Jean Chrétien

[Health Care, April 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the financing of these programs is done by through a formula. Sometimes the figures that are used are confusing because the money transferred has been reduced, but there has been a transfer of tax points to be used for the financing of these programs.

Over a period of years people have stopped thinking that. In fact we have made more room for the provinces to collect more money. The transfer of cash has diminished but the participation of the federal government has not been reduced, as some people say.

What I was very pleased with yesterday was seeing the Reform Party asking the federal government to spend more, more, more.

[Health Care, April 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the government is planning a conference with all the people involved in health services and I will be presiding over it.

We said we were having this review. We are holding discussions with the provinces at the moment and the first meeting of this continuing conference on health problems in Canada will be held in the middle of June.

[Patent Drugs, April 29th, 1994]

Did you hear that? He just described the remarks as irresponsible. As for the hon. member's own remarks, insult being the weapon of the weak, as the saying goes, it is only natural that he would want to insult everybody.

We have said, and the people in the industry themselves said yesterday that they were not concerned about what is going on right now. The industry itself said so. However, if the industry wants to invest, it should go ahead and invest! The legislation is in place, it was passed and investments have been made under it in past years.

Why is it all of a sudden that one of them has become more nervous than the rest? Those who made investments last year did so under the same legislation. I imagine that these people who have invested so far were familiar with the provisions of the legislation. This company should read the law and follow the same reasoning as the ones that invested last year and the year before. That is the way to do it. It is nothing to make a fuss about, and our position is that we will abide by the law in the interest of investment and in the interest of the patients who have to buy drugs.

That is one of the objectives of this legislation and we will enforce it because either the patients pay or the governments have to pay for them, when the pharmaceutical industry goes too far.

[Patent Drugs, April 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word about this because the opposition is truly exaggerating.

It is really very simple. A bill was passed by Parliament and the pharmaceutical industry made a commitment to the Canadian public. It undertook to invest money and to refrain from increasing the price of drugs. The government therefore has a duty to ensure that the promised investments have been made.

If the industry believes that it has fulfilled the obligations set out by Parliament, then it has nothing to fear. However, if it has not fulfilled its obligations and made the investments, the opposition should be telling us to take steps to ensure that these investments are indeed made. But if we do not carry out a review, we will never know.

We have an obligation to carry out this review, pursuant to the legislation passed by Parliament. As the whip stated earlier, a industry spokesperson said he was not in the least bit worried and that this was nothing more than a tempest in a teapot whipped up by the Bloc Quebecois. On the one hand, Bloc members rise in the House and ask us to protect this industry, while on the other hand, they want us to go along with their plans for Quebec independence, which will create even more instability for potential investors in this country in the years to come.

[First Nations, April 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the answer given by the House leader is the appropriate one.

In our society a member of Parliament is a member of Parliament and the career of his or her spouse should not be affected by the status of a member of Parliament.

There are some restrictions for cabinet ministers that must be respected, but spouses of members of Parliament have the right to earn a living. They have the capacity to earn a living. This is the fundamental right of equality in our society.

[Tobacco, April 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we made exactly the same offer to all the provinces. Some decided to take it, others decided not to take it. We have offered exactly the same to all the provinces. We did not treat any province differently.

[Tobacco, April 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the program that we put in place to stop the smuggling of cigarettes has been a great success. There were reports that there was an increase in smoking but the articles did not report the fact that cigarette export sales declined while domestic shipments increased.

In terms of consumption, when you look at the total number of cigarette shipments a year ago compared to the total number of cigarettes shipments this year, there was a decrease of 3 per cent.

[Challenger Jet, April 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am doing that. It is a plane that is owned by the Canadian government to be used by the Prime Minister of Canada.

I have checked too. I asked Canadair if these planes were transferred to them how much they would charge the government for travelling. They said it would be less than $3,500 an hour. That is the real cost of using these planes.

Not only that, when you calculate the cost of the pilots, you have to understand these are national defence pilots. They have to be in the air so many hours in a month anyway to keep their licences. However you charge the cost to the government when a minister is on board and you do not complain when they use the plane for training.

Be a bit respectful. The Prime Minister of the country should be able to travel like the RCMP requests.

[Challenger Jet, April 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have already explained they have asked me to travel on these planes for security reasons. I was already in Mexico and I stayed south for a few days. The member would have complained if the plane had travelled back and forth like it did when it was a trip for the Governor General.

I think they are doing a big disservice to an industry. I was talking with Canadair the other day. That type of question talks down on Canadian airplanes because you pretend it costs tons of money and that is not true. The figure you use is not the real one.

[Health Care, April 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, of course there are some problems in the administration of medicare. We have said that and we have said that is why we need a conference.

It has been a good system. It is a system the Canadian people want to maintain. We have to sit down with the provinces to make sure that it is revisited at this time and that it is operating properly. It has been a great service to Canada since it was established. I think all Canadians want to keep it.

We want to work to maintain it. I am happy to see the Reform Party supporting the notion that we should have free medicare and not two types of medicare for people in Canada.