House of Commons Hansard #192 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was provinces.

Topics

Small BusinessOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Ottawa South Ontario

Liberal

John Manley LiberalMinister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to hear a question with a preamble I agree with.

First I would like to acknowledge the excellent work of the Standing Committee on Industry and members of the House of Commons who contributed to the work on small business. As well there are the committees chaired by Phil O'Brien and Brien Gray. They did excellent work in advising the government on small business.

I would like to mention that reform of the Federal Business Development Bank mandate and lending authorities is coming soon. We have extended and increased the limit under the Small Businesses Loans Act. We have maintained the small business deduction and the capital gains exemption for small business. We have increased the funding for CANARIE, in its efforts to bring the small business community on to the information highway. We have increased funding for tourism promotion, which is going to help small business across Canada. We have seen improvements in the-

Small BusinessOral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

Order, please.

The final question: the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona.

Infectious Diseases ProtocolOral Question Period

3 p.m.

NDP

Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the government.

As the government knows, the international firefighters are having their convention in town, and they are very frustrated by the lack of progress with respect to the setting up of an infectious diseases protocol. There is wide support for this protocol in the House, and I would like to ask whoever is speaking on behalf of the government on this issue today why there has not been progress. When will there be progress? Will the government commit to bringing in this protocol before the end of the year?

Infectious Diseases ProtocolOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Vancouver Centre B.C.

Liberal

Hedy Fry LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that this government supports that process very much. It is very concerned with the health and protection of frontline workers such as firefighters.

As a result, and because of that commitment, the government has assisted firefighters in setting up a meeting in January of all the stakeholders to discuss this issue. That will be followed up with a meeting in June.

The government also has protocols on the agenda for the ministers of health conference. Setting up protocols is in the provincial jurisdiction. It does not have to do with hospitals.

Presence In The GalleryOral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

My colleagues, I would like to draw to your attention today the presence in the gallery of two laureates for the Nobel prize in chemistry: Dr. Gerhard Herzberg in 1971, and Dr. Michael Smith in 1993.

Presence In The GalleryOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

May 2nd, 1995 / 3 p.m.

NDP

Len Taylor NDP The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address a matter of privilege today.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, a question of privilege is raised when an individual member of this Chamber feels that something has occurred that infringes upon the ability of that member of Parliament to do his or her job.

A matter of privilege should be raised at the earliest opportunity, and just this morning I received a letter that has prompted me to rise today on this matter.

The point I wanted to make is prefaced by comments concerning a recent Board of Internal Economy decision relating to the production of minutes for committees. I feel that the Board of Internal Economy provided us with extra support when it decided that the minutes of committees could be transferred electronically. I supported and I do support the decision by the Board of Internal Economy that allowed us to have quicker access to committee minutes via the computer process.

However, the printing branch of the House of Commons has interpreted a decision of the Board of Internal Economy in a way that I believe jeopardizes my ability to do my job well. That decision is as follows. As a result of the minutes not being printed by the House of Commons any more and simply put on to electronic transfer, individual members of Parliament such as myself have to print off the minutes from our computer in order to read them, review them, have them handy, carry them on an airplane and that sort of thing. The minutes are no longer available from the House of Commons committees branch or printed anywhere.

I have a number of constituents upon whom I rely for advice in helping me to understand certain pieces of legislation, certain bills and certain matters before the House. When committees meet to study those issues I have always had minutes of the committee available to circulate among the people within my constituency upon whom I rely for advice to do my job.

Today, on a request of mine from Thursday of last week, the printing unit of the House of Commons refused to print copies of minutes reproduced off my computer so that I could then circulate that to members of my constituency who would provide me with the advice I need to help me do my job. I need the feedback from the people in my constituency on the work that is going on here in Ottawa to ensure that the work I do here represents their interests and also ensures that I understand completely the impact of government legislation, programs, and policies on the people of my own constituency as well as across Canada.

Earlier this year, as you will recall, Mr. Speaker, because we communicated on this matter, on the firearms legislation I had asked if I could print copies of the firearms legislation to distribute in my constituency. I was informed that was not an option for me to consider.

The Minister of Justice has now appeared before the House of Commons committee on justice studying Bill C-68, the bill that I could not print in order to circulate to my constituency. I wanted to reproduce the minutes of the minister's statement to the committee, and the printing branch of the House of Commons told me that I could not have anything out of committees printed. As a result, I cannot service the people in my constituency who want to know what the government is saying on these issues.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

The Speaker

With all respect to the point the member is making on a point of privilege, I have a little difficulty with agreeing, at least in this respect, that it would be a point of privilege. However, might I suggest to the hon. member that if he could draft a note to the Board of Internal Economy perhaps they could get an answer back to the hon. member. If at that point that is not acceptable, then we might pursue this not as a point of privilege but perhaps as a point of order.

I wonder if the hon. member might consider doing this in the interest of getting an answer as quickly as we can for him in this particular dilemma.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

NDP

Len Taylor NDP The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK

Mr. Speaker, allow me just one minute to respond to your comment and conclude my remarks.

When I requested the attention of the Board of Internal Economy on the printing of the firearms legislation itself, that process served as a delay. I ended up not being able to respond to my constituents who had an interest for more than two weeks because of the process of the Board of Internal Economy.

Although I will pursue the matter of a letter to the board, because I think the printing branch is not interpreting the board's decision correctly, more importantly, I do think that my privileges have been breached here, because I am not able to do my job if I cannot communicate the work of this Chamber to the people I represent. That is a breach of my privileges, and I want that considered, despite what the Board of Internal Economy does.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Mr. Speaker, I just want to very briefly submit that not being able to get an unlimited amount of copies of anything does not constitute a point of privilege.

Second, I understand that the request in question was for 150 copies of a particular document produced by a committee. Even in the days when those were produced by the House itself, those were not quantities usually available to members of Parliament.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that your suggestion that this matter be brought before the board as a request from the hon. member is a good one, notwithstanding the fact that the quantities sought, if they were given to all members, would in fact negate any saving we have been trying to attempt to achieve with the board over the last number of months through our deliberations.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

The Speaker

If we would agree, I think we will proceed in this fashion.

We have the spokesperson for the Board of Internal Economy saying that this will be taken up at the earliest possible time. We have the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake saying that he will indeed draft a proposal or a letter questioning

the process and asking for clarification. At this point, I wonder if the hon. members would hold this in abeyance.

I am well aware of what the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake said with regard to his privileges. Of course I will take that all into consideration. If I feel it is necessary, I will get back to the House with a decision at that time.

Is this on the same point?

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

NDP

Len Taylor NDP The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

The Speaker

I gave the hon. member a minute and he was to conclude. I would hope that in a few seconds he would be able to wrap this up.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

NDP

Len Taylor NDP The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK

Yes, I can, Mr. Speaker.

I must comment on two points the hon. whip made with regard to what has happened in the past. He talked about requests for unlimited copies. I think the House is aware there are limitations on printing, that we all know those limitations and we all live within those limitations. That is not a problem. We are not asking for unlimited access to printing.

Second, the member said this has not occurred in the past. I have constituents who have received printed copies of committee minutes from me for the past six years. This has not been a problem in the past for me.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

The Speaker

I thank the hon. member and I will close the debate at this point.

The House resumed consideration of the motion and the amendment.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

According to my notes, the hon. member for Algoma has five minutes remaining. The hon. member for Algoma.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

Brent St. Denis Liberal Algoma, ON

Madam Speaker, just before we broke off for question period I briefly made the point that even though Canadians in vast numbers approved of the recent federal budget, we have in the media almost every day attempts by the NDP government in Ontario to use the budget as some kind of a lightning rod in a desperate hope to win the Ontario election. We also see the Bloc Quebecois attempt to use the budget to further their own ill-founded cause. In spite of Canadian support we see these attempts.

The Ontario NDP failed to recognize that a recent poll indicated that some 72 per cent of Ontario voters supported the federal budget. It is putting out its own numbers which are a twisting of the facts. The Ontario NDP claims that the federal budget, including the Canadian health and social transfer initiative, represents a cut of something like 54 per cent to Ontario even though Ontario has 38 per cent of the population.

This is simply not the case. Even though Ontario has 38 per cent of the population, the actual budget impact on Ontario is something like 35 per cent. The Ontario NDP has attempted to include the equalization payments.

Certainly the NDP in Ontario would not be against the better off provinces helping those provinces which are less well off. In fact, the transfers to Ontario under the Canada health and social transfer represent only 2 per cent of the provincial revenues forecast for the year 1996-97. The treasurer for Ontario has admitted that.

Recently the NDP has put out numerous documents in an attempt to use the federal budget to further its election cause in Ontario but this strategy will fail. The number of phone calls I received after the budget against that budget were very few in number, barely a handful. Most people I talk to are very supportive of the budget.

The central theme of the Bloc's motion suggests that the federal government intends to impose new national standards on the provinces. In fact the federal government is providing an opportunity while at the same time it is taking modest measures to rein in federal expenditures.

The case of Ontario again is typical for the provinces. The cut that the federal government is making to its own programs is greater than the cut in transfers to provinces.

The Bloc motion suggests that the federal government is going to impose new standards on the provinces. Canadians want standards. They have already accepted and want to keep the standards that have been established for many years in the health care area. I repeatedly hear from my constituents that they would like national standards in post-secondary education. These will not be imposed on the provinces.

The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Human Resources Development have stated that any new standards will be created in consultation with the provinces. Recent polls have indicated that Canadians want to see a strong set of national standards in all areas of health, social services and post-secondary education. I support that but this will not be imposed on the provinces by the federal government.

What we see is an attempt by the NDP in Ontario and the Bloc Quebecois, in the absence of their own constructive agenda, to attempt to use the federal budget as a means to further their own cause. I suggest that this is doomed to fail.

I had briefly mentioned before question period that the Canadian Federation of Students had made a presentation to the finance committee this morning. One of the recommendations of the federation is that Bill C-76 be amended to compel the Minister of Human Resources Development to invite all stakeholders affected by the Canadian health and social transfer to participate in developing a set of shared principles and objectives for it. This is the kind of positive thinking and leadership hoped for from all quarters. I commend the Canadian Federation of Students for that.

In conclusion, the agenda of the Bloc is obvious. In Ontario, the agenda of the NDP is obvious. We look forward to the demise of those agendas in the months ahead.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Bloc

Gilbert Fillion Bloc Chicoutimi, QC

Madam Speaker, my colleague says that the government does not intend to create new national standards, whereas Bill C-76 refers to new national standards that will be implemented only "where appropriate". Does it mean that a consensus from the provinces will be needed to implement these new standards?

I find it a little strange that we are talking about new national standards when negotiations with the different provinces have not even taken place. It seems to me that, when we want to establish new standards, we first reach a consensus with the provinces and then implement them. We are currently doing the opposite. We are putting the cart before the horse.

So, I would simply ask him this question: What does he think about Bill C-76, which does not provide for a consensus with the provinces before implementing the new act? We should negotiate first.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Brent St. Denis Liberal Algoma, ON

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

The member is attempting to suggest that the federal government is putting the cart before the horse. What we see in this motion is an attempt to detach the cart from the horse.

If the hon. member would re-read the budget reference to national standards it is quite clear that there is no attempt or plan to impose standards. Those standards which exist now in the area of health care are fixed. There is no negotiation and no debate of those standards.

However, when the suggestion is made in the budget documents that the provinces, through the Canada health and social transfer, will have more flexibility, how can that be interpreted in any way except that there will be more flexibility, in concert with the provinces' national standards in the area of social transfer and possibly in post-secondary education. That will be looked at in co-operation with the provinces. There is no hint whatsoever of the imposition of standards.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Bloc

René Canuel Bloc Matapédia—Matane, QC

Mr. Speaker, when the government dumps some responsibilities on to the provinces without also sending them the money to face these responsibilities, there is a huge problem. We know that there are 800,000 unemployed people and welfare recipients in Quebec. In fact, there are 800,000 welfare recipients alone. My riding of Matapédia-Matane alone accounts for almost 40 per cent of them. That is totally unacceptable. My question is: Unless my colleague is able to accomplish some great miracle, how can the government offload some responsibilities while, at the same time, tightening the belt?

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Brent St. Denis Liberal Algoma, ON

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the question. The fact remains that federal money is being transferred to Quebec and to all the other provinces and territories.

The federal government, by and large, has no regime of standards with its transfers with the exception of health care, but it is transferring vast sums of money. To me it is not unreasonable to negotiate with the provinces standards in areas other than health care. I believe that goes with the responsibility of transferring funds to the provinces.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Vancouver Centre B.C.

Liberal

Hedy Fry LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health

Madam Speaker, I am confused. I am confused by the motion because it talks about national standards as being things which are not desirable to Her Majesty's opposition. Yet last Thursday, on opposition day, the health critic for the opposition party, Mr. Daviault said:

"In Quebec we have no trouble with the five criteria. As far as we are concerned, they represent a minimum consensus".

The other health critic, Mrs. Picard, said: "We believe in the Canada Health Act principles". Philippe Paré in the debate said: "I think there is not one Canadian or Quebecer who questions the importance-

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Bloc

Roger Pomerleau Bloc Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC

I think, Madam Speaker, that members cannot be referred to by name in the House, and I would urge my hon. colleague to remember this.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

We do not use the names of members of Parliament in debate.