HEAL Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HEALTH

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA SANTÉ

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 4, 2000

• 0909

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, I call this meeting of the Standing Committee on Health to order.

As you know, this is meeting 20, and we're dealing today with consideration of the Auditor General's report of November 1999, chapter 29, “Federal Support of Health Care Delivery”. That is of course according to Standing Order 108(2).

Before we deal with that, Mr. Mills brought a notice of motion on Tuesday with respect to three items. That motion is in order, and perhaps to expedite things we should deal with that now. If we can deal with it reasonably quickly, then we can get on to the matter at hand, the Auditor General's report, chapter 29.

So Mr. Mills, would you like to bring this forward, please?

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chairman, can we deal with them motion by motion?

The Chair: I think it would be appropriate to separate them out. That makes a lot of sense.

It seems to me, just by way of procedure, if number one is successful, then of course number two would obviously flow out of that. If, however, number one is not successful, it seems to me item two then would be withdrawn.

Mr. Bob Mills: That's correct.

• 0910

Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr. Chairman, just as a point, will all members be allowed to speak on these motions?

The Chair: Well, certainly if you want, that would be in order.

Mr. Greg Thompson: We'll be given time to do that?

An hon. member: It is debatable?

The Chair: It is debatable, so you'll have a chance to speak.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills: On the first motion, in consulting a number of people within this committee and associated with the committee, I've found there is a feeling that mental health is certainly very important. We heard on Tuesday that some 5% of Canadians are affected to varying degrees by that problem, that it costs the Canadian economy some $20 billion, and that it is of major concern in the health area. For that reason, I don't believe it should simply be shelved and not dealt with.

It is the item the minister chose to put before this committee to have discussed. For that reason as well, I think it's worthy of looking at. But I think a subcommittee that could specialize in a very specialized area of health care would certainly be a better way to deal with this, because it is such a complex issue, a personal issue, and an emotional issue. I think a subcommittee could get their minds around it much more easily than could the entire committee, and that was probably proven on Tuesday with our first witnesses, when it was difficult for everyone in the committee to deal with that.

I take it back to my foreign affairs experience, where we would take the human rights issue as a very important one, but one a permanent subcommittee could deal with, chaired by one of the vice-chairs, and really put some emphasis and do a good job on an important topic such as that.

So the reason then for the first motion is not simply to say it's not important, but to say I believe this would be a better way of dealing with it, and I would ask the committee to consider that for the first motion and support that.

The Chair: Thank you. Why don't you bring all three forward at this time and then we'll deal with them individually?

Some hon. members: No, one at a time.

The Chair: One at a time? Okay. Let's deal with that then.

The first person wishing to speak is Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): I don't know if you need a seconder for the motion, but certainly I agree with this motion that a subcommittee be created. It does, I think, actually add a legitimacy to the issue by saying it's not only something that concerns us as parliamentarians but it's something we want to put some dedicated resources to. Creating a permanent subcommittee on the issue gives it the status it deserves and gives it the specialized expertise it deserves, which will develop amongst parliamentarians who are interested in the issue and want to make it one of their causes.

So I do think that although all of us have this concern for the issue of mental health, it is important that we ask the House to create a permanent subcommittee. Certainly this committee should give its endorsement of that concept. I think it's the proper way to do it, and it would give it the type of emphasis it needs.

I am concerned that if this motion is defeated, your ruling, Mr. Chairman, is that we would not be talking about the second motion. Is that right?

Mr. Bob Mills: Only if it wins, right?

The Chair: Yes. I asked Mr. Mills. You heard me ask at the outset. It seemed to me that would be the best way to proceed.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: If it passes....

The Chair: If it passes, we'll deal with number two. If it doesn't, I think that makes number two moot.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: No, I think it's the other way around. Again, I'd just like some clarification on that. Otherwise I feel I'm going to be compelled to speak on the second motion as well. It seems to me we have to take them in order.

I don't see that they're really related. The second motion of the three is that we immediately commence a study on all related problems surrounding the state of health care in Canada. That is not the same as the first one. The first one is talking about the creation of a permanent subcommittee. It's not related to the second one.

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): On a point of order, Mr. Chair, we all heard Mr. Mills agree to your suggestion or your question as to the second motion if the first motion was defeated. I mean, let's face it: it was Mr. Mills who brought these on.

• 0915

Mr. Bob Mills: I'd like to clarify my position. If we agree to take mental health off the main agenda of this committee and put it into a subcommittee dealing with it, the second motion then is open to debate, because then we're going to decide what this committee should be doing as its activity, since mental health would have been put into a subcommittee.

The Chair: Right.

Mr. Bob Mills: So obviously if we vote in favour of number one, number two then becomes what we do next. If number one is defeated, then obviously we need to discuss number two, because then—

Mr. Marcel Proulx: So now you're changing your mind, because that's not what you said originally.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Yes, I think.... Is that point of order finished, Mr. Chair?

The Chair: Well, I just want to indicate that is not as I understood it. I asked a question specifically to Mr. Mills, and he delineated according to what I believed had happened. That's what I related to the committee. Now it seems he's changing, and that's fine. Maybe we should, in the interest of having a full discussion, take each individually. Let's do that.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Yes, okay.

The Chair: I think that will make sense. So why don't you complete your point?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that ruling. I do think it's the proper way to do it, in that it keeps us focused on each motion in turn.

That's all I have to say, Mr. Chairman. I won't go on and on again. I do think that's the proper way to handle this issue. It's an issue that involves a great many Canadians and people who are concerned. Even if they don't personally know someone who's involved in the mental health issue, they are concerned. So I do think this is a good way to handle it. I encourage the committee to support this first motion; I think all of us would be better served by that.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I think we should remember, since we have now the opportunity to discuss a motion on this issue, that the very terms of reference proposed to us by the government, that is, a national mental health initiative, create some problems, first of all, because this is not an area of federal jurisdiction and, second, because it was obvious, when the Health Canada officials appeared, that the federal government had no expertise in providing front-line mental services to the public.

All things considered, if we have to make a choice, I think that the Canadian Alliance motion is a good one. It would primarily enable the committee to deal with problems that concern the federal government more directly, and we could have a subcommittee study mental health. I must remind you that this is really something that has been pulled out of a hat. No one around this table had shown any interest in this issue before. This is yet another example of the government's desire to control the committees, whereas the committees are expected to be independent and the agenda should be decided through consensus by committee members.

That is part of the problems with the way this committee works. I am going to vote in favour of the motion, when the vote is called, because it seems to me that it gives the government an honourable way out. I would urge government members, if solidarity means anything, to vote in favour of this motion.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Mahoney and then Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): I just want to make a couple of comments.

I, in my twenty years in various levels of government, have been very actively involved with the Canadian Mental Health Association in establishing a group home for former psychiatric patients in my community and working closely to help them. I think anything that raises the issue of mental health and the related issues, such as suicide and the impacts on families and that kind of thing, is extremely important.

I'm concerned, though, that by putting it into a subcommittee, you take it off the agenda of the main committee, and that's probably where it should be. In communities it's almost a taboo subject that people don't want to talk about. The brain is an organ, the same as the heart. People talk about heart problems all the time, but they're nervous and concerned about talking about illnesses with the brain. So I have concerns about it going into a subcommittee and not getting the attention it deserves.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I do support this motion. Contrary to the previous speaker, Mr. Chairman, I think the difficulty with not approving this motion is simply that we do have a crisis in health care that has been created by the very government you represent. We should be looking at the bigger issues, in other words, the national crisis, that has been created in the health care field, which obviously includes mental health.

• 0920

Until some of those bigger issues are resolved and we can get down to the table and meaningfully discuss them—that includes bringing in the premiers of every province as witnesses before this committee, which is something the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health have refused to do—we can do some meaningful work in this room. It would be very constructive if we struck a subcommittee to look at mental health. We would not be diminishing that at all. But mental health is part of a bigger package that includes health care. Until the crisis in health care is resolved and we get down to the table and stop this finger-pointing, if you wish, between the provinces and other jurisdictions—that is, the federal government—nothing is going to happen.

I think it would be very constructive if we could adopt this motion and move on to the bigger issue of the lack of a federal plan in health care. Let's see if we can move in that direction. I think we should be supportive of that motion.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Jackson and then Mr. Charbonneau.

Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to be brief.

I will not be supporting this motion. There are quite a number of reasons. Number one, I think mental health is important. I believe in a holistic approach to health. I believe, Mr. Ménard, that the committee is independent and the author of its own destiny. The committee agreed earlier to a work plan, and we're following that work plan.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

The parliamentary secretary, Monsieur Charbonneau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, this proposal is leading to a shortened version of the same arguments which were put forward when the issue was put on our agenda a few weeks ago, so that interested parties who follow the debates of this committee can have a good understanding of the arguments. We heard the views of the Canadian Alliance and the Bloc Québécois.

When we raised this matter, some people were not at all interested in the mental health issue, and the proceedings show that very clearly. For some people this issue was not of great interest. Others argued that it was a provincial matter. We discussed these things and demonstrated that there was an interest in having the federal government involved as well in the mental health area, provided that it is within its own area of jurisdiction.

Moreover, the documents that were submitted to the committee yesterday, or the day before, by Health Canada are very clear on that. The delivery and organization of mental health services are a provincial responsibility, as are health matters in general. It is not the Bloc Québécois that wrote that document, but Health Canada. So we are very comfortable with that.

However, these same Health Canada officials indicated various activities with regard to mental health that have been carried out over the years without ever being challenged by the provinces. Consultation and coordination groups have been established. There was the federal-provincial-territorial task force that worked on this issue for some years and produced a report some years back that still provides inspiration and a general framework. The Health Canada people were asked about that, and co-operation does take place between the provinces and the federal government, as long as each side stays within its own jurisdiction. That is what has been done in this area.

Concerning those who said that it was not a very important issue and that we should not get into it because no one was talking about it in Canada, I think that they may have taken another look at the issue. Personally, I have said here, and I will repeat, that it is not because no one is talking about it that the issue is not important.

Mr. Réal Ménard: No one said that.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I would invite those suggesting that was not the case, to re-read what was said here. That is what I said and I am saying it again.

Everyone will speak in turn.

• 0925

The intention here is to re-state that argument. It is not because the newspapers are not giving it much ink that it is not an explosive issue. It is not because certain groups involved in mental health are unable to get it on to the front pages that it is not important. The amount of play an issue gets, or the crisis proportions it takes on, are not the only criteria that have to be taken into account. What counts is the reality of the problem...

Mr. Réal Ménard: Respect for...

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: ... and its scope.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Ménard, please, he has the floor.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: The information provided to us the day before yesterday by Health Canada shows that it is a serious economic problem and a health problem. It is one of the main causes of hospitalization. The costs to the system are huge and rising. The problem is getting worse as the years go by. It used to affect old people; today it affects young people.

Finally, a number of statistics were provided and these strongly supported the premise I put forward here. It is a major problem. It is not because people are saying little about it that we should say little about it.

There are problems that everyone talks about. The committees jump on those things. There are major problems that are not talked about very much. Does that mean that we should not talk about them? No. I think that committees like ours have a responsibility to deal with issues that are generally ignored or given short shrift in the public opinion. We have a duty to focus on those issues and show that they are major problems. That is what was said here. In any case, that is what I said in response to some other arguments that were made. That is why we are proposing that the issue be studied by the committee and not by a subcommittee.

There is a limit to what can be done by subcommittees, and we have reached that limit. We feel that this issue is critical to deal with now.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Charbonneau.

[English]

On that point, by way of clarification, Mr. Mills indicated in his opening statement that 5% of the population are affected by mental health—

Mr. Bob Mills: That's what we were told on Tuesday.

The Chair: No, actually, I want to correct you. We were told that 5.4% suffer from mental illness. The rest of us, in some way, shape or form, are affected by mental health throughout our lifetimes; it's an ongoing process. It's an interesting point and an important one.

Mr. Ménard, and then we're going to call the question.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make three corrections for the benefit of my friend, the parliamentary secretary, who, with all due respect, sometimes seems to be a little like Professor Calculus in the Tin-Tin series. No one from the opposition side claimed that the issue was not important, and I would challenge him to identify anyone on the opposition side who did. We know very well that this is an important issue. The Canadian Alliance, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP have always said that it was important.

The issue is really whether this is an area that is outside your responsibilities, that is not under your jurisdiction. That is so true that when the officials came before us, they said that Health Canada had a $200,000 budget for mental health and that the Department did not administer any programs at all offering services directly to the public. You want to do nation building with this issue.

I personally feel that if the federal government has money and wants to do things for the public, we should vote in favour of the Canadian Alliance's second motion: that we look at the structural programs in the health system and increase transfer payments to the provinces, like all the premiers have been asking.

As you know, all the Canadian premiers, whether they are NDP, Conservative or Parti Québécois, have been asking for transfer payments to be restored. If the federal government has money, that is not a reason for it to encroach on areas of jurisdiction that do not belong to it. When we talk about mental health, we are talking about hospitalization, regional health boards and health services tied to areas of provincial jurisdiction. That is what we said, and everyone agrees on that, because we all know people who have had mental health problems. I think that you are not being honest when you state that we said that the issue was not important.

That is not what the debate is about. The debate is about the fact that you need to stick to your own business. Mental health is not under your jurisdiction. You said, Mr. Charbonneau, that we had reached our limit in creating subcommittees. There have been no subcommittees here for the past two years. Is there currently a subcommittee in addition to the standing committee? We have not reached our limit: there are no subcommittees.

It is not because the work is being done by a subcommittee that it is less important. At present, the justice committee has work being done by two subcommittees. Does that mean that their work is less important than that of the standing committee? No. It means that there are fewer members who can work on things at the same time.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the truth must be told. You can count on the opposition to do that.

• 0930

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Ménard. We always count on you to clarify most things at this committee.

Mr. Mills, you had a point of clarification.

Mr. Bob Mills: I have a point of clarification on the subcommittee too. It's not to be hived off and never heard from again. A subcommittee, as I understand it and as I've been involved with them, does the detailed work, does the grunt work, does all the listening, does all the studies, gets all of the material and understands it completely. And then it consolidates that and comes back to the main committee. The main committee then votes on it, hears it, listens to it, and deals with it.

So it is a better way in many ways of dealing with a very major problem. It will give it more attention than less attention because you do it that way. That's how subcommittees should work.

Mr. Greg Thompson: I have a point of clarification, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: On a point of clarification, Mr. Thompson. Then we'll go to Mr. Strahl, and then we're going to call the question.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Chairman, to sum this up, this issue of mental health is simply a red herring, because the government does not want the real issues of the health care crisis to come before this committee. And that's the real issue. That's why you have that topic on. That's why you don't want to break off a subcommittee; it's simply because you don't want to hear the truth, you don't want to hear what the Canadian public has to say, or health care professionals or the premiers, on your lack of responsibility and funding for the crisis that you have created in health care.

You've had seven years. You don't want anything to appear before this committee that's going to embarrass the government. That's it.

The Chair: That's your point of view, Mr. Thompson. We'll now ask Mr. Strahl for his.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: One of the points that were made on the Liberal side was that everyone has agreed to this work plan and we should just proceed. That's not my understanding at all. My understanding is that this concept came down from the minister. This was not generated from the committee. It hasn't been agreed to by anyone on the opposition side that this is the way to handle it.

No one's saying not to study it. What we're saying is that there are bigger fish to fry. And the big fish to fry right now is.... Take your pick of newspapers, and there is front-page story after front-page story about the state of health care in Canada. The work plan that this committee should be involved in are those issues. We shouldn't be leaving it to ministers alone. We shouldn't be leaving it to some provinces to try to drive the agenda. This should be something that seizes this committee, and in fact it should seize Parliament more than it does.

So the work plan idea has not been agreed to over here. So I wanted to make that clear. We're saying study mental health as a subcommittee. Make it important in its own right. No one says that because there's a subcommittee on human rights, it's not important to this House. It's the subcommittee that makes it important.

So make the issue important by giving it its own status within a subcommittee of this greater committee, and then this committee looks at the big issues. That's why it's a whole committee that looks at the whole issues, and if mental health comes in from time to time, as it should, that's fine. But the bigger issues, the bigger fish to fry, the bigger crises, are in health care generally.

The Chair: Mr. Strahl, I appreciate your comments.

By way of background, I did want to correct maybe a couple of points, the first being that the letter from the Minister of Health was a suggestion only. It wasn't a directive. It was a suggestion, which we then took to the steering committee. The steering committee could not reach a conclusion, and instead it came to the full committee. At that point the full committee, with its democratic rights and responsibilities, voted accordingly. Unfortunately all of the opposition chose not to be part of that.

I think you make a very good point about how Parliament should be seized by this issue, and from time to time we hear questions in the House with respect to the importance of health care. I'm disappointed that the first time your party raised it was when Mr. Mills got up about a week ago.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: That's nonsense.

The Chair: It may be nonsense, but it seems to me that it's precisely the point. It disappoints me as well, and perhaps you can instruct Mr. Mills accordingly, but it seems to me he's now been health critic since at least January and the first meeting he attended was this past Tuesday—

Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Chairman, that's why we're going immediately to motion number three, because it is totally out of line for the chairman to get into this kind of politicking at the table. You're supposed, as chairman, to be impartial in listening to us. And it is totally out of line for the chairman to reflect on another member of the committee.

The Chair: Mr. Thompson. Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Greg Thompson: And I suggest it's for this very reason that you're coming under scrutiny on this committee.

The Chair: Mr. Thompson, you are now out of order.

Mr. Greg Thompson: And, Mr. Chairman—

The Chair: You will quiet down.

Mr. Greg Thompson: —you did the same thing with a member from the Bloc.

The Chair: You will quiet down.

• 0935

Mr. Greg Thompson: You made quaint little remarks, cute remarks, at the expense of another member.

The Chair: Cut him off.

Mr. Greg Thompson: There you go, dictatorial again. I'm suggesting that the very reason—

The Chair: Mr. Thompson, you've had your say. Are you through now? Thank you very much.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Chairman, if the committee is dysfunctional, as some members have suggested, it's because of you and no one else.

The Chair: I'm saying this is an important issue, and I'm reminding Mr. Strahl that if it is such an important issue—

Mr. Greg Thompson: You don't have to remind Mr. Strahl—

The Chair: You are out of order.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I have a point of order.

The Chair: On a point of order, Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I heard you say that after Mr. Strahl spoke you were going to take the question.

The Chair: Yes, I am.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: That's not his position either—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I move that we take the question.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Point of order.

The Chair: Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Chairman, you'll know that in the standing orders, any motion in a committee is open to debate at any length with any number of interventions by anyone on the committee. That is the standing order that guides this committee, unless you want to override that as well.

Standing Order 116 says we can talk about this motion as long as we like. It's not up to the chairman to say who can speak, when, how long, or anything. There are standing orders that guide us in this procedure, and one says we can speak as much, as often, and as long as we want on any particular motion. So it's not up to the chairman.

While I have the floor, Mr. Chairman, if this is the way you run your committee generally, I can easily understand why it's such a frustrating committee to work on. I've not seen this often. It happens from time to time when a chairman forgets his place. I don't want to get into this at length; I'm going to get into it on the third motion because I think that's the proper place.

To start into debate on whether or not the official opposition asks enough questions on health care is not your job, sir. To start into debate is just to start into what you saw happening, not even from us, but from someone else who probably would never support us. They might even agree that we're not asked enough questions. I don't know what the position is of the rest of the members of this committee.

The point is, how on earth can you run a committee when you're the one who's entering into the debate? If you want to debate, go sit over there and let's go at it. Put someone else in the chair.

The Chair: Mr. Strahl, are you through?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Besides that, if I could get right into this—

The Chair: Are you moving now to item three? Is that the point?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: No, I'm still on number one—

The Chair: I'd like to stick to number one, if I could—

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I still am.

The Chair: Well, make your point.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Chairman, the reason I'm on this point now is that you brought it up. Now, let's get into a little bit of a debate. What about the two supply day motions that were brought up by the opposition parties urging the government, instead of increasing transfers to HRD in grants and contributions, to transfer that money into health care? What about the whole day's debate? What about the votes on that?

To imply that the opposition—and not just the official opposition but the other opposition parties—haven't been seized of this issue when they had the opportunity, supply days being one of them, is ludicrous.

For you to enter into that debate and start accusing members, saying that you don't like how many people come.... What about the trained seals on that side who don't even show up for committee in order to have quorum? Do they not care? Of course they care about health care. There are other issues too that I suppose they care about that they're busy doing at times.

I don't want to get into the third motion, because that's going to be a doozy. I'm just saying it's not your role to start into this debate, Mr. Chairman. You're to keep order, and when you get into debate you're going to have disorder, and lots of it.

The Chair: Well, Mr. Strahl, you have your point of view about how a chair should operate and I have mine. I happen to be in the seat right now and I'll deal with it accordingly. Thank you, however, for your perspective.

We'll now move to a vote.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I want a recorded vote.

[English]

I want a recorded vote.

The Chair: All right. You should have asked for that in advance of the—

Mr. Bob Mills: We'd like a recorded vote on all three.

• 0940

(Motion negatived: nays 8; yeas 7)

The Chair: Thank you very much. The motion is defeated.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Point of order, Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Chairman, if you're looking at the other side, which we are, obviously, the government side, this indicates the problem with the committee. There are at least four temporary members here this morning. I believe there's reason to suggest that they have not been duly registered this morning as permanent members or even temporary replacements.

The Chair: That's not a point of order, Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Greg Thompson: It is a point of order.

The Chair: No, it's not. They are registered and that's the long and short of it.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Let's see the proof. I want the clerk to declare whether the papers are in order for those members who voted, because there's a majority of temporary members on that side of the table.

The Chair: Mr. Thompson, you've made your point. Now we're going to have the clerk look at it.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Absolutely.

The Chair: So quiet down for a minute.

The Clerk of the Committee: Mr. Clouthier replaces Madam Ur. Mr. Mahoney replaces Mr. McWhinney. Sophia Leung replaces Ms. Redman. And Ms. Sgro replaces Mr. Matthews. And Mr. Mills is replacing Mr. Proulx. I'm not sure whether Mr. Proulx is here or not.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Mr. Chairman, I did not vote.

The Chair: He didn't vote, Mr. Thompson, just so you know.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Great. Thank you.

Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills: Obviously some of us have spoken to the second motion already. As Mr. Thompson has pointed out very ably, this is exactly what this whole thing is all about. Yes, the directive came down from the minister that we would talk about mental health, because that's an area where you could get deeply involved, where there are so many issues. If that keeps the Liberal backbenchers busy and if that keeps the opposition from being able to deal with the real issues, then obviously that's a good topic to have this committee deal with.

It happens that 75% of Canadians say that health care is their number one issue. They don't particularly care whether it's provincial or federal. They don't particularly care who is dealing with it, as long as somebody is dealing with it. To have this committee deal with one little aspect as a whole makes absolutely no sense and makes a mockery of what these committees are for and what any of us should be sitting here for.

People should be embarrassed to have just done what they have done and deal with this one issue when you know what your constituents are concerned about. They're concerned about their health care system. They're concerned about a socialized, government-run system that was designed in the 1960s and has never been modernized, that is equivalent to what we have in North Korea and Cuba, that is like some of the things I have seen in the East Bloc countries. And we are doing nothing to change that.

The fact is that the OECD says that we are 23rd out of 29 industrialized countries. The fact is that the OECD says that much of our technology and our professionals are dealing in ten-years-past technology. The fact is that we spend the fifth most per capita on health care. The minister has said that we spend the second most, next to the U.S., on health care. The OECD has put us as fifth. So second or fifth, if we're spending that much money on health care per capita and we are rated 23rd in the world, we've got a big problem, ladies and gentlemen. We have a problem the Canadian public expects us to deal with, and expects us to deal with now, not hide from it.

• 0945

It takes a good three months in an area like this to get the information, to listen, to go out and visit hospitals, visit professionals and find out what they're thinking. Obviously you can stand in the House and talk lots, but get down to the grassroots and find out what's happening. That does take some time. It takes a lot of time, and a lot of concern. You do need to do that before you open your mouth and simply talk.

Canadians, taxpayers—I don't care what their party is—care about health care. They care about what's happening. They want to know, why are we 23rd? Why are we in the bottom third in the world? We brag about where we are, but 23rd in health care.

Do you know that in Sweden there are beds that monitor the health of that patient every second that they're in that bed, what their heartbeat is, what their pulse is, what their lung capacity is, what their fluid intake is? That goes on a microchip, and any doctor can plug into that anytime he wants, or any professional, any specialist. Do you know what we do in Canada? Ask the nurses. Go out and ask them. They do it manually. They take it back to a nursing station and record it in computers—they type it in. They spend most of their time reporting, not what they should be doing, not what they want to be doing. They want to be nurses. They want to be taking care of patients. They don't want to be doing stenographic work. That's not what a nurse is trained for. Ask them if they want to take care of patients.

Those are the kinds of things we should be looking at in this committee. We have four MRIs—two in Calgary, two in Edmonton—that we're not going to be able to start up for another year because we don't have anybody trained to run them. We have many, many cancer patients leaving Ontario to go to Pittsburgh to get their cancer treated because we don't have any radiologists trained in this country. They're going down there. Imagine your mother or your sister has breast cancer and is told her treatment will be three months from now if she wants to stay in Canada, or we can put you on a bus, send you down to Pittsburgh, and you'll get the treatment, but you'll be away from family, you'll be away from loved ones and all that means during a very critical time. Think about those people who are suffering that way.

Think about the unintrusive surgery done in Germany, where they take a little camera and put that into the heart and take a laser gun and repair that heart with no intrusion. You're in hospital for three days and then you're back at work. What do we do in Canada? We break the rib cage, we rip it open, we stop the heart, we put them on a heart-lung machine, they're in hospital for nine days, and then they have three months of recovery. There's a difference here. Go and talk to people.

There's another camera that's used to go into the heart and into the arteries and look for plaque. When it finds plaque, it's treated. That prevents 90% of heart attacks and strokes. That's technology. Think of the savings for the health care system if you use this technology. That's what this committee should be talking about. We should be listening to experts from all parts of the world. We should be employing that kind of technology in this country.

People are concerned about our 16 universities that train medical students. They're concerned about that. They're concerned about the cutting of courses that have gone on. They're concerned that we need 2,200 doctors this next year and that we're only turning out 1,600 and 800 of them are leaving Canada—800 of them will leave Canada. Half of our graduates are leaving, for all kinds of reasons. There's not enough research going on here.

I have a daughter who is trained in Holland who's graduating this year, who has nine job offers once she gets her PhD. In Canada she was offered a job at the University of Western Ontario. She would have to teach 80% of the time and do 20% on research. This kid wants to do research. She's taken a job in Germany, where she does 100% research. These are the kinds of reasons we lose these kinds of people. That's pretty personal, but that's real.

• 0950

Mr. Chairman, this is what we need to talk about. These are the problems Canadians care about. They're concerned about this education problem. They're concerned about the doctors. They're concerned about the waiting list. They're concerned about all that's happening in health care. They're concerned that 30% of the beds of the hospitals I visited, many in Ontario...35% of the beds are taken by long-care patients. They care about that. They want this committee to get involved.

What is happening instead? We're going to be spending our time talking about one little area of health care. What is the Senate doing? The unelected, unaccountable Senate, the ones who don't really have much to do with the public, are studying health care.

An hon. member: Absolutely.

Mr. Bob Mills: What are we doing, the elected representatives, who should be in touch and doing what the people want us to do? We're studying mental health. Okay. But the Senate is going to study health care in this country, and what's wrong with it. You obviously know who should be doing it. We're elected. We're responsible. We're elected and responsible to the people. They are not. They're political hacks put into place to go and raise funds and find candidates for their parties.

The Senate is studying health care, what people want to be done.

Let's talk about accountability for everyone in this room. We are abrogating our responsibility by not dealing with the issues of health care. We are not doing what the people want us to do.

Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Point of order.

The Chair: Point of order, Mr. Mills.

Mr. Dennis Mills: I agree with nearly every syllable you uttered here today. I just wonder, has this now become Reform Party policy—

An hon. member: Alliance.

Mr. Dennis Mills: —or Canadian Alliance Party policy, everything you've said today?

Mr. Bob Mills: Basically, I'll be presenting this as an interim policy for our party, yes.

Mr. Dennis Mills: This is very exciting news, because this is quite a radical shift in—

Mr. Bob Mills: No, it is not a radical shift at all. We care about health care. We have a social responsibility. We care what people are telling us. We are grassroots populists, and we listen to people.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Oh!

Mr. Bob Mills: Our policy is set at conventions by our members.

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, it will be most interesting to get to item number three, where I've been accused of partisanship in light of what we've heard this morning.

Mr. Bob Mills: I'm not finished yet.

The Chair: Oh, you're not? I see. You're on a roll, so why don't you continue.

Mr. Bob Mills: Basically, the point of motion two is that there are a lot of issues, and there are a lot of experts we could bring before this committee. We have used teleconferencing a number of times on the foreign affairs committee and were able to talk to experts in Sweden, in German, in Holland. Wherever these experts are, we can talk to them. We can ask them, what about technology, what about research, what about modernizing our health care? What about getting into the top one-third of the industrialized world instead of the bottom third and slipping? What can we do? How can we encourage provinces? How can we work with provinces to try new ways of doing things? What are the new ways?

Don't give me this crap about U.S. two-tiered health care. We're opposed to it. We're against it. We believe there should be health care for everyone. There are five principles of the Canada Health Act, and none of them are being obeyed. We are not obeying any of those five principles. The Liberals have destroyed them all. That should be brought out as well. It's not accessible. Health care is not accessible. There are 200,000 people on the wait list. It takes nine months to see a specialist.

An hon. member: It should all be on the record.

Mr. Bob Mills: All of these things we need to look at. This committee must look at those.

An hon. member: Absolutely.

Mr. Bob Mills: That's the truth that Canadians are asking us to look at.

• 0955

When you vote today, as you will, against this motion, when you across the way all vote against dealing with health care, I hope that is on the front page of your home newspaper: that you decided you didn't want to look at health care, that you refused to look at it, and instead you want to look at one little area that's going to keep you busy for months and months and bring in experts on one little area. If you ask your constituents, they will not tell you that's number one on their list. Number one on their list is what are we going to do to fix the health care problems?

How are you going to work with the provinces—with them, not hammer them on the head, not threaten them—

Mr. Réal Ménard: You cut them.

Mr. Bob Mills: —not go after them, not cut off their funding, not do all of those things? What are you going to do to work with them? This should not be a partisan issue; this should be an issue of Canadians.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Why did you cut the money?

The Chair: Order.

Are you wrapping up soon, Mr. Mills?

Mr. Bob Mills: Yes, but I could, of course, go on for as many hours as I care to. And you can understand I could go on a lot of hours, sir—

Mr. Réal Ménard: Is it our turn?

Mr. Bob Mills: —particularly when you believe that I have nothing to say about health care.

I plead with you, on behalf of Canadians, on behalf of your constituents, to deal with health care. And I would make a commitment as well: that if we're dealing with health care, and if we're calling in real witnesses from as far away as the farthest parts of this world, I will keep the partisan politics out of it, and we will deal with it as an issue. Canadians will say “Finally, there's a committee that's dealing with what we care about, which 75% of us say is the number one issue of this country”.

Mr. Speaker, I think you understand why I'm appealing to these people, and yourself even, to support motion number two.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could have permission to ask a very short question of the chief health critic of the Canadian Alliance, a very simple question.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Let's get through the motions first.

The Chair: Yes, I think we should—

Mr. Dennis Mills: I think it's a pretty serious point, because he has essentially announced here today that the Canadian Alliance does not believe in a two-tiered health system—

Mr. Bob Mills: We said it in the House, Dennis.

Mr. Dennis Mills: —but we have four of the five leadership candidates who have announced the exact opposite. I think it's a very important point to understand.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Out of order. Out of order.

The Chair: Fair enough. Thank you, Mr. Mills; I appreciate that interjection.

Monsieur Ménard, if you would, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Mills to control himself a bit.

[English]

I am a good example, Mr. Président.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, we need to stay calm. I would first like to say that it is with a great deal of pleasure and enthusiasm, even genuine pleasure, that we will be supporting the Reform Party motion. The motion is quite sensible and relevant.

I would like to say, for the benefit of those government members who are joining us for the first time, so for the majority of the people across the table, that we have tried a number of times in the past, particularly through our work on the steering committee, to convince the government that the real problem we need to deal with, as members of the Standing Committee on Health...

Mr. Chairman, could you call people to order? I would really like everyone to listen. I feel that the Liberals are not really paying attention. There, very good.

The real problem is that the government has managed... Thank you, Mr. Mahoney. You are my only real friend on that side; Mr. Clouthier as well. Mr. Charbonneau, your case is somewhat questionable, however.

So the real problem in this committee is that we have tried a number of times to convince this government that the problem facing the various health systems is that this government has unilaterally, without notice and somewhat brutally, cut transfers to the provinces, which has created a sort of ironic situation; the federal government has the money and the provinces have to provide the services.

It is not true that we in the opposition intend to be the silent accomplices of a government that wants to do nation building by taking on all sorts of issues that are not under its jurisdiction.

• 1000

Yes, this government wants to do nation building. You, Mr. Mills, are a fan of Mr. Trudeau. All parliamentarians know that you are a fan of Mr. Trudeau and centralized federalism. The problem is that you have helped impoverish the provinces which do not have the resources they need to maintain the integrity of the health system.

What Mr. Mill's motion is proposing is that we really deal with all the structural problems in the health system and that the conclusion that we should come to, is that it is important, primordial and fundamental to restore transfer payments.

Mr. Chairman, why is it that no one on that side is listening? Mr. Charbonneau, please, do not sleep. Why is it that no one on that side...

[English]

The Chair: Come on, come on, come on. Monsieur Ménard, please. People are genuinely listening to you, so don't grandstand, just carry on with your comments.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: You yawned in my face.

[English]

The Chair: Come on, come on. Order. Carry on.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, will you...

[English]

Mr. Dennis Mills: Excuse me, Mr. Chair, another point of order.

The Chair: A point of order.

Mr. Dennis Mills: We have a unique situation here where there's Mr. Bob Mills and there's Mr. Dennis Mills. I don't think Mr. Bob Mills.... When Mr. Ménard said in his remarks that Mr. Mills is a passionate supporter of the Trudeau vision of Canada, I don't think Mr. Bob Mills would want the record to show that Mr. Ménard was referring to him. I want to make sure the transcribers get that accurately.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Bob Mills: Thank you, Dennis.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, you know very well that when someone refers...

[English]

An hon. member: He's already in enough trouble with his party after today.

Mr. Bob Mills: No, I'm not.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask you if we can count on the government members and on all the opposition members to work together on this committee to ensure that we have a functional, viable, comprehensive and well-integrated health system for our fellow citizens.

Could we have the humility to recognize that, among the difficulties faced by the provinces in providing services, are the cuts to transfer payments that have been made unilaterally. What the Reform Party's proposal contains...

[English]

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Point of order.

The Chair: Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chairman, in courtesy to the witnesses, it would appear that we're not going to be able to deal with them before eleven o'clock and give them the courtesy and the time. I wonder if it would be appropriate to release the witnesses, to be rescheduled.

The Chair: I think that's an excellent suggestion. We'll do that now.

Thank you very much, Madam Barrados, Mr. Campbell, and others.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, if they want to stay to listen to our debates, they are welcome.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Ménard, I'm sure they'll be reading the transcripts, every word of what you say.

I think Health Canada is excused also, if you so choose. Thanks very much. And Finance as well. Thank you for attending. I'm sure we'll find time to reschedule at a future time.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, may I go ahead? We can also let them...

[English]

The Chair: No, if you would continue, Mr. Ménard....

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman,... Pardon me?

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Mr. Charbonneau is waiting for you to apologize.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I will be glad to apologize to Mr. Charbonneau if I have insulted him. That was really not my intention, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

An hon. member: There you go.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Is everything all right, Mr. Chairman?

[English]

The Chair: Yes. You may proceed, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, you know that during the last conference, two very important bodies came down in favour of Mr. Mill's motion. First there was the First Ministers' Conference. You will recall that at the most recent first ministers' conference, all the premiers, regardless of their political party, asked for transfer payments to be restored and said that they were concerned that if they were not restored promptly and fully, the viability of the system could not be maintained.

• 1005

When people talk about waiting lists, problems getting in to see specialists, difficulties getting new technologies, you understand that all that has to do with the financial resources available to the provinces. That is why we, on this side, have found it so hard to understand that some members want to discuss other issues such as mental health, which has nothing to do with the federal government's responsibilities.

Would it not be interesting to do a really serious, non- partisan study, by inviting specialists and representatives from the provinces who could tell us about the challenges that their health systems are facing?

I will give you an example that I would like to bring to the attention of my colleague from the government side, Mr. Mills. Today, we no longer talk about the third or golden age, but rather the fourth or old age; that is because people are living longer and longer. It may well be that if all of us were to pay a little attention to our health, we might live to be at least 80. What does that mean? It means that people want to stay at home as long as possible and in as natural a setting as possible. That is called home support.

But the problem, I will repeat once again, is that the federal government has destabilized the provincial health systems. How has it destabilized them? It has not invested the financial resources which were expected. I hope that people will take into consideration the fact that all the premiers, not just the separatist premier, Lucien Bouchard, but also the NDP premier from British Columbia, the Conservative premiers and Mr. Brian Tobin...

Mr. Chairman, how do you explain the fact that the premier who has been the most critical about the way the federal government has handled things and about the negative impact of the transfer payment cuts is Brian Tobin? Brian Tobin is not a separatist. Does he want to be a leadership candidate? I do not know. I am not from the Liberal Party and I do not want to get involved in internal problems.

Mr. Chairman, I want to bring to your attention the fact that Brian Tobin, former Minister in Mr. Chrétien's Cabinet, was one of the loudest voices during the last premiers' conference. He said that it was imperative for the government to restore transfer payments.

Mr. Chairman, let's be honest. It is not true that the health system will be maintained with its five principles. On this side of the House, I believe that the NDP, the Conservatives and even the Canadian Alliance... Amongst all of us around this table, there is a consensus. Everyone believes in the five principles of the Canada Health Act. However, if we want to maintain the health system and the five principles that underlie it, we have to provide additional financial resources to the provinces.

We cannot underestimate the tragic situation we are facing. All discriminating analysts of the political scene have revealed that the money is currently in Ottawa but that the needs are in the provinces. If I've understood Mr. Mill's proposal correctly, that's what we would want to correct. We want to correct a paradox where, without re-establishing transfer payments, we cannot undertake any new responsibilities.

We could also mention the cost of new medical technologies and the acquisition of equipment. For a generation, a scanner could last 10 years. Today, medical technology is evolving so quickly that the average lifespan of new equipment is three or four years. And that is why we must ensure that the provinces have the financial resources which they require.

I will conclude by making an appeal to a unanimous vote so that we can once again have the pleasure of working together, without partisanship, as we, of the Bloc Québécois, have always done. Mr. Chairman, I would be very happy to support the motion of the Canadian Alliance and I hope that all colleagues from the government side will do the same.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Ménard.

[English]

Mr. Mancini.

Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I'm a visitor to the committee, and I listened with interest to the debate on motion number one, but I feel compelled to comment on motion number two.

Much of what I want to say has been said by Monsieur Ménard, so I won't repeat that, except to say that across this country today people are in a state of anxiety about health care. That is not an exaggeration. The citizens of Alberta have been on the steps of their legislature for days, protesting what that government wants to do. The people in my province of Nova Scotia have been at the gates of the legislature as the province grapples with a budget that will cut health care. The people in every part of this country are asking for leadership from the federal government to determine where we go. The minister himself, in answers to questions yesterday, said he wants to hear new ideas and he wants to explore the issue of health care. That's what he said.

• 1010

I have sat on three committees in my short time here. I'm a permanent member of the justice committee, I've been on the special committee on custody and access, and I've sat on the environment committee. Every one of those committees has been seized of important issues and has looked at what Canadians feel is the most important issue in that venue to deal with. To hive off an area, especially in the state of crisis we find ourselves in today, I think is somewhat questionable. I think Canadians would question it.

The correspondence I receive from my constituents—and as a visitor to the committee, I can only go by what my party and more importantly my constituents tell me.... It is no exaggeration that a third of those letters come from senior citizens who are on fixed incomes receiving $900 a month and cannot afford prescription drugs in this country. They cannot afford to be well. It is no exaggeration to say that another third of those letters come from.... I don't represent the wealthy enclaves of some parts of this country; I represent a working-class district where men and women are working shift jobs, trying to make ends meet and at the same time trying to care for elderly parents. They are looking for home care. At the same time, they're worried that when their children get sick, health care is not going to be there for them.

In other committees.... You know the government treasury has found the money to send the custody and access committee across the country to hear from parents as to how we could better meet the needs of children in the justice system. The correctional and conditional release subcommittee of the committee on justice travelled across the country and visited prisons and spoke with Correctional Service officers to determine how we can best meet the concerns Canadians have about crime and prisons and about releases.

Surely the number one issue in this country is health care. Surely as a nation rises up—and I pointed this out to the protests in provinces—the committee on health could find it in their mandate not only to address health care broadly instead of hiving it off into a small area, but to travel across this country to the people who are on the steps of the legislatures in their provinces; to travel across the country to meet with the nurses and the care workers in the hospitals; to meet with the people who are trying to deliver home care in the country; to meet with the seniors groups who can't afford medication; to hear their concerns and come up with the new proposals the Minister of Health says he wants.

So I say, as a visitor who has only had an opportunity to observe for a short time, that there is merit in the opposition's suggestions that this motion is inappropriate at this time.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I was just talking to one of our members, Mr. Dennis Mills. I asked him, knowing full well that he has an institutional memory around this place, who were the members from the NDP who used to entertain us at committee back a number of years ago. Of course it was Dave Barrett and John Rodriguez. It was worth the price of admission just to come in and watch these two people carry on in a committee. We can debate whether it was constructive or not, but it was entertaining. I'm not suggesting that we have that calibre of entertainment here today, but I am reminded.

This whole debate reminds me of the old line in the Jack Nicholson movie, “You can't handle the truth”. I think this is really what it comes down to when we're talking about the government. Every member, starting at the head of this table, working down to the smaller parties, if you wish, the opposition parties, has gone through a litany of difficulties in health care in this country.

• 1015

Truly, Mr. Chairman, it comes down to the fact that the government doesn't want to hear the truth. They've mishandled this file for seven consecutive years. There's not a person in this room who has examined what has happened to health care in this country who would disagree with that, regardless of your politics. They have mishandled that file.

I know, Mr. Chairman, you don't want to be reminded of red book one and red book two. Red book one didn't bring you into the House of Commons, did it? But red book two did.

Let's take a look at red book one and what they had to say about health care. Mr. Chairman, I left that in my desk in the House of Commons; I don't have it with me today. I should probably send out a messenger to retrieve that from my desk in the House of Commons, because I'd love to read into the record what you and your party had to say about health care in red book one.

I have to admit, Mr. Chairman, that the promise was basically clouded because of the bigger promise, the bigger.... What did Hitler's man say—that the bigger the lie, the more believable it is? I wouldn't want to say that red book one lied about the GST, but obviously it was such a big promise, such a huge promise, that they forgot about it. Basically, the public didn't focus on your health care promises.

The health care promise to renew health care, to energize health care, and commit funding to health care to create the kinds of standards we expect in this country was truly one of the promises in the 1993 red book.

What happened, Mr. Chairman? Well, between 1993 and 1997 you people performed radical surgery on health care in this country at the expense of every single province in this country. Every province suffered because of what you people did—every province. There's not a province that's left outside of that equation. Whether rich or small, big or little in terms of population base, every province was hurt because of what you people did, the draconian measures you took in terms of health care—every single province.

If you look around the table, Mr. Chairman, you'll see that every single member, including your own, is nodding in agreement with what I have to say. You took the scalpel to health care, and you haven't relented.

I'd just like to remind the public, Mr. Chairman, it was a deathbed reprieve in 1997. Shortly before or even into the election campaign of 1997, what did the Prime Minister do? He threw some money into health care to try to make up for those draconian cuts that occurred between 1993 and 1997.

What I'm suggesting you did, Mr. Chairman, was you balanced your books—we'll have to give Mr. Martin credit for this, and I have from time to time—you balanced your books at the expense of every single Canadian. You did it at the expense of health care and you did it simply because the provinces, many of them Liberal at the time, although many have changed since then, nodded in silent agreement as you went out and systematically eroded everything we have built up in this country in terms of a good health care delivery system.

The primary care rests with the provinces. We recognize that. The five principles of health care rest with the provinces. You simply threw those five principles out the window because of political expediency, because you knew it was an easy thing to do. Between 1993 and 1997 you had every single premier nodding in silent agreement as you ripped and tore apart health care. That took us right into the 1997 election. And I'm telling you right now, Mr. Chairman, you just barely got through that election by the skin of your teeth, because the Canadian people did not appreciate what you did with health care.

Today what has changed, Mr. Chairman? Nothing. It's still the number one issue on the minds of all Canadians.

• 1020

Let's take a look at what's happening in the provinces. Out in Alberta, of course, we have the infamous Bill 11 that the premier is attempting to put through the House. So what does the national health minister do? He sits silently by to see what's going to happen in Alberta. He won't take a stand to either defend the bill, condemn the bill, or suggest another alternative.

What you have done, because you have systematically eroded health care in the provinces, is force the provinces to conduct radical surgery of their own to fix the system, simply because your share of the funding has eroded over the years. Some of the premiers are suggesting now that it's as low as 15¢ on the dollar, Mr. Chairman. How can you sit there and accept that type of activity happening within your party and government that is creating policy that could spell the death of health care in this country?

If we want to argue about the numbers, we could. This is very cute. In fact, if we get into the estimates and if we had the minister here, or even the finance minister, we can see it's pretty cute how they determine how much is going into health care, the cash component or the tax points. But the truth is it's down as low as 15¢ on the dollar in many provinces, when you committed yourself at the birth of health care to 50¢ on the dollar. So you went from the 50-50 cost-sharing program to about 15¢ on the dollar, and it's going downhill rapidly.

The greatest fear in the minds of most Canadians, Mr. Chairman, is where it is going to end. They want to know where it is going to stop and when the federal government is going to take a leadership role.

I want to remind you of an article and some statistics that most of us are aware of. You probably had a chance to see the article last week in most of the major newspapers, particularly U.S. newspapers. A study came out, Mr. Chairman, in regard to suicide rates in the United States. Do you know what they're suggesting is the number one reason? In fact, 50% of all suicides in the United States occur because of bankruptcy, brought about by what? It's brought about by financial disaster because of the lack of a national health care program to take care of Americans.

For any of us who have lived and worked down there, which I have done, it's a big issue. If you're a middle-class American and you get sick, unless you're extremely lucky you could be bankrupt, your family could be bankrupt within a matter of weeks or months, simply because they don't have the kind of care that we have in Canada. They don't have the kind of institutional care that we have in Canada.

We have—we had at one time, I should say; it's all past tense now—the best health care system in the world. But today, Mr. Chairman, we can't claim to have the best health care system in the world, because we've witnessed the erosion of that over the last seven years.

Most people are saying, listen, governments from time to time make mistakes and governments from time to time have to set their priorities or readjust their priorities, but there's no indication that this federal government is going to do this. In this year's budget, and this is quite interesting....

In fact, I wish we hadn't been so focused on the HRDC debacle, which is another disaster the government created, because it would have allowed during question period, I guess, more focus on the budget itself. I disagreed with that strategy of attacking only HRDC. That was sort of the flavour of the day and every party jumped on that bandwagon. I didn't agree with that, Mr. Chairman, and I hope you agree with me on that issue at least.

I think we should have been attacking the budget itself, because there's one weak flank in the budget above all others, and that is the measly $2.5 billion—can you imagine?—$2.5 billion dedicated to health care. Don't forget, this is social transfer we're talking about, so it included education—$2.5 billion over four years.

Now, Mr. Chairman, you're sitting there with the pen. Put it to work.

The Chair: I'm writing down your comments word by word.

• 1025

Mr. Greg Thompson: Thank you, sir.

Mr. Chairman, you may have your deathbed reprieve too on motion three if you can conduct yourself as you have done in the last five or ten minutes. We might reconsider motion three.

The Chair: Not in this life.

Mr. Greg Thompson: But, Mr. Chairman, some of your own members are having doubts. Let's consider this: $2.5 billion over four years, divided into two categories if you wish, health care and education, none of it having to be dedicated to either one or the other, because that's up to the provinces. Would you agree with that, how that money is to be spent? Would you agree, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: Carry on, Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Carry on? Okay. You're not—

Mr. Dennis Mills: On a point of order, Mr. Chair. I have a point of order.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Chairman, basically what it boils down to—

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Mills.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Pardon me, Greg, but I want a very short clarification. Does this meeting, the formal meeting, end at 11 o'clock?

Mr. Greg Thompson: Yes, well—

Mr. Dennis Mills: Okay, thank you very much.

Mr. Greg Thompson: We're not under time restraints. We've got to talk this out. I think it's good that we talk this out. I know, from one of my former professions as an educator—

Mr. Réal Ménard: [Inaudible—Editor].

Mr. Greg Thompson: —sometimes you have to sit down and talk things out.

Mr. Dennis Mills: I know you will, Réal.

Mr. Greg Thompson: What I'm suggesting here, Mr. Chairman, is that if you take the $2.5 billion and basically distribute it across the country from one end to the other—all of the provinces and jurisdictions—that would keep the system.

Listen to this, Mr. Chairman. Pay attention, please. You're under scrutiny here today and I think you should pay attention.

That would keep the system running in my home province for—guess what?—three days. Our share of that would keep our system running for three days.

Now, going back to the red book, because I haven't finished on the red book, Mr. Chairman.... We're talking about red books one and two, because basically red book two is a recycled version of red book one. They put in what worked and what didn't and sort of reworked it. Anyway, Mr. Chairman, what I'm saying is that you reneged on that commitment to health care and it's hurting you. You don't want that type of evidence, the hurt that you've....

The Chair: Inflicted.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Inflicted. Yes, that's the word I'm looking for, thank you.

The Chair: I'm just trying to move it along.

Mr. Greg Thompson: I thank you for that interjection. Inflicted on the provinces, Mr. Chairman. That's unbelievable, seriously. You were the author. Your government is the author of that hurt that you've inflicted on the provinces. That is why I believe that motion number two, that the Standing Committee on Health immediately commence a study on all related problems surrounding the state of health care in Canada, has to be done.

I want to be more specific, Mr. Chairman. I'm not finished yet. One of the areas we have to take a look at in the global picture if you wish, talking about all the provinces, is rural health.

I know that your membership on the committee, if you look over there today—and I'm not being critical, because Ontario's a heck of a nice place to live, I'm sure, Mr. Chairman; of course, you're from Ontario—are Ontario members and are from urban areas that enjoy the highest quality of health care within the country. That is not to say they don't experience problems in their own backyard, because obviously they do in terms of emergency wards and emergency services and so on. The list goes on and on. But if you really want to compare the disparity in health care in this country between the city mouse and the country mouse, if you wish, that's one area we should examine, the difference in the health care delivery service in rural Canada versus urban Canada.

I suggest, Mr. Chairman—and statistics will back this up—that the life expectancy in rural Canada is less than it is in urban Canada, simply because of that disparity. That's one example of disparity. But there's no forum other than this committee that will be able to examine an issue like rural health and the lack of rural health care and the disparity between urban centres and rural centres. That's more of a global issue than a specific issue, because the issue goes beyond just rural health care.

Then we get into the emergency departments, obviously. I'm saying that's a problem in every centre, whether big or small—emergency care, where the doctors and nurses are under siege.

• 1030

Then we talk about individuals and primary caregivers, like doctors and nurses. That's another problem in itself, isn't it? Where are most of our young people going after we have paid to educate them, which I think we should do? They have to leave the country to get a job, for goodness' sake. So our highly paid professional people who have been educated in Canada and who want to contribute to the economy, raise their children here and help Canada flourish, are now forced to leave the country—these very professionals that we train, Mr. Chairman. That's an issue in itself.

Let's go to another issue we should examine, one I've suggested to the health minister: pharmacare. Pharmacare is another promise that was brought on by the government in the red book.

Do you remember that one, Chuck?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I remember.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Ménard?

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Peter?

Mr. Peter Mancini: Yes.

Mr. Greg Thompson: We're all nodding in agreement, Mr. Chairman. We remember that promise of pharmacare.

Mr. Peter Mancini: I talked about it—

Mr. Greg Thompson: Where is pharmacare today? I'll tell you where it is. It's in the annals of Liberal history in terms of neglect or simply a refusal to acknowledge that promise, if you wish—putting it mildly—a promise to bring in—

Mr. Réal Ménard: Madame Marleau agrees with you. Madame Marleau agrees with you, you know that.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Yes.

The Chair: Mr. Ménard, come on.

Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Chairman, pharmacare. The minister is now throwing out what they call designer programs or boutique services, like pharmacare, knowing full well that primary care of Canadians is suffering, and yet you had the gall in 1997 to talk about bringing in some of these neat little programs that would attract some attention from the Canadian public, simply for the purpose of getting elected. But have you heard really where that is, Mr. Chairman? I suggest you haven't, because it's something that has evaporated into cyberspace since the election is obviously over. Now you're in power you just conveniently forget about that one.

That's something like the GST promise, if you remember that one. Where's that one? That one's lost in the Canadian memory. I guess the philosophy of the Liberal Party is simply that the Canadian public has a 20-second memory, forget about past promises, no one is going to bring them up.

Mr. Chairman, this is a place where that type of thing has to be discussed, because in this country of ours—pharmacare is an example—there's a huge disparity in the delivery of pharmacare. If you were a patient, or if any of you have been in the hospital or have relatives—and every one of us has either been a patient or has a relative or loved one or friend who has been a patient—if you live in Ontario you get one service, in terms of the delivery of drugs to help improve your condition or treat you as a patient. If you're living in Vancouver or British Columbia, it would be another service. In New Brunswick and others, or Nova Scotia, it would be another. Every province is different.

What we don't have is a uniform delivery of a service like pharmacare. And the government supposedly recognized that somewhere between 1993 and 1997. They said, hey, this is a promise that will work, because we do know that the province of New Brunswick can't support its cancer patients as well as the provinces of Ontario or B.C. They thought that would attract some interest, that would attract some votes. So what did they do? They inked it right into red book two.

I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, that promise has evaporated; it's no longer out there. It's no longer being discussed. Again, how many people would agree with me that this is something that should be brought before this committee for discussion? Where is that promise?

Where is the promise of home care, of home service? The health minister is now talking about a home care program. Where is that promise? That one has evaporated as well; remember, the 20-second memory. Most Canadians, with the exception, I guess, of those around this table—because they don't practise politics every day of their life as we do—will forget, Mr. Chairman, because there's more important things to do.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: You'll remind them.

Mr. Greg Thompson: We'll remind them, Chuck, that's right. I will, you will.

Most Canadians have more important things to do. They have to get up and go to work in the mornings, they have to make a living, they have to pay the mortgage, look after their children, get educated, whatever. Most people forget those kinds of promises, as they forgot the GST, Mr. Chairman.

• 1035

Mr. Réal Ménard: The GST is...[Inaudible—Editor]

Mr. Greg Thompson: Whatever.

The Chair: All right, Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Chairman, those are the types of things we have to talk about at this table. But where are those promises? Are we going to see an erosion of services to the point that we become an Americanized system?

I go back to the high suicide rate, which does tie into mental health, Mr. Speaker, when people are under pressure, as they are in the U.S., in terms of health care and trying to provide for their families. Those are the types of issues we do have to talk about, but they tie into so many other bigger issues.

Mr. Speaker, we should talk about litigation, and the American system versus the Canadian system. Maybe we should move away from that and adopt more of the British system, where they can't hold a doctor to ransom for up to $10 million, $15 million, or $20 million because of a malpractice suit.

That's not to say that...I think everyone has to be accountable at some point. But in the American system, Americans are forced to pay the high cost of premium insurance for the doctor simply because of the litigation system in the U.S. We don't want to move to that type of system. That's the type of thing we have to talk about in this country, Mr. Chairman.

We have to talk about the role of insurance companies in the health care system. In the United States, the system is driven by two things: the legal profession, and the insurance business. If you went for a simple procedure in a hospital and were covered by insurance in the U.S., there would be a pile of papers, Mr. Chairman, that would exceed you in height just to have one simple procedure done. What it is is paperwork between lawyers, insurance companies, and health care givers.

Those are things I think we have to look at. Suddenly we have some of the highest-ranking Liberals in the country breaking ranks with the federal government in terms of what they have done with health care. Some of the most notable of those, of course, are some of the former health ministers. I'm trying to think...Monique Bégin. Do you remember that name?

An hon. member: Jake Epp.

Mr. Greg Thompson: And Jake Epp. I'll talk about Jake too, because that will be something else I can talk about.

But I'm wondering where the system is going in terms of the five principles of health care. Now, getting into the five principles, one of the things I'm suggesting, Mr. Chairman, which I think you would want to hear, is the sixth principle of health care.

I think, from talking to health care professionals across the country, what we have to get into is sustained funding, predictable funding for health care. If you follow my logic from the start of this debate or conversation to the conclusion, whenever that might be, you'll find there's a common thread here, and it has to do with funding—the lack of funding and lack of predictable funding.

So when you're talking to the CMA—the Canadian Medical Association—or any doctor or health care giver, and if you talk to the premiers and the health ministers in this country, they'll tell you that is the single biggest problem in terms of delivery and planning. Unless you know where you're going to be in terms of funding five years down the road, you can't plan, can you? And when you can't plan, you can't perform properly or deliver the services properly.

I'm suggesting that some planning has to go into the equation. You have a budget at home, I'm sure. You follow the budget, you know basically where you want to be in four or five years and what you have to do to get there. But unless you have a plan...well, Mr. Chairman, I go back to the old axiom: a goal without a plan is just a dream. That's what your health care policy is. Your plan is just a dream, because you don't have a plan. You don't have a goal; you don't know where you want to be. It's sort of ad hoc—day by day. Isn't that the way it is, day by day? We may go here, we may go there, and we may have some money for you. That's what they're telling the provinces now: we may have some money for you, but we don't know when and we don't know how much.

• 1040

Mr. Bob Mills: When an election is called.

Mr. Greg Thompson: There you go. We're right back to where we were in 1997, the deathbed reprieve: “Father Almighty, I'm sorry I sinned. Please give this money to the poor and maybe it will allow me to enter heaven.” That's exactly...and heaven, of course, to the government, as we well know, is winning enough seats to form the government—to the Liberal Party, I should say.

So expect the same thing to happen as we encroach upon that election, whenever it will be. Now, there's only one man, unfortunately, who knows when that's going to be, and we don't know. I mean, he won't tell us, will he?

An hon. member: It's his wife.

Mr. Greg Thompson: In fact, I don't even think he's told.... His wife knows, okay. We should bring Madame Chrétien here. I'm sure she'd talk more sensibly about it than her husband does.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: She hasn't told him yet.

Mr. Greg Thompson: But, Mr. Chairman, seriously, what we can expect is basically a deathbed reprieve. That's what they're going to ask for. They'll come up with some cash for the provinces just slightly before the next election call. I don't think they'll make the same mistake...well, I shouldn't say “you”.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: As you guys made?

Mr. Greg Thompson: No. Now, Mr. Chairman, that's out of line. And remember, I have a lot of respect—

The Chair: Order, please.

Mr. Greg Thompson: I'm on the—

The Chair: Mr. Thompson, please carry on.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that generosity. He's just attempting to sidetrack me—unsuccessfully.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: We're trying to help you out.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Now, Mr. Chairman, the deathbed reprieve is what I was on. But you won't make the same mistake you made in 1997, because you waited a little too long.

This Prime Minister reminds me of the most famous of all Liberal Prime Ministers, Mackenzie King. I shouldn't say the most famous, but the longest-serving. In fact the longest-serving prime minister in Canada's history is Mackenzie King. What was Mackenzie King famous for, if you're a historian? Mackenzie King—

An hon. member: His dog.

Mr. Greg Thompson: What Mackenzie King did, for the sake of the audience, Mr. Chairman, is he would invent a crisis, knowing full well that he was the only one capable of solving it, and he would solve it on his own timing. And, Mr. Chairman, that sustained him for 20-some years as Prime Minister—

An hon. member: It was 23 great years.

Mr. Greg Thompson: I mean 23 years. And listen, we're going on to seven years, and the Prime Minister has done the same thing. He's taken a page straight out of Mackenzie King's strategy book, if you wish.

The Chair: The point is, Mr. Thompson, that he has 16 to go, is that it?

Mr. Greg Thompson: Well, there you go, and that's what worries us, Mr. Chairman. That's why we have to talk about these types of issues, because that worries the hell out of all of us—16 more years to go.

Now, Mr. Chairman, this is the difficulty, because you don't have a plan. What we're afraid of at this table, seriously, is moving toward the election with no sustainable plan into the future.

Now, even the finance minister is smarter than that, because the finance minister...I mean, he takes it to extremes, because he's promising tax relief down the road “if you vote for me”, that sort of thing—you know, where there are four or five years where it kicks in. In other words, Mr. Chairman, the finance minister stands up in the House of Commons and says, listen, I'm providing tax relief for businesses, for individuals, and this, that, and something else.

He throws out a lot of carrots on the end of his stick, and basically he's inviting all Canadians to vote for him, for the Liberal Party, because if they do, it means they're going to get tax relief down the road in two, three, four, or five years, depending on what he's offering in that particular budget on that particular day. That applies to students, seniors, business people—businesses, big and small. And if you look at the budget document, you'll see that.

But unfortunately the health minister doesn't even have the common sense to say this is what we're going to do, this is where the funding is going to be, and this is how much it's going to be at the end of five years. I'd suggest that maybe they should take a page—a little bit—out of Paul Martin's book. Now that's just a suggestion. But that's unlikely to happen until at least the next leadership race within the party—and I know you're having one of those right now, Mr. Chairman, unofficially, of course.

• 1045

But what happens is that uncertainty makes the Canadian people nervous, because they can't see any light at the end of the tunnel. All it is, Mr. Chairman, is finger-pointing. When I point at you, as I did today, there are three fingers pointing back at me. So we have to be careful when we do that, and you have to make sure you're on solid ground when you do it, which I'm sure I am.

An hon. member: Your party's not.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Obviously the health minister isn't, nor is the Prime Minister, when they do this finger-pointing.

Now, what they're doing is conspiring. They're up there in the PMO. This is something I'm sure you're aware of. I hope the members of the opposition know they've struck an internal cabinet committee. I can tell you who's on the cabinet committee. Would you like to know, Mr. Chairman? Would members like to know? I'm sure they would. Paul Martin is on it, for one, because obviously he controls the purse strings. He's on the committee. Then of course we have the other aspiring candidate for the unofficial leadership of the party, who would be Mr. Rock. He's right in there as big as Billy—sorry, that was a psychic slip—as big as Jean or as big as Paul, whatever. So we have two of them now.

Maybe I could get a little help from the government members. There are two of them on there. I'm pushing it pretty far here, Mr. Chairman. Memory doesn't serve me as well today as it should.

An hon. member: It's the second thing to go.

Mr. Greg Thompson: That's obviously why mental health is important and why the committee should be examining it.

That's exactly what happened. Basically what it comes down to is backroom conspiring within the Liberal Party to come up with a package they feel they can sell. They have to be careful, because we're encroaching upon this election and they're going to be caught, just as you are going to be caught, in the same situation as you were in 1997, with just a little bit of a break or two by....

An hon. member: Take your time.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Well, I'm trying to think, Mr. Chairman.

Let's put it this way: you were lucky to get through the 1996 election by the skin of your teeth in terms of the majority you did achieve. The reason for that was that the Canadian public was really cynical about the types of politics you people exercised between 1993 and 1997, and ignoring the health care file was part of that. That was one of them.

This very day, as we're speaking, they are working on a plan. You've been in office for seven years, so you're looking at a plan that might be saleable, if you wish, to the Canadian public.

Every time you listen to the Prime Minister, or to the health minister, he's always blaming one premier or the other. Why wouldn't he just stand up in the House of Commons and say “We've failed the Canadian people on health care, and this is what I'm suggesting we should do”?

It goes way beyond primary care. As you well know, Mr. Chairman, primary care is a responsibility of the provinces.

Let's look at the health inspection branch, if you will. Let's look at Health Canada and the drug regulatory process. Mr. Chairman, we have some of the top researchers and pharmaceutical people coming to Parliament Hill every day, trying to find a way to resolve the difficulties in Health Canada in terms of the regulatory process. It's in a shambles. That's another example of what we could do as a committee: take a look at the drug regulatory process. Mr. Chairman, that's costing Canadians good health or recovery from a disease.

I want to remind you of one drug, Rituxan, which is a cancer-fighting drug. I know the member opposite, Mr. Szabo, would have some knowledge of this because of one of his family members. This drug, Rituxan, which is a cancer-fighting drug, was two years behind every country in the world in terms of being approved in Canada. If you look at the industrialized countries of the world, Mr. Chairman, every industrialized country in the world approved that drug before we did. There was a two-year delay!

• 1050

If you went to your oncologist, if you were a cancer patient and wanted the use of that drug, you couldn't get it. You couldn't get it because it wasn't approved in this country. It was approved in Britain, it was approved in France, it was approved in Germany and Australia and the United States. You could go through 40 industrialized countries in the world, Mr. Chairman, but it was not approved in this country. Why? Well, because of some of the draconian cutbacks at Health Canada.

I'm not criticizing people over there; they can only do so much as human beings. That's the way it is, Mr. Chairman. We can't expect people to do superhuman deeds when they're under fire and under siege, as that department has been by the present government. They did the best they could to weave their way through this cumbersome process in this country.

What I'm suggesting we do.... We're coming up with solutions here this morning. This is not criticism. We're coming up with some positive ideas that maybe the government could adopt. We should take a look at the European model and the European Community and find out how their system works, compare their system to ours. How does the U.S. system work?

It's not that we want to go out and holus-bolus adopt the American system. Their system is flawed. They often approve drugs that have to be recalled from the marketplace because of dire consequences. But that doesn't happen in all jurisdictions. When countries like Britain, France, and Germany approve a drug, why couldn't we share that information with them to allow the drug to be processed here or approved here, not only to save the government money but to save the lives of Canadians?

An hon. member: What about complementary medicine?

An hon. member: That sounds like a travel plan to me.

Mr. Greg Thompson: You're right.

What we have to do is take an intelligent look at what they're doing in Europe, what they're doing in other jurisdictions. I might suggest that's something the committee could do. It's not always just going to the doctor. The doctor has to have tools to work with. One of those tools is the latest drugs available to mankind to help improve their lot, help improve their health, help sustain them, cure them. They have to have tools to work with, and drugs are one of them.

An hon. member: Are you talking about Viagra?

Mr. Greg Thompson: Viagra would be another example. I know the member is not saying that jokingly. It's an example of another drug that was delayed in being introduced in Canada. Hordes of middle-aged men were jumping on buses and heading down into Vermont, Maine, and New York State to buy Viagra.

Mr. Dennis Mills: What about alternative medicines?

Mr. Greg Thompson: Then there's the case of alternative medicine as well. You're absolutely right. That's another thing the committee examined months ago. Do you remember? We looked at herbal medicine and cures and so on and so forth. There's a lot to be said for that, Mr. Dennis Mills.

There's a government member coming up with a constructive example of what the government could do, Mr. Chairman. They conveniently come up with all of these ideas as a committee, and many of them come right out of the minister's office. He's suggesting that we do this.

The herbal medicine thing was sort of a safe area to examine, wasn't it? Who's going to disagree with eating beet greens or whatever to cure whatever it might cure?

An hon. member: Or broccoli.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Or vitamin C in an orange or an apple. You know, an apple a day keeps the doctor away.

The Chair: St. John's wort, Mr. Thompson. It's supposed to reduce stress.

Mr. Greg Thompson: That was good work. But what I'm saying is that it gathers dust on the minister's shelf, in his library of studies and reports and so on and so forth. The government never acts on them. Basically what it boils down to—

Mr Réal Ménard: Are you finished with Viagra?

Mr. Greg Thompson: I have to go on here. I'm going to go on until 3 p.m., at least until question period.

Mr. Chairman, how long do I have? I'm just appointed here.

The Chair: Mr. Thompson, in fairness, the meeting—

Mr. Greg Thompson: No, no.

The Chair: Mr. Thompson, listen to me.

Mr. Greg Thompson: No, no. You're out of order, Mr. Chairman.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Well, you're not going to tell me that.

Mr. Greg Thompson: We're working by the rules, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Yes, the rules are that the meeting is called from 9 o'clock until 11, so at 11 o'clock we'll be adjourning this meeting.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I want a ruling in terms of the third issue that we haven't had a chance to debate. We're going to get into—

The Chair: If you want to vote—

• 1055

Mr. Greg Thompson: I don't want a political interpretation of this. I want a legal interpretation. Mr. Chairman, in all honesty, are you sitting there saying that the clock expires at 11 o'clock and then the vote is called?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I want a legal ruling on this issue, not a political ruling.

The Chair: I'm not giving you a political ruling. I'm giving you an administrative, legal ruling. The meeting was called for 9 o'clock until 11 and it's going to go until 11, at which point any further business will be discussed at the next meeting.

Mr. Greg Thompson: So in other words, we are in agreement on this side that we can continue to 11 a.m. and pick it up at the next meeting.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Then we can have a—

The Chair: Mr. Thompson, it's not an agreement on that side. It's an agreement of the whole committee, and the rule of this—

Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Chairman, in all fairness, a lot of these members are temporary members simply to save your hide today.

The Chair: Oh, Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Chairman—

The Chair: You are the last—

Mr. Greg Thompson: In all fairness, I'm not saying that in a derogatory sense. They are not permanent members of the committee, so I'm not sure they know exactly what's going on.

The Chair: Mr. Thompson, in fairness, you are a permanent member and you should look at how many times you've attended. It seems to me it's been maybe twice.

Mr. Greg Thompson: There's the reason that number three is on the docket.

The Chair: Well, there you are.

Mr. Greg Thompson: You went after Mr. Mills on the same thing, and that's really out of order, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, I want to—

Mr. Greg Thompson: I will continue.

Mr. Dennis Mills: I would move that the meeting adjourn.

An hon. member: Seconded.

The Chair: Before you do, I need to give you this advice.

The first point is that in recognition of Mr. Elley's request about the.... I think there's a conference about GMOs that he's attending. Mr. Ménard's request with respect to Geneva and the World Health Organization attendance—

Mr. Réal Ménard: With Mr. Charbonneau.

The Chair: Yes, with Mr. Charbonneau and others, at Canadian taxpayers' expense, I think. We will be moving then to May 29 to ensure that the minister comes to talk about estimates. After that, after the minister leaves, Mr. Thompson, you'll be first to lead off. You'll be able to finish.

Mr. Greg Thompson: What date would that be?

The Chair: May 29.

Then, because tobacco regulations are coming in on May 12, we will set aside the meetings of May 30 and June 1 for the tobacco regulations. If need be, if we need the third meeting, it will be Wednesday, May 31. So it will be the regular schedule of May 30 and June 1, but if need be, we'll take Wednesday, May 31, as well.

Does everyone understand that and agree?

Some hon. members: Yes.

The Chair: This meeting is adjourned. Thank you.