing assimilation of francophones outside Quebec?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, recently the magazine L'Actualité reported that Canada has made more progress in recent years than any other country in the world with respect to the use of French.

I cannot understand the hon. member. She is prepared to abandon francophones outside Quebec. She is prepared to abandon the million francophones living outside Quebec.

They show no consideration for these people because they want to separate from Canada. We on the other hand want to remain within Canada because we want to offer real protection to those who really have the merit of speaking French, the francophones outside Quebec.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Prime Minister that it is he who has separated us from Canada, it is not Quebec which wishes to separate from Canada.

Secondly, may I remind him also to consult the figures from Statistics Canada. There are one million francophones, yes, but just 640,000 of them use French at home and are therefore considered French speaking.

[An hon. member]

They are becoming assimilated.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

They have been assimilated.

[Maurice Godin, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Poof.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

The francophones-poof.

[An hon. member]

The francophones-poof.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Does the Prime Minister then not acknowledge the very opposite, that the future of francophone culture in America rests with a sovereign Quebec, for only a sovereign Quebec will constitute the anchor point for all francophones. In it they will find a true and tenacious ally in solidarity with them, one that will defend their most legitimate demands everywhere.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, this very day the newspaper representing francophones outside Quebec has asked Quebecers to vote no in the referendum, because the future of francophones outside Quebec depends on the federal Official Languages Act, and on the fact that there is a government here in Canada, in Ottawa, which has always defended francophones outside Quebec.

Certainly some people have more difficulty than others in retaining their French, but they do want to retain it. Not only that. Every year 350,000 English speaking Canadians learn French because they live in Canada, a country where there are francophones, and this raises the number of people speaking French in Canada and in the world. The reason French is alive and well in

America is that the French have remained in Canada since Confederation.

Somalia Inquiry

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Canadians were stunned by the admission of the defence minister that the National Defence Act will prevent certain charges from being laid at the conclusion of the Somalia inquiry.

Yesterday, the Minister of National Defence told the Globe and Mail that charges could be laid under the Criminal Code of Canada. The chairman of the Somalia inquiry stated: ``Most of the matters we will be dealing with might end up in some findings that could perhaps call for disciplinary action as opposed to criminal charges''. As opposed to criminal charges.

Will the minister admit that there will be no judicial remedy for certain charges when the Somalia inquiry is finally concluded?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I answered this question rather clearly yesterday.

There is sufficient flexibility in the National Defence Act to ensure that justice will be done. The government well knew the statute of limitations on certain disciplinary matters under the National Defence Act when the inquiry was called. Indeed the justice who chairs the commission, Justice Létourneau, knows it well because he was a former judge of the court martial appeals court.

There are other ways in which justice may be done administratively. If the hon. member is afraid that those people if identified cannot be brought to justice or are somehow not going to be dealt with fairly, I assure him to the contrary.

This will be a matter that will be done in a very deliberate way after all the evidence is brought forward. I would like him to let the commission get down to work so that justice can be done.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows full well that I am afraid of nothing, but the minister should be very afraid of his mismanagement of this entire affair.

I will read from the National Defence Act. It sets out a three-year limitation period for everything except mutiny, desertion, absence without leave, and death penalty offences. That is it.

Canadians know there is a separate code of law which applies to our military to enforce discipline and leadership which expires in March 1996. Canadians want to know why the minister has so mismanaged the affair that now discipline and leadership cannot be enforced in our Canadian Armed Forces.

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member quite frankly does not know what he is talking about. He has cited rather selectively sections of the National Defence Act. I want to assure him that there are ways of dealing with culpability other than with criminal charges. He should go back and look at the National Defence Act and perhaps get some advice on how to interpret it and then come back with some decent questions tomorrow.

Francophone Communities

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.

Premier Roy Romanow of Saskatchewan, that great Canadian who was a party to excluding Quebec from the Canadian constitution during the night of the long knives in 1982, said recently that if Quebec voted yes, that was the end of French school boards in Saskatchewan.

Does the Prime Minister intend to protest against this kind of blackmail at the expense of francophone communities, or does he agree with his 1982 accomplice?

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, this question is not the administrative responsibility of the Prime Minister. This question would be out of order but if the Prime Minister wants to answer it, I will let him answer it. If not, I will go on to the next question.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the best way to protect the education rights of francophones outside Quebec-which we put in the Canadian constitution in 1982, it was not there before-the best way to ensure that French schools outside Quebec are protected by the constitution adopted by this Parliament in 1982, when I was Minister of Justice, is to stay in Canada. The best guarantee francophones have is to stay in Canada.

When I see francophone members abandoning francophones outside Quebec, I find that shameful, Mr. Speaker.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am asking the Prime Minister whether he dissociates himself from what was said by Premier Roy Romanow of Saskatchewan. That is what I am asking, and he is evading the question.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Saskatchewan, like the other premiers today in Canada, has an obligation under the Canadian constitution to protect French schools outside Quebec. If Quebec separates from Canada-