Debates of March 16th, 1995

Health Care

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we are planning to make sure that in working with the provinces we will control the cost of medicare so that we can keep universal free medicare for all Canadians.

As indicated, the collaboration between the Government of Canada and the provinces has already seen the result that the public side of health care did not increase last year. It has started to decrease. If we all use the discipline needed we will go back to 9 per cent of GDP and we will still have the best medicare.

We will not be trapped in the private sector nets that exist in the United States, where it spends 15 per cent of its GDP. In Canada it is universal, free, costing around 10 per cent now.

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

Mr. Speaker, we should ask a taxpayer whether it is free.

The Prime Minister speaks in glowing terms about preserving our national health care standards. I will tell the Prime Minister what is really happening.

In Manitoba there is a waiting period of 61.7 weeks, way over one year, for hip replacement surgery. The national standard is 11.3 weeks. Where is the performance? How are we meeting our current commitments? What good are national standards if the provinces cannot deliver on them?

Is the government prepared to bring the Canada Health Act in line with the 1990s and give the provinces real control over medicine delivery and health care financing?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately there are problems in some provinces. The performance is not the same everywhere. In our system medicare-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

It is administered by the provincial governments. If they had a better government in Manitoba perhaps they could do better on that score.

Advisory Council On The Status Of Women

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

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

The federal government decided on the sly to dissolve the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, an organization that has always been recognized for its independence of the government and its strong stands in advancing the cause of women.

How can the Prime Minister justify the government's decision to abolish the Advisory Council on the Status of Women by handing over its responsibilities to women's organizations that are already in difficulty?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, women's councils across the country were telling us that they were in a better position to do political analyses than people appointed by order in council.

We hear the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois say that the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, which was appointed by the government, is less objective than organizations such as FRAPPE or other organizations not working directly under an order in council. This is why we changed the system.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is not the opinion of women's groups in Quebec. At least not what I heard yesterday.

My supplementary question is again for the Prime Minister. How can the government claim that the Advisory Council on the Status of Women was meeting needs that no longer exist, when women continue to be the heads of the poorest families in Canada, when they earn less than a man for equal work, when they are the primary victims of violence and when they are always in the most vulnerable jobs?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, what the government decided to do was to abolish the order in council positions that are traditionally characterized as patronage positions.

As the hon. member will know, the Advisory Council on the Status of Women named people by order in council. There was a question put by women's groups across the country to which we responded. That question was: How can a person on the advisory council be at arm's length from the government when they are in fact appointed by the government?

It is for that reason we have taken the research funds and the funds that were previously paid to finance the order in council appointments and have ploughed that money back into research, which will be made available to women's groups across the country so that they can set their priorities instead of having them set by order in council appointees.

National Defence

[Jack Frazer, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Jeffries report identified critical leadership shortfalls in the Canadian forces. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the report's lament that soldiers are constantly asked to "do more, with less for less".

General Jeffries has been honest and courageous in saying what the minister seems ready to ignore: that he and his officials demand more but give less.

Will the minister acknowledge that it is the responsibility of good leadership, including himself, to allocate priorities and commitments according to resources, and that this responsibility has been neglected?

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

Mr. Speaker, after question period yesterday I received a copy of the memorandum General Jeffries had sent out and I went through it rather meticulously. Most of the contents of that memorandum paralleled the recommendations and the commentary of the special joint committee on defence to which the hon. member was a signatory.

On page 49 of the parliamentary report the committee said that morale was not a problem because of poor leadership. The hon. member now wants us to believe that the opinion he had with all the rest of the members some four months ago has somehow been changed.

The fact of the matter is that the committee of which he was a prominent member made a lot of recommendations. All those recommendations have been accepted and all the questions that General Jeffries raised are being dealt with in a full and consistent manner.

[Jack Frazer, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ with the minister that all the recommendations have been accepted. Quite a number have not been accepted or instituted.

General Jeffries noted:

The difference between what is necessary and what is affordable is made up by people, people who are required to deploy more frequently, perform more taskings, work longer hours, take more risks.

He concluded that operational capability-

[The Speaker]

Order. I find today that the questions are really a little long and so are the answers. Would the hon. member please put his question directly.

[Jack Frazer, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, having received this advice, will the minister ignore it, as he did in the case of the airborne regiment, or take action now to avoid what the report referred to as "a hollow army and burnt out soldiers?"

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to impinge on the goodwill of the House by reading yet another section from the same memorandum but I feel compelled to do so.

General Jeffries states in the memorandum that despite some of the formidable list of dissatisfiers, morale remains for the most part high. He goes on to embellish that. I think that is good enough.

Human Rights

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. On January 18, the minister, in reply to a request made by his counterpart in Quebec, refused to explicitly prohibit female circumcision and other genital mutilation, under the pretext that the current provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada sufficed.

Why has the Minister of Justice refused to explicitly add female circumcision and other genital mutilation to the Criminal Code of Canada, as requested by Quebec's justice minister, Quebec's human rights commission and all of the experts in the field?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to point out that opinions on this controversial issue are divided. In fact, according to an article in today's Le Devoir , Quebec's council on the status of women does not necessarily agree with the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women on this issue.

The Quebec council believes that amending the Criminal Code could inadvertently drive the practice even further underground and the federal government agrees. We are more in favour of trying to heighten awareness in communities with a

tradition of performing female circumcisions and genital mutilation.

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

Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister of Justice continue to delude himself that the Criminal Code, as it stands, suffices when a gynecologist, Claude Fortin, states that he had to perform surgery on nine Canadian women to treat genital mutilations and that no lawsuit was ever filed against those who committed these barbarous acts?

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

Mr. Speaker, fewer than two weeks ago in Toronto I met with the advisory council created by the Attorney General of Ontario on this subject.

Twenty-five women from the communities most affected by the issue are preparing a report on the question with specific recommendations on the issue of criminalization. Their present view is that an amendment to the Criminal Code is not appropriate because it will drive the practice further underground and make it more difficult for us to punish it when it is found.

I cannot emphasize strongly enough the commitment of the government to prosecute and punish this criminal misconduct when it is uncovered. However, I must say there are people very familiar with the issue who believe very strongly that it is not in the interest of that cause to make amendments to the Criminal Code as suggested.

Labour

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Lisgar—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign in Manitoba, the Prime Minister said: "The little guy from Shawinigan will look after the interests of the little guy in Canada".

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Lisgar—Marquette, MB]

I have a constituent who has a shipment of over $200,000 worth of sunflower seeds in jeopardy due to the Montreal dock workers strike.

Now that he is the big guy in Ottawa, what immediate action will the Prime Minister take to provide transportation for this product to Halifax so that this little processor will not be forced into bankruptcy?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, Parliament acted very rapidly yesterday in the case of the port of Vancouver. The port was completely closed.

The problem in Montreal is of a different nature. It does not call for legislation at this time and the Minister of Labour is looking into the matter.

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Lisgar—Marquette, MB]

That answer will not put food on the little processor's table, Mr. Speaker.

Negotiations in the railways are a disaster in waiting. Once again farmers may be called upon to-

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

I ask colleagues on a supplementary question for perhaps a sentence and then to put the question.