Debates of Oct. 18th, 1995

Health Care

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, they are banning all clinics. It is good to have an answer. It is like the answers we get from the minister of public works and the minister of culture.

Why is the minister not demanding that Quebec stop charging facility fees on privately run abortion clinics?

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, let me come back again to what the letter of January 6 was all about. It concerns all provinces. We are now going into every province and we are determining what is happening in each province. That is what is happening.

If there are facility fees being charged and they are not right in any province then we will move in that direction. Many provinces have indicated that they are now negotiating or are addressing the problem as British Columbia did. That is what it is all about. It is about ensuring equitable access for everyone.

Dairy Industry

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the separatists seem more interested in winning the referendum at any cost than in dealing with the real problems of Quebec farmers.

My question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Could he explain how being part of Canada benefits dairy farmers in Quebec?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity in an earlier answer to outline some very impressive statistics about how the Canadian supply management system benefits the dairy industry in the province of Quebec.

By the very fundamental definition of supply management, the domestic market of a producing country is preserved primarily for the benefit of that country's domestic producers. A separate Quebec would obviously no longer be part of the Canadian domestic market. As a result the dairy industry in Quebec could be placed in very substantial jeopardy.

The clearest, best, strongest answer for preserving all these benefits for the dairy industry in Quebec and for the dairy industry in Canada is a clear and decisive no on October 30.

Department Of Justice

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Last spring, the Bloc Quebecois condemned the blatantly unfair treatment of Quebec by the Department of Justice when professional and special contracts are awarded. In his reply, the minister confirmed our statements, in other words, Quebec is losing out on contracts awarded by the Department of Justice.

Today, could the Minister of Justice explain why Ontario, his own province, gets 80 per cent of the total value of his department's professional and special contracts, while businesses and individuals working under contract in Quebec get only 6 per cent?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, indeed it was last spring the hon. member put those questions. It was on that occasion that I provided the response and the response remains the same. The Department of Justice, like all departments of government, pursues a policy of open and competitive bidding for all work awarded by contract.

I can tell the hon. member that no matter how the statistics might be used for present partisan purposes, the results and the advantages of the research and the work done at the Department of Justice are shared equally by all Canadians.

Health Care

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back once again to the question of waiting lists.

It was a cold Friday in January 1980 when my wife was diagnosed with breast cancer. I am very grateful that her life was spared because of the speedy surgery which a very competent surgeon recommended and performed three days after the diagnosis.

My wife now counsels and consoles women in the same situation. They are waiting in line while the government is funding boxes in domes with its infrastructure program. What is the government going to do about that? What should my wife tell these women who are waiting in line while their lives are being threatened?

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's wife was well treated when she became ill, thanks to Canada's good medicare system.

Yes, there are challenges and they are not always easy to meet. However, we do not meet them by ripping up something that is very good. They are met by working at protecting the very values which have served Canadians so well.

It is very important that all Canadians continue to have access to the services they need, not just because they can afford to pay extra for them, but because they need them. We have to work very closely with provincial governments, which we are doing. We are going to continue to do that.

It is a question of equity and good access, not of having some get ahead in the line because they can pay more. That is not what is fair. Think of the 38 million Americans who have no insurance at all. What kind of lines are they in?

Pharmaceuticals

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.

Prescription drugs represent 17 per cent of the total cost of health care in the country. These prices have increased 13 per cent each year over the past eight years due to Bill C-91, which the Liberals opposed in opposition but seem to support in government.

The government can save Canadians nearly $1 billion yearly, simply by doing one thing: repealing Bill C-91 or, at the very least, abolishing the automatic injunction clause of the patented medicines regulations.

Why will the government not stop the pharmaceutical drug manufacturers from ripping off Canadians with usury pricing of prescription drugs?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, first let me help the hon. member with some of his statistics because I think he would want to get them right.

First, 15.1 per cent of national health expenditures in the last year for which we have full statistics were for pharmaceuticals. Patented drugs only account for 40 per cent of the pharmaceuticals purchased in those expenditures. In addition, with respect to patented medicines, and this is determined by an independent board, the price increase from 1987 to 1994 was 2.1 per cent per year.

If the hon. member begins to take those statistics into account he might phrase his question a little differently. As he knows, and I have assured the House several times, we are reviewing Canada's drug patent policy. In addition, under Bill C-91 there is a parliamentary review process that will be invoked in 1997.

Point Of Order

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am happy to note that the hon. member for Roberval is here while I raise this issue.

During question period, my colleague, the hon. member for Timiskaming-French River decided to put a question to a government minister. He chose to do so in English, which is obviously his second language. While he was on his feet, a heckler on the other side of the House asked the hon. member: "Can't you speak French?"

[The Speaker]

All the more reason that we have to be ever vigilant in the words we use in the House of Commons. I did not hear the statement. Of course this is not a point of order but I am sure the point made by the government whip has been taken.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning the auditor general's report tabled on October 5, 1995 and referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

I contend that the tabling and referral to the committee of this report is out of order because the report in question contravenes the Auditor General Act and the conventions and prerogatives of the House.

I draw attention to section 5 of the Auditor General Act which defines the position as the "auditor of the accounts of Canada" and section 7(2) which sets out the parameters of the auditor general's reports. This paragraph empowers the auditor general to report that the records of the public accounts were faithfully kept, that expenditures have been made only as authorized by Parliament and with due regard for efficiency, and that due measures are taken to measure the effectiveness of programs.

In his latest report the auditor general has clearly overstepped the legal and customary boundaries of his duties as a servant of the House and in my judgment has interfered with the rights of the House by making politically biased statements. Let me illustrate

this claim with some direct quotations from the auditor general's report in question.

In paragraph 9.84 the report states: "We think that Parliament and the public need to focus on debt issues, particularly the amount of debt we carry". The auditor general exists to help Parliament hold the government to account and not to hold Parliament to account for failing to adopt a particular policy. No company of shareholders in the private sector would accept an auditor's report that expressed an opinion about how the shareholders conducted themselves at meetings, rather than help the shareholders assess the management of the company. I contend that neither can we in the House.

The auditor general further infringes on the rights of the House when he writes in paragraph 9.107 concerning the level of public debt:

Determining a strategy to achieve that vision is something the government and Parliament need to debate and develop a consensus on.

I do not need to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the House does not necessarily exist to create a consensus around a particular economic theory. There are different and differing political theories and different political stances in the House. Therefore I contend that the House exists to hold the government of the day accountable in a way that reflects the diversity of political opinion in the country and that this is not recognized in the auditor general's report.

The duty of the auditor general as set out in law is to aid Parliament in that task by providing technical information about the state of the public accounts to assist members of the House in their debates. It is not to preach to Parliament about what the conclusion of that debate should be.

The same criticism can be applied to paragraph 9.52 of the report which states:

The reality is that (interest rates) are not lower, and had it been a simple matter of making them lower in the 1980s and 1990s as they were in the previous 20 years, governments would have undoubtedly done so.

I would happily debate this point with anybody in the House, for it is common knowledge that the Bank of Canada under John Crow deliberately chose to dramatically increase interest rates in quest of a zero inflation rate.

My procedural point is that I cannot argue this point with the auditor general because this statement comes in the form of an ex cathedra pronouncement of an auditor who is presumed to provide objective assessments of the public accounts. Yet I can think of no principle of accounting that would allow an auditor to offer such a tendentious historical verdict on the motives of past governments, a verdict which supports a particular political position on what caused our fiscal problems and what should be done about them.

Because the auditor general like yourself, Mr. Speaker, is a servant of Parliament, he should not use the authority of his position to advance political arguments as if they were uncontested accounting principles. His reports must demonstrate the highest degree of political neutrality. He cannot perform the role of auditor as set out clearly in the Auditor General Act if he uses his position to take sides in debates that properly take place in the House. The auditor general has therefore overstepped his legal and customary duties in his latest report.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider two measures to defend the rights of the House to have access to an objective auditing of the public accounts. First, I ask you to rule the tabling of the October 5 report to be out of order and to have you ask that the auditor general submit an amended report that conforms to his duties as set out in the Auditor General Act. Second, I ask you to refer the matter of the terms of reference for auditor general's reports to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I was not given prior notice of this point of order.

It strikes me as a rather serious challenge by the hon. member that the auditor general should not be independent of government, not be independent of the opinions of the House when he studies the efficiency of the government and the spending of government. Certainly if the auditor general does not have the independence to make suggestions on whether or not governments have acted prudently, we have stripped him of his power and we have stripped him of his reason for being. Therefore I disagree with the hon. member. I think his argument is very weak and should not even be considered in the House.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona has argued with his usual erudition but I submit that even in his wildest dreams he could not have imagined that the point he has raised is really a question of privilege.

I refer Your Honour to-

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

A point of order, I said.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

A point of order. I thought he said it breached the privileges of the House, Mr. Speaker, and that he wanted it ruled out of order because it breached the privileges of the House, because it interfered with our privilege to manage our financial affairs, the financial affairs of the country.

I turn to citation 24 of Beauchesne's sixth edition where it states:

Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions.

I submit that in the tabling of this report there has been no impedance with members' functions or their ability to discharge their functions. We have here a situation where the hon. member disagrees with some of the contents of the report. I have no doubt the government disagrees with some of the contents of the report as well. I suspect if I read it all as thoroughly as the hon. member obviously has I would probably disagree with parts of the report.

However the place for him to take his complaints is not to the House to have the report ruled out of order. The auditor general has a right to submit his opinions to the House. He is an officer of the House and that is his duty. Surely the hon. member should go to the public accounts committee and complain about the report if he disagrees with it. Then the public accounts committee would report to the House saying it disagrees with the auditor general's report if the committee agrees. Surely that is where this complaint ought to go.

The hon. member has not raised a point of order or a question of privilege in my submission. He has raised what I can only suggest is a complaint. He disagrees with the report, fine. He should go to the committee and express his disagreement. That is what the committee is for. That is why it has been referred there.

[The Speaker]

I think a very important point has been raised today. I take under advisement the opinions of the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster and the member for Kingston and the Islands.

I would like to look at this a bit more closely in view of what has been said today and I would like to more inform myself of the particulars. I will reserve a decision on this point and get back to the House when and if it is needed.

Is this on the same point of order? I do not want to get into a debate going back and forth.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to apologize to my colleagues for not having given more notice and for that matter any notice. I would hope that some of the comments that have been made might change when people have an opportunity to think about it.

The very fact the member gets up and says that I disagree with something in the report is the point I am trying to make. The report should be of such a factual nature that there is nothing in it to disagree with. It should be a report on various facts of a technical nature. The fact that I can find something to agree with or somebody else can find something to disagree with is the point I am trying to make about the report.

Nobody elects the auditor general to make these kinds of judgments. I think we have a situation here that-

[The Speaker]

I appreciate the member's intervention. I am sure he will agree with other members of the House and with me when I say that I would like to reserve my decision on this matter. I would like to inform myself a little more and get back to the House.

I have a point of privilege from the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria. Does this point of privilege arise from the question period today?

[Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais, Liberal, Madawaska—Victoria, NB]

Yes.

Privilege

[Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais, Liberal, Madawaska—Victoria, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is in regard to comments that were made during today's oral question period.

When my colleague from Timiskaming-French River asked his question, part of it was in English and part of it in French. As he was starting to formulate his question, we heard the Bloc member for Roberval's comments. This is a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, and I want to thank you for hearing me out. We heard the hon. member for Roberval shout in this House to the hon. member for Timiskaming-French River: "In French, please. In French".

My question of privilege is as follows: Canada has the charter of rights and freedoms and the Official Languages Act.

[The Speaker]

One moment, please.

A point of order was raised today but I ruled that it was not a point of order.

I have ruled on that. I was waiting for the hon. member to get to the point of privilege. It would seem to me at least at this point that we are engaging in debate on a decision I have already taken about a point of order.

To this point at least I have not heard any argument that would deem this to be a point of privilege.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Exchanges take place in the House throughout question period, indeed throughout debate.

I did not hear the statement that was alleged to have been made. Surely we have to be able to tolerate a certain amount of give and take in the House. This is the point I would like to impress on the House. There are going to be times when words may or may not

have been used that hon. members say they heard. In my view this is not a point of privilege.

Privilege is about what would impede a person from speaking, from voting, from coming to the House. It was raised as a point of order and I ruled on this as a point of order.

In my view this is the same point and I would like the matter to rest there.