Jean Chrétien

[Health Care, April 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this is another good day. Now the leader of the Reform Party is pleading with us not to cut. I hope the Minister of Finance will note that.

In our platform we said that we were to maintain the level of transfers to the provinces, that they were not to be reduced, and they were not reduced in the last budget.

We say to the provinces that we want to sit down with them. The Minister of Health is organizing the conference that I will be presiding over in June wherein we will make sure that free medicare is portable for all our citizens whatever their financial means, respected and operated efficiently. We will have that meeting to do that and I hope the Reform Party will support this process. In fact, yesterday when I said that we should keep that system in Canada I saw many of his members applauding.

[Health Care, April 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we have a very clear law of Parliament that medicare in Canada is free for everybody.

We have a law in Canada that says there will not be a two tier system of medicare, one for the rich and one for the poor. We also have a law in Canada which says that if one province is engaged in that direction we shall cut off funds to it.

The minister is doing what is right. She is making sure that the laws of Parliament are respected.

[High-Speed Train, April 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, if we want to talk about decisions made by this government, I would point out to the Leader of the Opposition that the most successful company in Montreal is Canadair. It was during my tenure as Minister of Industry and Trade that the government bought Canadair back from private interests, got it back on track and invested money to develop the Challenger jets and other aircraft responsible for Canadair's current success. This was all due to the intervention of this government.

The Leader of the Opposition is always asking us to work with the provinces, but the Minister of Transport has just said that he is working very closely with provincial governments on this matter. Now the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that we not listen to the provinces.

We do listen to them and, when the proposal is ready, we will respond. If it represents no cost to us, then of course the project will get the green light. However, if the costs are exorbitant, we will have to take into consideration this government's financial situation.

[High-Speed Train, April 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we have indeed indicated that we are interested in this venture. We have said that if this project can be carried out without the government having to incur significant costs, then we would be happy to proceed with it. However, if one proposal seems more acceptable at this time, I am certain the government will review it carefully. There could be a problem though in that it will be hard for a high-speed train linking Montreal and Toronto to be forced to stop for inspection at the border, once Quebec becomes independent, as the Leader of the Opposition hopes will happen.

[Member For Saint-Léonard, April 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, there is the rule that we accept the words of a member. It is very unfortunate because I do not know where that leak is coming from.

A leak like that casts a shadow of a doubt over somebody. This gentleman was cleared by everybody. I am surprised the question was even asked. There was a leak. There might be some people making allegations about something that is not true against any one of us here. Just because it is in the press there is a shadow of doubt which is terribly unfair.

In my opinion this gentleman has our support. He has been an excellent member of Parliament and has given me a very satisfactory explanation. I am very proud he is member of my caucus.

[Member For Saint-Léonard, April 26th, 1994]

Parliament would be much better off if we had many more Gagliano here.

[Member For Saint-Léonard, April 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member. He was the whip of my party when I was in opposition and he was a very good whip. In fact, I asked him to serve again as whip and we can see the result of his work. We have cut $5 million from the perks.

Another good example of how good he is in terms of administration was in 1988. When 55 new members were coming into the House of Commons, the previous administration spent $1.3 million to move members around. This time, with 205 new members in the House, this whip managed to do all that and spent only $185,000. He saved more-

[Member For Saint-Léonard, April 26th, 1994]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have thoroughly reviewed the situation.

When I became the head of the government, before I formed the cabinet I asked the police to review all members of Parliament on my side. They had a question mark about clients of the member, but they made no allegation against the member at all.

I asked the member if he had done something wrong and he said "no". He asked me: "How can I get this question mark out of my file?" I said: "Let's ask the police to go to the bottom of it". In January the Clerk of the Privy Council informed me that there was absolutely no allegation whatever against the integrity of the member who is the whip.

[Theme Park, April 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the member is making the case. I just said that the document he is looking at was prepared in 1992. The project has been cut down to a more manageable level. The group has been told very clearly by the Quebec government and by the federal government that if it cannot make a go of it, it will not be able to come to us later on.

The local community is dedicated and committed to making it work and I am convinced it will work. We are making a small contribution compared to what Hydro Quebec is making. Hydro Quebec is very independent from the government; it is run completely separate. Ask any MLA and they will tell you.

[Theme Park, April 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the report that the member is using was published two years ago. After that it was reviewed and downsized and the provincial government and the federal government agreed to develop this park. It is a project that the community has been working on for a long time.

If it had done it through the infrastructure program, the federal government would have paid one third. Through this system it is paying less than 20 per cent. Just from the construction we will most likely get more than our share in income tax and other taxes that the project will generate.