Debates of April 23rd, 1998

Hepatitis C

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, with due respect, I disagree with the minister.

I want to go at it from another angle. Tuesday night there will be a confidence vote. If the government loses the confidence vote, obviously we move to an election. I am wondering what the theme would be of that election. Would they campaign on the theme of “The land is strong”? Remember that one in 1972? Would it be “Let them eat cake”? Or would the campaign theme be “Abandon the sick”?

What is the theme going to be of this upcoming election?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Reform members were wrong when they said they could give a commitment that none of the opposition members would treat this as a confidence vote.

An official spokesman for the Conservative Party just said that he considers the matter to be a confidence vote. Let the record show what the hon. member said.

My hon. friend is asking an interesting hypothetical question, but I believe that when we vote on this next week the resolution will be defeated and the government's position and the position of the ten provinces and the two territories will be upheld.

Banking Services

[Ben Serré, Liberal, Timiskaming—Cochrane, ON]

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

More and more bank branches are closing down in rural areas, and the people living in those areas are being forced to travel long distances in order to have access to banking services.

Can the minister tell the House what steps can be taken to lessen the problems being faced by our fellow citizens who live in rural areas?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is an important one. Moreover, it is an excellent example of why we have struck a committee to look into the future of the financial services sector.

I can assure you that we are going to take the necessary steps to guarantee that this matter will be settled properly. It is very important, and the government has made it perfectly clear that access to quality financial services in Canada's rural and outlying areas is of critical importance for the government.

International Trade

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the forest industry is already reeling from the decline in forest exports to Pacific rim nations, but more forest industry jobs are threatened by the new U.S. customs service decision to set tariffs and quotas on predrilled softwood imports.

What action is the minister taking to protect Canadian jobs in this industry?

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, we had a meeting and a conference call with the Canadian industry across the country because we have said that clearly we have an agreement that largely works. We will make no move in response to that customs agreement until we have been able to establish a sense of consensus within the industry.

The industry has also asked us for an additional period of a week, at which time we will be coming together again in Ottawa with representatives of the entire industry. If we can I think it would be very important to try to establish a consensus within the industry so we can march in the face of this decision in unity.

Court Challenges Program

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Francophone Saskatchewan is disappearing according to the Fédération des francophones de la Saskatchewan, which clearly contradicts the federalists who say that French is gaining ground throughout Canada. A key to the survival of francophones outside Quebec is the ability to appeal to the courts to guarantee their right to education.

Why is the minister refusing to improve the Court Challenges Program as she promised to do on March 18? Will she do as she did with the GST and break her promises?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I totally and absolutely support the request of the francophone community in Saskatchewan that French be recognized as an official language in Saskatchewan and I recognize the same thing for all provinces.

Unfortunately, the secretary of state in a former government, now the premier of Quebec, who had the opportunity to do the same thing, never gave his support.

Reforestation

[Louise Hardy, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Treasury Board. In 1995 the Elijah Smith Reforestation Fund was set up, but unfortunately there was a mix-up and no money is coming back to the Yukon for reforestation, which is particularly needed this year.

Will the minister fix the problem and make sure reforestation money comes back to the Yukon for work this year?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, I will look into that question and give an answer to the hon. member as soon as possible.

Hepatitis C

[Diane St-Jacques, Progressive Conservative, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health has said he is prepared to let class actions determine the government's policy on hepatitis C. This is very worrisome.

Canadians have already seen the minister's prowess in other legal matters. The Airbus affair and Pearson airport are two examples that come to mind.

Is the Liberal government going to abdicate its responsibilities and those of all parliamentarians in favour of a court decision or will it allow Parliament to determine policy as it should?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the governments of Canada, including Conservative governments, decided to compensate the individuals infected during the period between 1986 and 1990, when governments and officials could have acted but did not. It was not the courts, but rather the governments that decided and accepted responsibility for the 1986 to 1990 period.

Privilege

[The Speaker]

On Tuesday, April 21 the hon. member for Fraser Valley raised a question of privilege concerning the government press release announcing the establishment of a Canada-China interparliamentary group.

The hon. member for Fraser Valley contended that, in issuing this press release, the Minister for International Trade gave the impression that this group would be sanctioned and funded by Parliament. He argued that this was a clear contempt of the House.

After hearing submissions from several members, I took the matter under advisement. I am now ready to proceed with a ruling on this question of privilege.

The creation of Canadian interparliamentary groups is governed by certain administrative bodies within the House of Commons and the Senate. It is not an executive matter to be decided by cabinet. Although the government may from time to time make recommendations in this regard in the context of Canada's foreign policy, these matters do not fall directly within the purview of any government department or agency.

Interparliamentary relations are carried on under the responsibility of parliament. There are in place certain decision making processes governing their administration. As I mentioned on Tuesday, there are ongoing meetings this week and next week concerning these very matters.

It is the Speaker of the House of Commons who has the responsibility to represent the House in its dealings with foreign legislatures. For this reason, I feel it is my duty to comment on the actions taken by the Minister for International Trade.

In their submissions many hon. members made reference to the fact that actions such as these appear to undercut the authority of parliament. As parliamentarians we should all be aware of the differences between the authority of cabinet and that of parliament. In matters of foreign relations, cabinet may enter into agreements with other governments while parliament pursues relations with other legislatures.

Parliament's decisions are taken in light of Canada's foreign policy and the interests of all Canadians, but cabinet does not dictate the nature or scope of the interparliamentary relations of the Parliament of Canada.

In announcing the establishment of a Canada-China interparliamentary group and thereby prejudging a decision which has yet to be taken, the minister clearly overreached his authority. I am somewhat disappointed that a minister of the crown in acting with such haste may have prejudiced the very outcome that he wished to bring about. Such disregard for the administrative competence of parliament does nothing to enhance its prestige on the international stage.

Members have expressed their frustration over other announcements by the government which appear to bypass the authority of the House. As I have been reminded, this may have taken place on more than one occasion during this parliament.

There is reason for legitimate concern since it appears that a pattern is developing in spite of cautions which have been made from the chair. My duty however is to confine myself to the jurisprudence which exists and governs the operation of privilege.

Given the preoccupation over these matters, I would suggest that this particular issue must be handled through a different avenue, namely the Board of Internal Economy, which holds statutory responsibility for such matters. I noted during the discussion on April 21, 1998, five of the hon. members who intervened were members of the Board of Internal Economy.

Until the board has been seized of this matter and pronounced itself on it, I wish to advise this House that there is no officially recognized parliamentary association with China. Consequently there can be no interim chairman either from the House or from the Senate.

I regret having to make this statement so publicly. I trust that our Chinese friends will understand that this situation is strictly an internal Canadian matter relating to the basic tenets of our primary law. Indeed I trust that our Chinese friends will have a better understanding of our parliamentary democracy as we pursue this dialogue.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Have you referred the issue to the Board of Internal Economy? Do we table a motion in this House at this point in time?

[The Speaker]

This motion has been referred to the Board of Internal economy.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have only been here for four years. I have never seen this done. I was ready to make the appropriate motion which I thought was necessary if the minister had been out of turn, to refer this matter to the procedure and House affairs committee. If it is being referred to the Board of Internal Economy, that is your decision. My question is, is that a debatable motion or is it just a decision that you have made?

[The Speaker]

It is not a debatable motion. I decided that it was not a point of privilege for the reasons I gave. I am sure if the member reads over my decision he will see the reasons therein.

[John Nunziata, Independent, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Board of Internal Economy while having jurisdiction and authority grounded in law is not a body that is open to the public. It is not a body that is open to members of parliament.

It would seem to me that a matter that is rightfully before the House can be referred anywhere and you would require an order of the House for that to happen.

Mr. Speaker, in your decision you have found a prima facie case of breach of privilege. The only thing you could do in my respectful submission is to allow the hon. member to put the appropriate motion and the matter should go based on jurisprudence to the appropriate committee of parliament which is open to the public and which is open to members of parliament to call witnesses. That is the appropriate way. It is not the appropriate way to simply sweep this matter under the carpet.

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, I thought that it was reasonably clear. I have ruled that it is not a prima facie case of contempt. I believe that this falls under the Parliament of Canada Act, under the purview of the Board of Internal Economy. That is the ruling I have made at this point. This point should sit where it is.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Again, I have never seen this done. Could you quote for me what section of Beauchesne's or whatever you used to base that ruling on? As far as I know this has never been done before. If something is wrong, we have always referred it to that committee. I have never seen this done before.

Another point is there could be an argument that not all members are represented at the Board of Internal Economy. For example independent members are not. Since it was seized by the House, I am not sure how the board can deal with that. I am interested to know how that is done or under what rules it is done. I have never seen it done before.

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, as a general rule the Speaker does not give legal explanations for his decisions. I would be happy to pursue the discussion of the Parliament of Canada Act and this particular matter in private.

I did rule that there was not a prima facie case of contempt in this particular case. I would like to let the matter rest at this point and go on to the Thursday question.

I have a point of privilege from the member for York South—Weston.

[John Nunziata, Independent, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of respect, you made a decision. The conclusion is not consistent with the remarks in your decision.

You found that the minister was out of line. He issued a press release. It was inappropriate. You apologized. You commented to our Chinese friends that this is purely an internal matter. Then you went on to say that it was not a breach of privilege. It is inconsistent.

My point of privilege is that independent members are not represented on, nor are they permitted to attend meetings of the Board of Internal Economy. One of the complaints the public has had is that often the political parties sweep things under the carpet to be dealt with in the backrooms of this parliament—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member does not have a point of privilege.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

With respect to establishing parliamentary associations, I am the whip for the NDP. We were in a meeting last night with one of the deputy speakers and the clerks. We were told at that time on an issue unrelated to this one that if a new parliamentary association is to be formed, it has to come from the members of the House to the interparliamentary committee, the committee which I am a member of, requesting funding therefor. If we did not have the funds we would then forward it to the Board of Internal Economy.

With respect to my independent colleague, he does make a point which I think is important, and that is that if it is sent to an interparliamentary committee or to the Standing Committee on Procedures and House Affairs there is an opportunity for consideration of all circumstances around the particular question.

I am not saying we should do one thing or another, but I was informed yesterday the procedure was that it should go before the interparliamentary committee first and before the Board of Internal Economy second.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member is correct.