Debates of Oct. 17th, 1995

Federal Public Service

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Certainly not, Mr. Speaker. I hear French and English used frequently, constantly, every day in my work. I am sure others in this government do as well.

We will continue to encourage people to use the official language of their choice. That is a commitment this government has made. It is made to the people of Quebec, it is made to the people of every part of this country, all francophones in Canada.

Atlantic Groundfish Strategy

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Spending on the Atlantic groundfish strategy is spinning out of control. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has now admitted that this year's deficit alone is $105 million.

Last week the minister announced his so-called brilliant solution was to siphon money away from the $300 million capacity reduction portion of the plan to cover the shortfall. Will the minister tell this House exactly how much of the $300 million allotted for capacity reduction will be diverted and confirm what many fishermen already suspect, that there will be no further licence buybacks?

[Brian Tobin, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, the only thing spinning out of control, after only his second question as the new fisheries critic, is this member's credibility.

This government is consulting with fishermen's organizations, including the Canadian Council of Fish Harvesters, representing all of the major fishing unions and associations right across Canada. The adjustment that has thus far been made by the Minister of Human Resources Development and by the Department of Fisheries and the Minister of Fisheries to the TAGS program has been made after consultation, a foreign concept to the Reform Party, with the fishermen's unions representatives. Any adjustments that may occur in the future will be made after the same kind of consultation.

If the member is interested in reflecting properly the reality of Atlantic Canada and the tough challenges Atlantic Canadians face, he ought to do at least a minimum of homework.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

The minister has managed to blow the hopes of Atlantic Canadians right out of the water. Capacity reductions were supposed to fix the problems of Atlantic fishermen, but this government's failure has left Atlantic Canadians with

no hope for a viable future in the fishery. All they can hope for is that the cheques from Ottawa do not run out. That is not hope, it is dependency. Atlantic Canadians deserve better.

Will the minister now admit that his attempts at capacity reduction have been an abject failure and that he has quashed the last hope of Atlantic fishermen for a livelihood in the future?

[Brian Tobin, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question is will we admit that Atlantic Canadians are defeated. Will we buy the policy of the Reform Party to buy everyone a one-way ticket to Toronto? Will we give up on the region and see it cut and cast adrift? Will we assume that all Atlantic Canadians are losers? Will we assume there is no future for our people? Absolutely not. We are going to work to rebuild the region.

Federal Public Service

[Mark Assad, Liberal, Gatineau—La Lièvre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. The Public Service Alliance of Canada recently conducted several talks, unsuccessful so far, aimed at reaching an agreement with the Government of Quebec on hiring 26,000 federal public servants now residing in the Outaouais, in the event Quebec separates from Canada.

Mr. Speaker, are these promises not rather unrealistic and liable to create false hopes, considering the obvious fact that this cannot be done, administratively speaking?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec is talking about a public service of the size of 110,000 people to serve a population of some 7 million, whereas after the current downsizing is completed at the federal level we will have 190,000 public servants serving a population of 28 million.

Those numbers do not add up. Federal public servants in Quebec should be very concerned about the ability for the separatists to meet those kinds of numbers. They are simply out of proportion. They are simply unbelievable. Federal public servants should beware of the false promises coming from the separatists.

Pharmaceuticals

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

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

Prescription drug costs comprise 17 per cent of the cost of health care. These prices have increased 13 per cent each year over the past eight years due to Bill C-91 which the Liberals opposed in opposition.

The government can save hundreds of millions of dollars yearly by doing one thing, by repealing Bill C-91 or at the very least abolishing the automatic injunction clause of the patented medicines regulation.

Why will the government not do this? Is it because pharmaceutical drug manufacturers contribute too much money to the Liberal Party?

[The Speaker]

The question is out of order and this concludes question period.

Presence In Gallery

[The Speaker]

I wish to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Nawab Mahammad Talpu, Minister of Agriculture of Pakistan.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Speaker]

I also wish to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of Marie-Noëlle Ande Koyara, Minister of the Status of Women and National Solidarity of the Central African Republic.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Points Of Order

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I draw to the attention of the House the fact that Bill C-64, an act respecting employment equity, on which we are to vote tonight has passed through the House from report stage to the conclusion of third reading in five consecutive sitting days. This is as a result of a new procedure whereby the bill went to a committee after first reading.

However I also draw to the attention of the House that the new procedure, which was instituted for the very best reasons, has made it impossible for some MPs like myself who have serious reservations about the bill at report stage to have our reservations answered by bringing witnesses to committee, because the committee no longer sits after report stage reading.

Consequently the speed with which the bill has gone through the House presents a problem for MPs who would like to see all legislation going through the House given full and due consideration so that they know how to vote in the most informed way possible.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I guess the comments of the hon. member deserve some reply. I am not sure he has raised a valid point of order, but I submit in respect of the procedure on this bill and others that are dealt with in this way that hon. members are able to go to the committee to which the bill stands referred. Hon. members are also in a position to move amendments to the bill in the House at report stage.

There was an extensive debate at report stage. There was extensive debate at third reading. Indeed third reading debate was extended today by unanimous consent because some members apparently missed an opportunity to speak last evening. The government has been most solicitous in its efforts to ensure fair and reasonable debate on all aspects of the bill.

I submit the procedure followed was correct and in accordance with the rules. If the hon. member is suggesting-although I do not think I heard it in his comments-that there was in any way a problem with the procedure, I think if he looks at it and sees what happened in the committee he will agree there was not really a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth. We previously brought to the attention of the House the fact that legislation submitted to committee prior to second reading has not had proper analysis at the committee level and has been denied adequate debate in the House.

Once the legislation goes to committee it does not come here for second reading, one of the most extensive reviews of legislation available to members of the House. That is gone. We are limited to a 180-minute debate just to review sending the legislation to committee, not to review the contents of the legislation.

When we agreed to this change in the rules we thought the potential was there to make committee work much more meaningful. However we have experienced in committee clause by clause study of legislation that is restricted to a few seconds per clause or a minute or so per clause. Things are rammed through. Then without second reading we came to third reading where the bill is approved in principle and no further amendments could be brought forth by members.

[The Speaker]

This is a new procedure that the House has adopted. If there are flaws in the procedure I suggest these can probably be looked at in committee again.

The hon. member has made his point. I appreciate the interventions of both the parliamentary secretary and the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster, but this is not a point of order.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on what I think is a very grave matter regarding the behaviour of the member for Burnaby-Kingsway during question period just earlier today.

His heckling was excessive, was obnoxious and was extremely-

[The Speaker]

From time to time I have asked all members of the House to be very considerate of other members when they are either asking questions or giving answers.

The hon. member raises a case in point. I am well aware of the point he is raising. That we do not like how one member or another acts is not necessarily a point of order. In my view it is a point of debate.

I think I know where the member was going with his point. It was that all hon. members should respect one another. We should be listening to one another either when we ask questions and when we give answers. I encourage all hon. members in the House to do just that.

I think the point was well taken. It is on the table and I am aware of what it says in the book.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

I want the whole world to know, Mr. Speaker.

[The Speaker]

I would like to let this point of order rest now.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during Question Period the President of the Privy Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs quoted a study. Does the minister intend to table this document for the benefit of all members?

[The Speaker]

Is the minister-? Well, could someone go and fetch him?

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to something that happened in question period. I referred primarily to the fact that prescription drugs represent 17 per cent of the cost of health care.

The question put to the government was why the would government not repeal Bill C-91. I perhaps elaborated more than I should have but I was attempting to give the minister a multiple choice with respect to his answer.

[The Speaker]

The Chair has ruled on the admissibility of the question. In the course of the question period I turn up my hearing gismos as high as I can. I try to listen to what all hon. members are saying.

It seemed to me that I did not know where the member was going in his question. It seemed to me from what I could hear and from what I could understand that the question was out of order.

The hon. member does not have a point of order now but if he would like to discuss the matter further with me, I would be happy to do so in my chambers if that is agreeable.