Debates of Sept. 22nd, 1995

Pearson Airport

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of respecting the institutions of Parliament, as well as respecting democracy in general, as for the referendum vote in Quebec, the Prime Minister ought to begin by respecting the traditions of this House, and behave like any other Canadian.

Once again, I ask what he is waiting for to go to the Senate to testify, to shed light on this whole matter which, it would appear, shows Conservatives and Liberals to be two peas in a pod, as they both have helped themselves freely to the taxpayers' money.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, at this very moment, I am testifying before the House of Commons. I have said all that I have to say on this matter, and I

have given dates which have been confirmed by the legal firm where I used to work. I had one meeting with that man-

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

That is not true.

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Hamilton East, ON]

Lucien, are you willing to bet your seat on that?

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

That is absolutely true. I declare that we never spoke about the Toronto airport at that time. The meeting concerned the Matthews group's plan regarding the offer they wanted to make to the government with respect to the Department of Transport headquarters.

There were a lot of bids going on at the time in Ottawa competing for this building that has never been built. They came to ask me if the procedures they were following were the proper ones to maximize their chances of winning the bid.

I told them what was positive in their bids, in my judgment, and what was not positive. Eventually nobody won the bid because the building was never built.

Committees Of The House

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, after witnessing question period this week Canadians are now familiar with the government's public unity strategy. However, out of sight of the cameras the Liberals are practising a different strategy, namely appeasement through the election process at committees.

After 14 meetings this week it has become clear the Liberals have formed some sort of alliance with the Bloc in what can only be concluded is an effort to appease the party which would tear our country apart, in the vain hope that it will lead to unity in our time.

Will the government House leader bring forward a notice of motion to amend the standing orders to ensure the election of committee officers by secret ballot?

[The Speaker]

May I please suggest to hon. members that your Speaker is listening to virtually every word that is said in the questions.

Many times in the preambles, which if you will permit me to say are getting longer, it seems, you are leading to a point where we are in committees. When we get to the question it has to be quite precise.

I ask you, please do not put your Speaker in a position that I have to rule out of order before we get to the question. I would ask you to please consider those preambles because they are, for me at least here in the chair, somewhat misleading.

I will permit the question because the question is in order.

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Secretary of State (Parliamentary Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, whatever happens in committee is the responsibility of members of the committee.

The member is also a member of the House procedure committee. If they wish to change the rules they can ask the member sitting in the committee to advance that proposition and the committee on House procedure will look into it.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about internal committee procedures but the responsibility of the House with regard to House rules.

If we look at the figures of the 34th Parliament, the third party received no less than 11 vice-chairs or even chairs. It is hard to believe that the Mulroney Tories would have a greater sense of fair play than the Liberals, especially when the now minister of immigration said in 1987: "The secret ballot offers members of Parliament an opportunity to do what is right for this country"-

[The Speaker]

I ask the hon. member to put his question now.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

My question, Mr. Speaker, is again for the government House leader. Will he agree to introduce at least a resolution allowing for the election of committee officers by secret ballot during the life of this Parliament?

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Secretary of State (Parliamentary Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this is a matter for the House procedures committee.

The hon. member is a member of that committee. He should go to the committee of which he is a member and make that proposition.

Overlap And Duplication

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

Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the No committee, Daniel Johnson, stated in 1992: "Federalism is deeply flawed because of federal duplication, which is costing us a fortune. It is the main reason for the $30 billion deficit". Yesterday, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs admitted that the Privy Council had conducted studies on duplication, which the government decided to keep confidential.

My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Given the substantial waste linked to duplication, why does the government refuse to release these studies?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the reason why I did not admit that we were conducting studies on duplication is because we are not. What I said is that we were doing analyses of the current situation and that the purpose of these analyses is to give advice to the decision makers, that is to say, the ministers.

I would point out to the opposition that similar analyses done for the Executive Council of the Quebec Government are not made public either, since they give confidential advice to the decision makers. There is an essential difference between such analyses, which are exempted under the Access to Information Act, and studies done by research institutes like the INRS, which are meant to be published so that the public can have a better idea of what independence would entail. That is something they are hiding, whereas we are not hiding what we have.

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

Mr. Speaker, we will get back to this on Monday but in the meantime I would like to ask the minister why he is being so secretive about studies showing the cost and extent of overlap and duplication, if not because they prove that the federal system simply does not work?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I will use the very figures quoted by the opposition. At one point during his debate with Daniel Johnson, Mr. Parizeau mentioned that duplication cost $3 billion. He was contradicted by his own advisers, who said at the time that it may have amounted to $250 million.

[Some hon. members]

That is wrong.

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Parizeau quoted a $30 billion figure in his studies, saying that duplication had led to a $30 billion deficit. These figures are wrong and totally unbelievable. These figures have been refuted by many of the studies done by Mr. Le Hir and should not be used if the opposition wants to preserve a minimum of credibility.

Health

[Sharon Hayes, Reform, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

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

The minister continues to adhere to the myth that if medicare ain't broke don't fix it. Yet it is broken and there is a growing chorus from across Canada that wants a change to fix it. This chorus includes provincial governments and ministers of health from across Canada, including British Columbia and Quebec. This chorus includes health care workers, including doctors and nurses and the public whose very lives may be at risk.

To date the minister has introduced only two pieces of legislation in the last two years in Ottawa. Will the minister be introducing any legislation to address this growing need, in fact the demand for change?

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, to date the Canada Health Act has been extremely flexible in allowing for change within different provinces. To say that the system is broken is to exaggerate. I would rather say that the system needs changing. Technology is with us. I am working with the provinces and I will continue to work with them.

I think that the Canada Health Act, which works well for Canadians, should stay in place and continue to protect the rights of Canadians to first class medical care, regardless of whether or not they can afford to pay extra.

[Sharon Hayes, Reform, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's answer once again reflects a blindness to reality, to the facts.

Let me focus on the breakdown of the system. Two examples may suffice. In my home province of British Columbia it takes over seven weeks, almost two months, to get an appointment with a specialist. It takes 27 weeks on average to receive cardiovascular surgery, almost seven months.

When will the minister show that she values the well-being and the lives of Canadians above her blind loyalty to outdated legislation? When will the minister first admit and then act on an obviously unsustainable health care system?

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I am always a little surprised to hear members opposite say how things are in British Columbia. The officials and the minister of health for British Columbia are extremely supportive of the Canada Health Act.

They have brought in their own health act, which mirrors the principles of the Canada Health Act, to ensure that British Columbians will continue to have the best health care policies and the best health care programs available for them.

Duplication And Overlap

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Last spring, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs justified a substantial increase in the Privy Council's budget by saying that this increase was intended for the most part to pay for studies to be conducted in order to reduce duplication and overlap.

Could the minister tell us how many studies on duplication and overlap between Ottawa and the provinces have been conducted by the Privy Council since spring?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I have had my answers to the questions put to me in February dug out. What I said at the time is this: We presently have action plans with eight provinces and two territories to reduce duplication. During the past year, we signed with the provinces and territories 64 agreements, which have been made public. We therefore have no objection to letting the opposition admire these fine pieces of work. Eight of these agreements were concluded with Quebec before September 12, 1994, and none since, obviously. We continue to use moneys in such a way as to reduce duplication and overlap. That is not just talk, that is what we are doing.

This was my answer. We use taxpayers' money to make the federal government more efficient. We do so in co-operation with the provinces when they want to co-operate, but since the Parti Quebecois came into office, no co-operation has been forthcoming on its part and, unfortunately, it failed to help make services more efficient in the province.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how does the minister explain that some studies conducted by the Privy Council, notably by Stéphane Dion, Lorne Nystrom, a candidate in the NDP leadership race, Michelle Tisseyre, a former Liberal candidate, and Maurice Pinard, a professor at McGill University, cannot be released as requested under the Access to Information Act?