36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 89
CONTENTS
Tuesday, April 21, 1998
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1005
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INCOME TAX ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-390. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1010
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Taxation
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STANDING ORDERS AND PROCEDURE
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
1015
1020
1025
1030
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1035
1040
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
1045
1050
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1055
1100
1105
1110
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1115
1120
1125
1130
1135
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1140
1145
1150
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
1155
1200
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
1205
1210
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
1215
1220
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
1225
1230
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1235
1240
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1245
1250
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Harvey |
1255
1300
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul DeVillers |
1305
1310
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1315
1320
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1325
1330
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
1335
1340
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1345
1350
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1355
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ARMENIAN PEOPLE
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Raymonde Folco |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1400
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WOBURN COLLEGIATE
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cannis |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR THE BLIND
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC MINISTER OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy St-Julien |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DRUNK DRIVING
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Chatters |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BRAVERY
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Maloney |
1405
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BETTYE HYDE
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NUNAVUT
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EDUCATION
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
1410
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC FLOODS
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Godin |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PORT MOODY—COQUITLAM
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEARING AWARENESS MONTH
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NEW MEMBER
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
1415
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NEW MEMBER INTRODUCED
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam)
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CUBA
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1420
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1425
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANKING
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1430
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1435
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HUMAN RIGHTS
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Maud Debien |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Maud Debien |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANKING
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
1440
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ACCESS TO INFORMATION
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHILDREN
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jean Augustine |
1445
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANKING
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Matthews |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert D. Nault |
1450
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Matthews |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert D. Nault |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN SPACE AGENCY
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SOFTWOOD LUMBER
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANKING
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
1455
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Nunziata |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Nunziata |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LAND MINES
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John O'Reilly |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CIDA
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1500
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Diane Marleau |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COAST GUARD
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
1505
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVILEGE
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Justice Louis Marcel Joyal—Speaker's Ruling
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Interparliamentary Associations
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1510
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1515
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derek Lee |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1520
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
1525
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1530
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STANDING ORDERS AND PROCEDURE
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1535
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
1540
1545
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Redman |
1550
1555
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert D. Nault |
1600
1605
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Norman Doyle |
1610
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1615
1620
1625
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roger Gallaway |
1630
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
1635
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reg Alcock |
1640
1645
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
1650
1655
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1700
1705
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1710
1715
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
1720
1725
1750
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1997
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-28. Third reading
|
1800
(Division 124)
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment negatived
|
(Division 125)
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUDGES ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-37. Second reading
|
(Division 126)
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-208. Second reading
|
1805
1810
(Division 127)
1815
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INCOME TAX ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-223. Second reading
|
1820
(Division 128)
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion negatived
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-216. Second Reading
|
1825
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-216. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
1830
1835
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1840
1845
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
1850
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen |
1855
1900
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
1905
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | (Division deemed requested and deferred)
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Prisons
|
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
1910
![V](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 89
![](/web/20061116194053im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, April 21, 1998
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1005
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to five petitions.
* * *
[English]
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-390, an act to amend the Income Tax Act
(allowances paid to elected officials).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I move first reading of this bill, an act
to amend the Income Tax Act, which would have the effect of
removing the special provisions in the income tax code which
allow members of Parliament, members of provincial legislatures,
members of municipal councils and elected members of school
boards to exempt one-third of their regular indemnity or income
from taxation.
This bill is being moved as I think it is completely
inappropriate for politicians to exempt themselves from the tax
laws that they impose on other Canadians.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1010
PETITIONS
TAXATION
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present a petition signed by a number of Canadians,
including from my riding of Mississauga South.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that managing
the family home and caring for preschool children is a honourable
profession which has not been recognized for its value to our
society.
The petitioners also point out that the Income Tax Act
discriminates against families that choose to provide direct
parental care to their children in the home. This point is also
raised in the national forum on health report of November 1996.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that
decide to provide care in the home to preschool children.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
suggest that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
STANDING ORDERS AND PROCEDURE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Pursuant to Standing
Order 51(1), the following motion is now deemed to have been
proposed:
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when Standing Order 51 was adopted some
time ago, it was assumed that while party members would change
from parliament to parliament one House of Commons would not
differ much in structure and character from its predecessor, and
that the rules followed in the previous parliament would not
generally require change to be effective in the new parliament.
Therefore about halfway through the first session, which is what
we are doing now, would be the appropriate timing for a review of
the standing orders.
First, there would be a debate on the rules of the House itself,
followed by a more comprehensive review of specific rules by the
Standing Committee of Procedure and House Affairs.
The last two elections have obviously not sustained that
assumption. In 1993 there was an unprecedented turnover in the
membership of the House of Commons. In 1997, after many years of
functioning as a three official party chamber, the House returned
to a five official party system. Consequently today we are not,
as anticipated in the standing orders, commencing the process of
the revision of the rules but are taking stock of a revision
process that of necessity began virtually the day after the last
election.
It is not my intention this morning to attempt a dissertation on
parliamentary procedure, although I do have a vent for that every
now and then, but merely to review for the House the ongoing
situation regarding our rules and how these rules have been
changing since the last election. I would like to propose a few
further changes that the committee might want to consider.
I will attempt to put forward a few observations and I look
forward to receiving views from all hon. members on the rules of
the House.
My first observation is that so far the House has functioned
very well. According to the pundits of last summer, this was not
supposed to be the case. They called it the pizza parliament, a
House divided in five parties. It was supposed to be chaotic.
It was supposed to be unproductive. In fact, from the very first
contacts I found that the House leaders of all parties would be
willing to make this House function. I thank them for the
attitude demonstrated to that effect thus far. They have
demonstrated a sense of responsibility to the Canadian electorate
which expects all of us on both sides of the House to do our work
in an orderly and organized fashion.
The House of Commons is a partisan political cockpit. It is
also a legislative workplace. The task of all House leaders has
been to adapt its procedures and the composition of the House as
chosen by the electorate so that both of these realities would be
given expression.
1015
The task of making a five party House of Commons function
effectively was expedited by all House leaders. Their early
acceptance of proportionality is one of the governing principles.
This has led us to agreements on funding for various parties to
operate research offices, party officials' offices and so on, as
well as agreement on the composition of committees, rotation of
speakers and the allocation of opposition days.
We even had to change the amount of time for speeches during
private members' hour and opposition days in order to permit the
free flow across the House of Commons. We have also made some
suggestions to the Speaker on the operation of the daily question
period.
The proportionality principle I have just referred to has led to
an increase in the size of the standing committees. Since the
membership of the House is after all finite, we were obliged to
combine a number of committees in order to reduce the overall
number recognizing the finite situation of the number of members
available to do the work.
Perhaps the most immediate obvious change that was brought about
was in the daily question period. At least it is the one which
was noticed immediately by a large number of Canadians. It was
clear to all House leaders that if the balance between the
parties was to be maintained, the Speaker would have to govern
the question period strictly, especially with regard to the
length of the questions and answers. I am one who thought the
answers were usually better than the questions but that is a
matter for another time.
The result is a question period which moves along far more
swiftly with more succinct questions and answers. More
important, more members have the opportunity to participate. This
has been very successful. I again congratulate the leadership of
all parties, the Speaker and of course the table for having
administered this program which has worked very well.
It is a bit early yet to tell how effective the operation of
proportionality has been with regard to the standing committees.
The principle has led to a 16 member committee which is a trifle
large from the point of view of developing internal cohesiveness
and rapport. Its application has also made it more difficult to
use subcommittees. This has led to a rather heavy committee
burden on individual members.
Anyone who has worked on a committee whether in this House or
elsewhere recognizes that smaller and less formal groups have a
greater possibility to conduct proceedings coherently and that a
consensus is usually easier to achieve. Nevertheless the
committee structure satisfies the partisan position of all
parties. However we should give some thought in terms of how
satisfactorily it is working given the large number of people who
must sit on committees.
Speaking about committees, we should seriously consider
improving the approval process for travel by committees. By and
large, bringing witnesses to Ottawa or alternatively using
teleconferencing to permit the hearing of witnesses from other
parts of Canada are more preferable than having committees
travel. It is more cost effective and makes greater use of the
members' limited time.
When there is a need for committees to travel, the structure by
which we seek the permission of the House, the one which requires
either unanimous consent or debate of a motion in order to arrive
at the permission for a committee to travel, is somewhat
cumbersome. Perhaps an easier and more flexible mechanism could
be developed for us to achieve a condition whereby a committee
would be able to travel on those limited occasions when there is
such a need.
1020
[Translation]
Proportionality worked well in allocating opposition days to the
various parties, in spite of the fact that the number of days
allocated to supply had to be changed. We will soon have to
address the issue of the total number of days if the principle
currently applied is approved and maintained in the fall.
As I said earlier, the five parliamentary leaders began their
consultation process last summer, in the weeks following the
election, and I want to thank them again.
When the parliamentary session resumed, we found out that a
policy of give and take based on mutual respect went a long way
in resolving almost every problem both rationally and even
amicably.
As a result, we wondered if the House would not benefit from
long term planning of parliamentary business. Starting in the
fall and continuing into the winter session, we looked at the
time available, assessed the volume of parliamentary work for
the government and decided on a plan for the current session. We
wanted members from all parties to be able to plan their work
and activities in their ridings and also to attend the House
whenever a bill of particular interest to them is put forward.
The process I just described demanded openness and transparency
on the part of the parliamentary leaders in their discussions,
which in turn required a kind of self-discipline.
Of course, there will always be times when, in spite of all our
good intentions, we will not agree on the time to be allocated
to debate on a given bill. When this occurs, the government must
take the measures required to speed up the legislative process,
if necessary.
The planning system also impacts on the committees' agenda, as
we just saw. Pursuant to their general mandates under Standing
Order 108, each of the standing committees may undertake
specific studies, but they must also be aware of the business of
the House, so as to be able to promptly deal with the
legislation referred to them by this House. I believe this must
be a priority for every committee.
I should point out that a review of our legislative procedures
was undertaken during the previous Parliament and is still
pending.
I am referring to the report of the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs dealing with private members'
business. The report primarily seeks to provide the House with
the flexibility required to increase the number of private
members' proposals that can be put to a vote, and to speed up
passage of votable items.
Some members are reluctant to endorse the report because
government bills must meet all sorts of criteria, while private
members' bills are not required to meet the same strict
conditions. However, the good work that parliamentary committees
do in conducting detailed reviews of these bills leads me to
believe that private members' bills will be treated very
seriously to make sure they are properly drafted.
Generally speaking, it is our intention to adopt the report of
that committee.
1025
However, I should point out with regard to the rules of the
House and the committees that, in future sessions, should
private member's bills be automatically reinstated from the
previous session, the same should apply to government bills. I
believe the same test should apply to both.
There are many other issues which hopefully could be reviewed by
the Standing Committee on Procedure within the coming weeks and
months, including our voting system, for instance.
Should the committee be reluctant to support electronic voting,
as I hoped it would, it might explore other ways to solve the
recurring problem of delays in the taking of parliamentary
votes. I understand the committee has already looked into the
issue of days and hours of sitting, and I would welcome any
proposal from the committee in this regard.
Some members have expressed concern regarding the language and
procedures of this House, which I would qualify as sometimes
esoteric. This issue is under review. In Great Britain, a reform
to this effect is presently under way.
I will give you the following example.
[English]
When we table private members' bills in the House, we seek leave
to introduce the bill and then we introduce the bill. Both
motions are deemed to be adopted right away. If they are both
deemed to be adopted right away, why have two separate motions?
One motion to do both tasks would surely be sufficient. It
sounds like a repetitive process and it confuses many people, not
the least of whom are those watching the proceedings or listening
to the debate in the House of Commons.
The other point I want to bring to the attention of the House is
that of the tabling of estimates. Once the estimates are tabled
in the House they require a motion to refer them to committee. If
the House ever decided not to adopt that motion I guess it would
mean that the House itself rather than the committee would be
dealing with the estimates.
I cannot see why that motion is not deemed adopted, similar to
the motion for first reading on private members' bills.
Otherwise a House that would defeat the motion would be forced to
deal with the estimates itself in the Chamber, which is a
procedure we did away with.
[Translation]
The language used in House procedure could be changed. For
instance, when we table a bill, and the Chair says it will be
studied at the next sitting of the House, should it not rather
be “in the near future” or some more realistic expression more
in tune with reality, instead of this slightly outdated
language?
[English]
The standing committee may well want to look critically at the
rules and process of debate with a view toward maintaining a
vigorous and meaningful exchange of views in the House while
permitting the House in the end to articulate a clear and
correctly nuanced conclusion.
Several years ago the House decided to remove the automatic
definition of opposition motions on allotted days as
non-confidence motions. The intention was to permit opposition
parties to raise issues for decisions by the House. On many
occasions since, such motions albeit sometimes with amendments,
have actually been adopted.
This noble purpose however has been perverted. We have a
condition now that when some party is proposing a motion it does
so splitting its own opening round and proposing its own minor
amendment which makes a substantive amendment to the motion in
question impossible. That was not the purpose of the rule when
it was put in place. Its purpose has been perverted and I
suggest respectfully that the committee might want to look at
this very seriously.
1030
In my opinion this House, thus far, has worked well. It has
worked well because the leadership in the House, and presumably
the leadership overall of the respective parties, has wanted it
to be that way. The opposite would be equally true. If the
leadership of all parties did not want it to work they would have
some responsibility for creating that condition, should it ever
occur in the future.
For the time being, we have worked constructively and we have
had vigorous exchanges. That is fine. Overall the House is
discharging its function. Some of our processes can be improved
and I am sure they will be with the good work of the committee.
Meanwhile the leadership of all parties has not waited for this
day and for this debate. It could not. We have engaged very
constructively since the days after the last election and we have
provided and offered, and the House has accepted, a number of
amendments which have made this parliament function better and
which have made all parties participate. I am pleased that has
been the case.
I congratulate all members. I congratulate the Speaker and all
the occupants of the chair for their good work and the excellent
support that has been provided to all of us by our table officers
and our respective staff in the House leadership offices in
making the changes that we have effected thus far.
I look forward to the contribution of all hon. members in this
day's debate.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I am going to split my time with my colleague from Calgary
Southwest, the Leader of the Official Opposition.
My colleagues take seriously today the debate and we have waited
some time for it to come. The issues that are going to be placed
before us in the House of Commons today concern the standing
orders, which are basically the rules that members develop for
this House to be used in this House. Members on all sides of
this House have a vested interest in their improvement.
Whilst I would agree to some extent with the Government House
leader that things have worked well, there is no doubt in my mind
that things can work better. That is what we are about, the
reform of this House of Commons. A part of that reform comes
through changes to the standing orders.
My colleagues today are going to spend about 10 minutes each
talking to these issues. We could probably spend a lot more time
talking to each issue. However, we want to talk about a number
of serious issues that have been around this House for some time.
They concern the election of the Speaker, free votes, petitions,
the Senate, operation of committees, private members' business,
royal commissions, borrowing money, closure, time allocation and
order in council appointments. These are all issues which affect
members, not only the members on both sides of the House but the
very constituents that we are here to represent.
I want to spend a few minutes talking about Standing Order 36
which deals with petitions. I have long since had a concern
about petitions. Many times when we are in our ridings people
who are looking to develop a petition will say “Can I really
effect change in the House of Commons through a petition?” Most
times we do not have the heart to say “I do not think that is
working all that well. Do not go around getting 30,000 names or
10,000 names because the petition goes into some black hole in
the House of Commons and you will get a letter back identifying
the way things are, not the way things should be”.
Ironically enough, just before I stood up to speak, a response
to a petition was delivered to me by one of our pages. It was a
petition that I tabled in the House, but my colleagues on both
sides of the House tabled petitions on this issue which is drunk
driving. The response given by the House of Commons to the
petition is what bothers me most. The response basically
indicates that the Criminal Code provides that both impaired
driving and driving with a blood alcohol content in excess of .08
are criminal offences. These people already knew that.
1035
The third paragraph goes on to discuss what the Criminal Code
says. It says that some provinces permit roadside suspensions.
There are various paragraphs describing what the Criminal Code
reflects.
That is nice, but the petitioners had expectations when they
went across their communities, across the country in some cases.
They wanted a change to be effected. They did not want a
response to their petition saying “This is the way it is”.
That is one of the problems with this House. The response to
change is “This is the way it is”. But these people want the
House of Commons to say “We understand your dilemma. We will
try to effect a change”.
Therefore, Standing Order 36 basically covers the process of
submitting a petition. We stand here without debating it, read
what the people want and away it goes. Later there is a
response. That is not good enough.
After all, that is the reason we are here. These people want
something changed in this country. We must give them a fair idea
that at least their ideas, their considerations, their petition
material will be given consideration in the House of Commons.
They have an expectation. We should have an expectation.
Therefore I think it behoves us, with respect to Standing Order
36, that we submit a recommendation to the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs and ask the committee to consider, in
cases where there is a significant number of signatures on a
petition, giving that petition debate time in the House. The
House would debate a motion referring that petition to a
committee.
If the motion was adopted the committee would be required to
report back to the House a bill or a motion that would give
effect to the petitioners' prayer.
That is the recommendation I make on that. I do not think that
in this House we would get opposition to that. Like many things
that come into the House and go to committee it can be asked
“Why do they not come back here?” “Why do we not legislate
it?” “Why do we not just make a simple standing order rule
change?” That is what we are asking for and that is what I
expect to be done.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak about a topic which is near and
dear to your heart. I want to talk about Standing Orders 2
through 6, which deal with the election of the Speaker.
The rules for the election of the Speaker are contained in these
standing orders, but it is not really the process of electing the
speaker that I am going to speak about, it is what happens prior
to the election of the Speaker.
We have seen this for years in the House of Commons. I noticed
it as a fledgling MP in 1993 on my arrival to the House. I did
not know any of the individuals who we were supposed to elect as
our Speaker. I did not know anything about them. There was one
member of the Reform Party who had been here previously. I knew
nothing about these individuals, about their skills, their
beliefs, their positions on issues, their visions or their ideas
for improving parliament, but I was expected to stand here and
vote for these people. I think that is wrong.
After all, we came here as a result of going through nomination
meetings, disclosing what we believe in, our own personal
background, and our responses to issues which came up in
candidates' debates. None of that happens when we come to the
House of Commons to elect the Speaker.
I do not understand it. In other elections, whether they be
municipal, hospital, school board, provincial or federal, we all
insist on this democratic exercise, but when it gets down to the
primary Standing Orders 2 through 6, the first objective, the
first duty we have in the House of Commons is to elect a Speaker
and we have no idea who the candidates are or what they stand
for.
1040
After the 1997 election, when we were electing a Speaker, we
initiated an exercise. We asked all members from all parties to
come to a meeting prior to the election of the Speaker to hear
from the candidates. Some did not come because they thought it
was inappropriate, that tradition prevailed. They said “No, it
is just going to be an election and I am not going to tell you
what I stand for”.
That is going to change in this House. At that meeting were
members virtually from most parties, if not all parties. They
saw that the prerequisite for becoming the Speaker is some form of
upfront accountability. Heaven forbid if we ever in this House
elect a Speaker who is obviously biased, for instance. We would
not want that. We would not want a Speaker who consistently
rules with the government. We certainly would not want a Speaker
who threatens contempt, for instance, if he wants to prevent
exposure of his thoughts. We do not want those kinds of things
in this House.
I am not saying that has occurred, but we want to make sure that
the Speaker of the House is elected by members who have full
knowledge of what that Speaker stands for.
I make the recommendation on Standing Orders 2 through 6 that a
new practice be added to the standing orders to provide for all
candidates for Speaker to openly address members of the House
before the election of the Speaker.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today we are debating the standing orders, the rules
whereby this parliament governs itself. As I gaze about me at
this great throng of members sitting dutifully at their desks
after a two week recess, I perceive that some members are perhaps
a little bored with this subject and perhaps distracted.
To provide a little stimulus I would like to start with a little
story.
Once upon a time there was a king named Jean I, who presided
over a castle surrounded by a moat with a drawbridge. The
inhabitants of his castle were divided into two classes: lords
and ladies who occupied the front benches of the royal throne
room on state occasions and the peasants who occupied the back
benches.
One day a group of peasants, or backbenchers as they were
called, went out to toil in the fields. As they crossed the moat
and started down the road they passed a cave from which emerged a
great dragon breathing fire and smoke. The fire consumed 50 of
the backbenchers and sent the rest scurrying back into the
castle.
When King Jean was told of this terrible tragedy he resolved to
investigate it himself. To help him, he took along two of his
most trusted knights. They included Lord Bob, the keeper of the
royal whip, and Lord Boudriavere who had once been a bus boy in
the castle cafeteria but had risen to high rank through his
faithful service to King Jean.
As they surveyed the scene of the tragedy they observed three
things. They saw the 50 fried backbenchers and said that was too
bad. They saw the dragon lying dead from overexertion. They
also noticed that the dragon's fire had ignited a seam of coal in
the cave from which smoke continued to billow.
Lord Bob, who was a straightforward fellow, and had been a sword
fight referee in another life, said the obvious “The dragon is
dead. This is good news. Let's go tell the backbenchers”. But
Lord Boudriavere, who had once been a bus boy in the castle
cafeteria and had risen to high rank through faithful service to
the king, said “Not so fast”. Turning to King Jean he said “I
see an opportunity here to maintain and increase our control over
the peasants. Let us imply, indirectly of course, that the fiery
dragon still lives. We can point to the smoke belching from the
cave as evidence of this. Let us tell the backbenchers that
henceforth they can only go out of the castle with royal
permission and under the supervision of myself and Lord Bob, for
the safety and protection, of course, of themselves and the
castle”.
King Jean thought this was a splendid idea and thus the myth of
the fiery dragon was established. It was used to coerce and
control the backbenchers of the kingdom until King Jean was
defeated in battle by a knight from the west which is another
story I will tell on some other occasion.
This is the point that I want to make.
1045
There is a myth in the House that lurking out there somewhere is
the fiery dragon of the confidence convention, the erroneous
belief studiously cultivated by the government that if a
government bill or motion is defeated, or an opposition bill,
motion or amendment is passed, this obliges the government to
resign. This myth is used to coerce government members,
especially backbenchers, to vote for government bills and motions
with which they and their constituents disagree and to vote
against opposition bills, motions and amendments with which they
substantially agree.
The reality is that the fiery dragon of the confidence
convention in its traditional form is dead. The sooner the House
officially recognizes that fact, the better for all. It is true
that there was a time when the rules supported the traditional
confidence convention but that is not the current situation. Our
present practice is outlined in Beauchesne's sixth edition,
citation 168(6):
The determination of the issue of confidence in the government is
not a question of procedure or order, and does not involve the
interpretive responsibilities of the Speaker.
Following the recommendations of the Special Committee on
Standing Orders and Procedure as well as those of the Special
Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, December 1984,
the House removed references in the standing orders which
described votable motions on allotted days as questions of
confidence. The committee concluded that matters of confidence
should at all times be clearly subject to political
determination. Motions of non-confidence should not be
prescribed in the rules.
The British parliament, the mother of all parliaments, has
acknowledged the death of the traditional confidence convention.
For example, in the British parliament of 1974 to 1979 the
government was defeated 42 times, 23 times as the result of
government MPs voting with the opposition and 19 times when the
opposition parties combined against the government after it had
slipped into a minority position in 1976.
Some of these defeats were on important issues such as economic
policy and an important constitutional bill. Yet the British
prime minister neither resigned nor requested dissolution.
Despite the current citation from Beauchesne's and these
historical facts, the myth of the confidence convention still
appears to live in this parliament.
It is in the interest of the majority of the members on both
sides of the House to dispel the myth of the confidence
convention and thereby permit freer voting. I therefore offer
the following three challenges.
The first is to the Prime Minister. Will he please stand in his
place in the House and declare his intention to allow government
members to vote for or against all bills and motions and all
amendments to bills and motions free of party discipline, and
that no such vote other than the adoption by the House of an
explicit motion of non-confidence in the government shall require
the government to resign? All he has to do is stand up and make
that statement. It would take about 20 seconds and it would
change the character of this place overnight.
The second is to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs to study this issue and report to the House with a view
to dispelling the myth of the traditional confidence convention
once and for all.
The third is to government backbenchers to test my hypothesis
for themselves that the fiery dragon of the confidence convention
is indeed dead, even though with the help of Lord Bob and Lord
Boudriavere the smoke still appears to be billowing from its
cave. I suggest that someday during question period while they
are awaiting their turn to ask a scripted question they should
engage in a simple mathematical exercise: count the number of
people on the front benches and include their parliamentary
secretaries, and then count the number of backbenchers. I know
this is a strenuous intellectual exercise, but if they could
carry it off they would find there are more backbenchers than
there are those on the front benches and parliamentary
secretaries. Then on some future occasion they could vote down a
government motion or bill or support an opposition motion or
amendment.
What will happen? Will the earth open up and swallow government
members and their political careers? Of course not. Will the
government resign? Of course not. Instead the government will
demand a vote of confidence and since government members
ultimately outnumber opposition members the government will
surely win and carry on; but it is possible to kill a bill or
part of a bill or to change it without killing the government.
The government will do exactly the same thing as the Pearson
government did in 1968 when it was defeated on Mitchell Sharp's
budget resolution but then carried the confidence motion which
immediately followed. After that incident, Anthony Westell of
the Globe and Mail concluded:
If the principle comes to be accepted that bills can be amended
or rejected without forcing a change of government—the
effective power of the opposition and of private members of the
government party could be strengthened; the power of the cabinet
to have its own way could be reduced.
1050
In other words the House will have passed from the dark night of
excessive party discipline into the bright sunshine of freer
votes.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there are three
topics I would like to deal with today, and I will make
recommendations to the House on all three.
First is the issue of the motions introduced on opposition days.
The hon. leader of the government touched on this earlier in
his speech, saying that the opposition had found a way around
the Standing Orders by amending an opposition motion on an
opposition day by introducing an amendment from the outset to
split interventions into two 10-minute interventions.
The leader of the government said that, in a way, this changes
the direction of debate, and uses the Standing Orders to prevent
something from happening.
I would like to remind the leader of the government that I sent
him a letter on this subject, requesting that no amendment
whatsoever of opposition motions be allowed, except by the
member who moved the motion in the event of a last-minute
development, so that the essence of the proposed debate is not
changed.
In fact, an opposition day is one of the rare days when an
opposition party can control the debate. It picks the topic and
makes major speeches, and this gives a party an opportunity to
make its views known in the House of Commons and to promote a
particular point of view.
The opportunity for other political parties, particularly the
government, to change this motion through an amendment that,
more often than not, will substantially alter the substance of
the initial motion means that it is no longer an opposition day.
The instigator of the motion introduces it in the House but he
can never be sure, unless he amends it himself or through a
colleague, by splitting his time, that his motion will be
debated as is by all the members of the House.
It is my sincere belief, and my first recommendation, that if we
are to get back to what an opposition day really is, what it
must do and what it must allow, we ought to ensure that motions
are not amended except by the person who originated them, to
reflect changes in the situation or the content of debates.
This would eliminate any possibility of manoeuvring to change
motions or their nature, or to make the debate totally different
from what it ought to have been initially.
For opposition days, therefore, I invite the Government Leader
to at least acknowledge receipt of my letter to indicate “We
have decided that we can or cannot follow up on this, for this
or that reason”.
The government ought to specify this in the Standing Orders.
The second point I would like to raise is somewhat more
delicate, the matter of the Joint Committee on Scrutiny of
Regulations. Normally, two of the House of Commons committees
are chaired by members of the official opposition.
The purpose of this is to give some kind of counterbalance to
the power of the government. The Standing Committee on Public
Accounts, which examines government expenditures, is chaired by
a member of the official opposition, and this is normal. This
allows the opposition to be extremely productive in these
committees by initiating matters and by presiding over the work
of these committees.
Having opposition members chair the Standing Committee on Public
Accounts and the Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations sort
of counterbalances the immense power of the government and its
team.
1055
However, there is a problem. The Reform Party, the official
opposition in this Parliament, decided to assume its
responsibilities concerning public accounts, but at the same
time decided not to assume its responsibilities as official
opposition on the Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations. And yet,
this is extremely important.
To those who follow our proceedings, the Committee on Scrutiny
of Regulations may appear as something terribly technical, very
boring, and very difficult to understand. But it should be
pointed out that on this committee, members have the opportunity
to examine the way bills passed by Parliament will be enforced
in everyday life. The bills we pass are very broad and provide
for various things.
They are general policy statements with a number of specifics,
but each law is accompanied by regulations stating how its
provisions will be enforced, by whom, and how responsibilities
will be shared. Regulations are an extremely important part of
any bill.
When the Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations is chaired by a
member of the official opposition, this intentionally gives the
opposition an extremely important role in monitoring government
action. This gives the opposition a lot of power to scrutinize
regulations, which do not come to the attention of members of
this House. People are entitled to know that MPs draft bills,
but that once a bill is passed by Parliament, its enforcement is
the government's responsibility.
Regulations are made by senior officials, people who know how to
do their job and do it very well, but who are accountable only
to the government and the Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations.
Since the Reform Party refused to assume its responsibilities,
we thought that, as the third party, we could legitimately chair
the committee since the chairperson must be a member of the
opposition. The Reform Party refused our request. It is its
problem. It has the right to do so. It would then have made
sense for another opposition party—there are four altogether, the
Bloc Quebecois being the second largest—to chair the committee.
We thought it was up to the Bloc Quebecois to chair this
committee, which acts as a government watchdog.
But no. Being the great democrats that they are, the Liberals
decided to appoint one of their members to chair the committee
because, for the first time ever, the official opposition was
refusing to assume its responsibilities. We now find ourselves
in a situation where the Liberals took it upon themselves to
appoint a Liberal chairperson to the Standing Committee on
Scrutiny of Regulations, thus tipping the balance that must
exist in the parliamentary system. By appropriating the
committee chair, the Liberals gave themselves an additional
power, at the expense of the opposition. They took advantage of
the Reform Party's withdrawal. But this is wrong. It is
unacceptable.
I call upon the democratic sense of the members of this House.
Today's debate must be free of partisanship, since its purpose
is to improve the Standing Orders of the House, so that
Parliament can operate as smoothly as possible.
So, I urge the government to restore the situation and to give
back to the opposition the chair of the Standing Committee on
Scrutiny of Regulations. It can offer the position again to the
Reformers—we do not particularly relish the idea, but the
Liberals can do so if they wish—but if the Reformers continue to
say no, it would make sense to offer that responsibility to the
next party, that is the Bloc Quebecois.
By appointing one of its own members to the chair, the
government just set a precedent. It increased its power over the
committee's operations, and this is not right. It is not right
because it affects the very fragile balance that we have here.
They transferred to the government responsibilities that should
be assumed by the opposition. Worse, they did not transfer them,
they took them over.
Therefore—and this is my second recommendation—the Standing
Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations should have as its chair a
member of the opposition.
If it is not a member of the official opposition, it should be a
member of the Bloc Quebecois or of another opposition party. The
Bloc Quebecois has always fulfilled that responsibility and
would be very pleased to continue to do so. This would restore a
balance. It would only be normal to do so.
1100
I call on the government to correct this anomaly, which almost
went unnoticed to outside observers, but which says a lot about
the will of the cabinet to take over more and more powers, thus
leaving the opposition to fulfil an increasingly less meaningful
role.
Let us not forget that a system such as ours works well when
there is a balance between the opposition and the government,
when the government is not free to do whatever it pleases,
unimpeded, when the government must answer to other
parliamentarians who do not share its point of view and who
force it to improve its proposals and rules, to introduce better
legislation. All citizens benefit.
The second recommendation is that the Liberal member who
co-chairs the Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations,
which is an anomaly, step down and offer the position, as is
only right, to a member of the official opposition or of the
second opposition party.
The third point is an extremely serious one. It involves the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. A few weeks
ago, during the so-called flag flap, the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs was asked by the House of Commons to
conduct a serious review of the behaviour of members of the
House whose statements may have been an attack on the integrity
of the Speaker. These statements were tantamount to threats.
Members clearly said that, if the Speaker did not rule in a
particular way, they would run riot, that he must resign, and
that they would withdraw their confidence.
Make no mistake, this was the first time that such statements
had been made about the Speaker so directly in all the media.
The House decided to resort to an existing mechanism, the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, to
investigate the behaviour of these members.
When members do not behave properly—a very rare occurrence, but
not unheard of—the House may then, at leisure, turn to this
committee. The member is therefore judged by his peers. A
member whose conduct may have been questionable or was plainly
reprehensible is therefore judged by his peers.
Since I have been a member, this is the second time this
committee has been used. The first time, as members will
recall, was in the case of Jean-Marc Jacob, the former member for
Charlesbourg, who was accused of trying to corrupt the army, to
get soldiers to transfer to Quebec after a winning referendum.
It was quite a to-do, and Mr. Jacob was summoned before the
committee.
A Reform motion was ruled in order in the House. It called on
Mr. Jacob to explain his behaviour before the Standing Committee
on Procedure and House Affairs. The Bloc Quebecois was in
agreement and Mr. Jacob, a member of the Bloc Quebecois,
appeared before the committee.
He was questioned for six full hours on May 2 and 7. During
these six hours, the committee had the opportunity to put
questions to Mr. Jacob. Committee members asked as many
questions as they wanted to, relating to every conceivable
aspect of this matter in order to get to the bottom of it.
There was a lengthy debate. The committee was struck as a
result of a motion passed by this House on March 18. It tabled
its report three months later, on June 18. Many were called to
testify before the committee and, as material witness, the
member himself, Mr. Jacob, was grilled by parliamentarians for
six full hours.
We thought nothing of it. We abide by procedure. We figured “If
you want to examine the conduct of Mr. Jacob, the MP, fine, so
be it”. The hon. member appeared before the committee and
answered its questions.
In that, the Bloc Quebecois showed a great sense of
responsibility. We abided by the House's standing orders.
1105
When time came to examine the conduct of four other members,
from the Reform Party and the Liberal Party, who had made rather
surprising statements concerning the Speaker, we showed up at
committee with questions to ask.
The committee chair decided that each witness should have 20
minutes, including five minutes for an opening statement. There
was 15 minutes left for members to question the witnesses.
Members of the Reform Party and of the Liberal Party, whose
colleagues were involved, were entitled to ask questions, like
everybody else. We have no problem with that.
But the fact remains that for the Bloc Quebecois only had five
minutes to question these members who had threatened, so to
speak, the Speaker of this House.
How can any MP, regardless of how brilliant or effective he may
be, manage to cast light on the unacceptable behavior of another
MP in five minutes?
The Liberal chairman made use of his authority within the
committee, with the support of his colleagues and the Reform
MPs, who were in the same boat, having also made unfortunate
statements. They came to an agreement among themselves, and
they were the majority—imagine, the government and the official
opposition—and they decided that there would be 20 minutes, no
more.
We asked whether the questions could go on longer because we had
things we wanted to ask. Jean-Marc Jacob was grilled for six
hours. We were not asking for six hours per witness, but
neither were we asking for five minutes. Such is the concept of
justice in parliament and in committees, where the Liberals and
the Reform Party are running the show.
Five minutes to question them, but six hours when a Bloc MP is
involved.
That is what justice is like in this Parliament. When a Bloc MP
is in an awkward situation, he gets questioned for six hours,
and three months are spent on it. When it is a Reform or
Liberal MP, their parties vote together, make use of their
power, and allow us five minutes.
This is unacceptable, and the people have a right to know. I
rose in the House to raise a point of order. It was an unusual
situation. I brought the matter to the Speaker's attention and
told him “Mr. Speaker, this makes no sense. How can the work
get done properly?”
His reply was “Well now, generally things are done properly in
committees. You will sort this out among yourselves, and big
boys like you ought to be able to reach some agreement”. The
committee chair, a Liberal, got up and said “Mr. Speaker, the
member for Roberval is barking up the wrong tree. The member
for Roberval ought to know that we have reached agreement for
witnesses to be able to be called back before the committee”.
I bought that, and I sat back down, telling my colleagues “You
will go back to the committee and ask for the witnesses to be
recalled, even if it is only for five minutes a shot. You will
call them back as often as necessary for there to be a proper
examination”.
Do you know what happened? The Bloc went back again and called
for the witnesses to be heard again, as the Liberal member had
told us in the House.
The Liberal chairman claimed he was not an undemocratic person
by saying “You can recall a witness as often as you want. It is
provided for in the committee's rules”.
When the committee resumed its proceedings, we asked that the
witnesses be recalled, but the Liberal and Reform majority
refused. These Liberal and Reform committee members were in a
conflict of interest. How can Parliament operate properly if
special and ad hoc committees, whose role it is to review the
behaviour of parliamentarians who did something wrong, are
controlled by people who are in a conflict of interest?
If it is the behaviour of a Liberal member that is reviewed, the
Liberal majority can of course allocate five minutes to the
review, as opposed to six hours. The next time it could decide
on two minutes or, for that matter, 30 seconds.
That is the way things work. However, Canadians have the right
to know that one the most important tools in this Parliament,
and in all the parliaments I know, is the special committee that
reviews members' behaviour. Members are judged by their peers.
However, that committee was manipulated by the Liberal and
Reform majorities, with the result that it could not do the job
that had to be done.
1110
This is unacceptable and must be condemned. When it is a Bloc
Quebecois member who appears before the committee, the
proceedings last for six hours. It should be the same for a
Liberal or Reform member, if necessary. It should not be six
hours for a Bloc Quebecois member and five minutes for a Liberal
member.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to rise today to participate in this debate on
the standing orders mandated under Standing Order 51. I had
something to do with the creation of this standing order in the
1980s and I think it has proven itself to be a worthy
recommendation to provide the House with this opportunity on a
regular basis. This is an opportunity for the House to consider
how it can improve on its procedures which are rooted in
tradition and in history but which also must be responsive to
changing political contexts.
I begin my remarks by considering two contexts that make the
House of Commons unique. The first is the unusual fact that
there are four opposition parties duly recognized by the Chair
and the standing orders. Immediately following the last election
there was considerable comment in the media about how such a
parliament would function. I think it is worth pointing out, as
the government House leader did, that this so-called pizza
parliament, an institution for debating matters of public concern
and for holding the government of the day accountable, has worked
better than many commentators led us to believe it would.
It is true the government has continued to resort to time
allocation and closure and each of the opposition parties has on
occasion made full use of the rules of the House to provoke votes
and debate issues more fully than the government would have
liked. But when it has come to the practicalities of planning
for the orderly consideration of parliamentary business, I think
it is fair to say that the parties have managed to adopt an
effective and pragmatic way of dealing with one another and have
served the public well.
This has allowed for an unprecedented degree of forward planning
of the parliamentary calendar, and the government House leader is
to be commended for his efforts in this regard. The whole
question of legislative planning is a matter which I consider to
be important and which I regard as some of the unfinished
business of the special committee of the reform of the House of
Commons. I am glad to see we are making progress in that regard.
The election of a five party House of Commons did confront the
House with the challenge of reconciling the new political context
with the existing standing orders that in a number of ways have
been designed for some time now around a House consisting of
three parties.
The House has already dealt with one of the implications of five
parties by amending the rules regarding speaking times for
private members' business under Standing Order 95, ensuring that
members of all parties can speak in each debate. We dealt with
the matter of redesigning question period over the summer of 1997
after the election.
However, other difficulties remain and should be addressed. For
instance, Standing Order 74(1) grants the first three speakers in
a second reading debate 40 minutes of speaking time, a measure
evidently and obviously designed to apply to a House that has
three official parties. As it stands, this standing order gives
an advantage to some opposition parties over others and increases
the possibility that not all opposition parties will have their
first speaker participate on the first day of debate.
This standing order should be amended to put all parties on an
equal footing, a change that would have the added advantage of
allowing for a question and comment period following the first
speaker of all the parties. I think this would be a good thing.
It is often the case that the leaders, the very people members
might want to question, are exempted from this procedure.
More important, the current supply process does not allow for an
allocation of debating opportunities that reflects the relative
strength of the parties in the House. Standing Order 81(10)(a)
and (16) set the number of allotted supply days at 20, 8 of which
are votable. These numbers do not break down into an equitable
distribution between the four opposition parties as they are now
represented in the House.
The House leaders have agreed to improvise on the number of
votable days in the current supply period in order to accommodate
the current representation of the opposition parties in the
House. However, the House should consider formalizing an
appropriate formula for future supply periods.
The second unusual characteristic of this House is not only are
there four opposition parties in the House but all four of them
have in the recent past had members sitting in the House who were
not recognized as belonging to a political party.
1115
In the previous parliament the members of parliament elected as
New Democrats and Progressive Conservatives by their constituents
could not convince either the rest of the House or the Speaker to
recognize their party status. In the parliament before that it
was the turn of the Reform Party and the newly formed Bloc
Quebecois to have their party status go unrecognized.
This is not the occasion to fight past battles for recognition
of party status. However what the past disputes have shown is
that there is no clear definition of party status in the standing
orders themselves, only a loose and ambiguous series of
precedents that are often in contradiction with one another.
Given the experience of each of the four opposition parties and
given that there is not now a party seeking recognition in the
House for which there would be a conflict of interest, it would
be opportune for this parliament to carefully consider ways of
clarifying the rules regarding the recognition of parties under
the standing orders now that all the parties are on an equal
footing.
The House may decide to formalize the most recent Speaker's
rulings on the 12 member threshold, or it may choose to resurrect
an earlier tradition of recognizing smaller parties. But the
House itself should speak clearly on the matter animated by the
most generous democratic outlook.
Apart from dealing with the presence of five parties in the
House which is unique to this parliament, the House should also
revisit the enduring questions of whether our current
parliamentary practices give the fullest possible expression of
the democracy Canadians rightly expect from this institution.
I think it is fair to say that those questions can be distilled
to two basic issues. First, is there a proper balance between the
ability of the government to govern and the ability of the
opposition parties to hold the government accountable and offer
alternatives to the government of the day? Second, is there a
proper balance between the legitimate and necessary operations of
party discipline and the opportunities of individual members of
parliament either to dissent from the party line or to put before
the House consideration of issues that concern them individually?
As the House considers how it might address these enduring
questions there are a couple of historical precedents that should
instruct us on how to proceed and how not to proceed with changes
to the standing orders.
The example of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House
of Commons which resulted in what is now called the June 1985
McGrath report after its chair, the Hon. Jim McGrath, a former
member for St. John's East, should instruct us on how to proceed.
The McGrath committee of which I had the honour to be a
vice-chair offers the good examples of a consensus building
process as well as a series of specific recommendations some of
which remain to be implemented and still deserve the attention of
the House.
The episode not to be repeated and indeed an episode some of the
consequences of which should be undone was the unilateral
imposition of major changes to the standing orders by the
Mulroney government in June 1991 against the vigorous opposition
of all of the opposition parties at the time. I urge members of
the government not to repeat in any way the unilateralism of that
regrettable episode and to be guided by their past opposition to
those measures forced on the opposition parties on which there is
no consensus.
Among the most undemocratic of the measures introduced at that
time which offends the principle of striving for a due balance
between the rights of the government and the opposition was what
is now Standing Order 56.1. If the government has been denied
unanimous consent on a particular course of action, this standing
order gives the government the right to put the same question
again during routine proceedings without debate or amendment and
deems the motion to have carried unless 25 members stand in their
places to oppose it.
This measure was clearly designed for use against small parties
or factions in situations where a government wanted to act
quickly and override the required parliamentary process for
consideration of a government bill or motion. In essence because
it sets a threshold which some opposition parties can meet and
others cannot, its effect is to allow the government to deprive a
recognized party of party status in particular situations where
it is convenient for the government to do so.
This is not to argue that the government should not have at its
disposal in situations where it feels it must act quickly
mechanisms to accelerate the parliamentary process. What makes
Standing Order 56.1 intolerable is that the government already
has a wide array of other tools at its disposal to do so.
The government can use time allocation, closure, and seek
extended hours. All of these measures balance the right of the
government to act quickly in particular situations with the
rights of the opposition parties to insist on due process.
Standing Order 56.1 removes that balance entirely and without
such a balance, where a government can act as if it has the
unanimous consent of the House when in fact it does not, the
Canadian public remains vulnerable to a parliamentary
dictatorship.
1120
It is unfortunate that the government has seen fit to make use
of Standing Order 56.1 two times in this parliament, even though
the Liberals opposed and voted against such a change when they
were in opposition in 1991. On the first of those occasions, the
government used it as part of its parliamentary tactics in moving
Bill C-24 through the House very quickly, the back to work
legislation concerning the dispute between Canada Post and the
Canadian Union of Postal Workers.
This brings me to the next point about achieving a greater
balance between the rights of government and opposition. Whenever
governments want to circumvent the normal proceedings on
government bills, it is almost always to force back to work
legislation through the House quickly. It is almost always a
case of infringing on the collective bargaining rights of
Canadian workers.
This pattern stands in stark contrast to the direction that has
been taken in recent years regarding the rights of investors and
corporations. In the NAFTA, the WTO and the embryonic MAI, the
trend has been to put up more barriers to government actions that
might impinge on the rights of corporations and to make these
corporations almost immune to government action.
In the case of the draft MAI, the proposal is to put in place a
series of hurdles to public action that would last up to 20
years, even if governments were elected to withdraw Canada from
the agreement. This stands in stark contrast to the rules and
practices of this House where labour rights can be compromised by
the passage of back to work legislation in a matter of 20 hours,
not 20 years.
Here is another area where our democratic practices must restore
some balance. I point to Standing Order 71 which states:
Every bill shall receive three several readings, on different
days, previously to being passed. On urgent or extraordinary
occasions, a bill may be read twice or thrice, or advanced two or
more stages in one day.
This standing order is very vague about what procedures must be
followed in order to read a bill at more than one stage in a day.
It is therefore very vague about what must be legitimately done
to circumvent one of the opposition parties' most important
vehicles, which is time.
Time is not just time to be wasted; time is time to be used.
Time to consult with interested parties. Time to make the
opposing case to the public. Time to make sure that public
policy is not conducted in a reckless manner. What has happened
over the years is that delay has come to be seen as inefficient
in a culture of efficiency, rather than seeing delay for what it
is and can be, which is an integral part of a parliamentary
process by which time is provided to the public and to opposition
parties to make sure that a full and appropriate debate takes
place.
I urge the House to consider ways of formalizing the procedures
for allowing a bill to be read more than one time in a day in
such a way that gives greater balance between the government's
ability to act in a timely manner when there is a legitimate time
constraint and the opposition's ability to do its job well.
Clearer rules would have the added benefit of creating a greater
opportunity for constructive compromises to be arrived at as is
often the case in back to work legislation, a process that in the
past has shown parliamentary democracy to be working at its best
as a vehicle for mediating between competing interests in
society. When the government needs the opposition to get
something through, we then have a meeting of the minds, genuine
dialogue and genuine amendments to legislation. Things get done
around here in a way that they should be conducted more often.
There are other standing orders giving power to the government
to accelerate the consideration of government business which need
some rebalancing. These are the standing orders governing time
allocation and referral to committee before second reading.
In regard to time allocation governed by Standing Order 78, it
is clear that time spent on a bill is a major source of conflict
between governing and opposition parties. On most occasions when
an opposition party makes deliberate use of a filibuster as a
tactic, or the government resorts to time allocation, the parties
will ultimately be guided by how the public judges their actions
in the next election, or for that matter in the next poll, that
is, such decisions are very often matters of political judgment.
However there have been and no doubt will be occasions when
there will be a widespread and objectively arrived at concern
that a government is resorting to time allocation too
precipitously, and that there is a genuine public interest in a
full debate in the House. For such a situation it is important
that the standing orders vest in the Speaker the right to rule a
government motion for time allocation out of order or
inadmissible.
1125
It is right and proper for the Speaker, especially now that the
House has an elected Speaker, to have the authority to stand in
the way of a government that was prepared to use time allocation
to stifle debate when there was a widespread appetite for such a
debate.
Giving the Speaker such an authority, even if he or she did not
use it regularly, and I would not anticipate the regular use of
such a power, would create the healthy habit of circumspection
before the government resorted to time allocation. Perhaps then
we could move away from the practice of the almost routine use of
time allocation which really makes a mockery of the procedures of
the House.
As regard referrals of bills to committee before second reading,
it is sad to say that while this measure has the admirable
intention of expanding the scope of a committee's ability to
amend a government bill, in practice it has been used too often
simply as a means to accelerate the passage of bills that the
government clearly has no intention of allowing the committee to
amend.
Standing Order 73(1) at present only requires the government to
notify representatives of the opposition parties before
proceeding with referral to committee before second reading. I
urge the House to consider amending this standing order to
require the agreement of at least some of the opposition parties
before referral, perhaps along the lines of Standing Order
78(2)(a) which requires the agreement of a majority of the
representatives of the several parties.
There is one further point I would like to raise under the
heading of rebalancing the rights of the opposition and the
ability of government to govern. That is the right of standing
committees to scrutinize non-judicial order in council
appointments. This process is governed by Standing Orders 110,
111 and 32(6), measures that resulted from recommendations of the
McGrath report.
Although these standing orders are in place and empower
committees to scrutinize a wide range of public appointments,
committees are not making use of the powers available to them
with any kind of regularity. I call on committee chairs and the
government majorities that support them in committee to allow
committees to make greater use of these standing orders in the
spirit in which they were introduced. If they do not and the
process withers on the vine, then the House should consider
strengthening the rules requiring committees to fulfil this
important function.
In the meantime the House should also consider extending the
process of committee scrutiny to judicial as well as non-judicial
appointments. I do not now wish to suggest a particular formula
for the parliamentary scrutiny of judicial appointments but some
form of scrutiny must be on the agenda for parliamentary reform.
The introduction of the charter of rights and freedoms
fundamentally altered the role of the judiciary in our
Constitution and its relationship to federal and provincial
legislatures. As a country we are still in the process of
assimilating the profound changes the charter has brought to the
relative power and authority of the judiciary and the
legislatures. The House of Commons must participate in that
process by considering whether the new powers of the court must
be met with a new level of parliamentary scrutiny.
I would now like to address some of the issues pertaining to the
balance required between the requirements of party discipline and
the rights of individual members of parliament. The main
opportunity for individual members of parliament to play a
meaningful role in the legislative process, or certainly one of
the main opportunities, is in committee. It is in strengthening
the independence of committees that this House can do the most to
achieve a better balance between party discipline and the
independence of individual MPs.
The McGrath committee recommended that alternate membership on
committees be abolished and that members of committees
themselves, not the party whip, have the responsibility of
seeking their own replacements. The thinking behind this
recommendation was to lead the House of Commons away “from the
concept that everything in the House of Commons is controlled by
the whips, the House leaders and the prime minister”.
It borders on the tragic to watch situations develop where a
committee is doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing,
studying a bill or an issue carefully with the members developing
an expertise and a collective sense of where policies should be
headed, and to have the process cut off by a government whip who
can stop such a process in its tracks. The current rules make it
easy for whips to undermine the work of committees.
I urge the House to revisit this recommendation of the McGrath
committee as well as the recommendation that parliamentary
secretaries not be allowed to sit on committees. Too often we see
the parliamentary secretaries sitting there as a kind of censor
or a government point man on the committee.
Another area where the effectiveness of committees could be
enhanced would be in altering the concurrence process for
committee reports.
1130
At present any member of parliament may move concurrence during
Routine Proceedings, but almost always the process results only
in a single speech by the mover of the motion and the first
government speaker moving that the House proceed to Government
Orders. The current process then is useful only as a dilatory
mechanism for the opposition with the government retaining full
control over the debate and any subsequent vote on concurrence.
Committee reports are too important a part of the legislative
process to be reduced to tactical footballs in the procedural
wrangling between government and opposition. There must be some
mechanism to allow for a full debate on important committee
reports.
One possible mechanism would be to allow a committee that
presents a unanimous report to recommend to the House that a
concurrence debate and vote be held on the committee's report and
that a fixed number of days be set aside each parliamentary year
as with the supply process for holding such debates should
committees request them. These debates could be time limited
perhaps along the lines of the 180 minute debates with 10 minute
speaking spots attached to the process of referring a bill to
committee before second reading.
Another area relevant to the status of individual members of
parliament is the whole question of Private Members' Business.
This has been the subject of much parliamentary activity in this
parliament with points of privilege being raised concerning the
resources available to individual members of parliament for the
purposes of drafting private members' bills and with the 13th
report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
proposing a new method for selecting votable items of Private
Members' Business.
I just need a few more minutes, Mr. Speaker. I wonder, with
unanimous consent of the House, if I could wind up my remarks.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona has asked for unanimous consent for a few
more minutes to wind up his remarks. Is there consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, one thing would concern me
which I know is not a part of the 13th report. There has been
significant support expressed for this idea in some quarters of
the House. It is the idea that somehow all private members'
motions and bills should be made votable, uncritically so, that
their very existence should render them votable.
I want to register my own concern about any proposal that would
take away from the House's ability to filter what will actually
become votable. If we do not have a system at the end, as we do
now, for selecting what will become votable then we would have to
have some kind of system at the beginning which would recreate
what we now have at the end to make sure that the House is not
put in a situation where it has to vote on private members'
motions and bills, no matter what their content, no matter what
the quality of their drafting and so on.
I have a final comment on another matter that has been raised by
Reform Party members in the House and on which we have supported
them. It is the fact that bills keep originating in the Senate.
This is a practice that was questionable in the past but is even
more questionable now, given that the Senate does not reflect the
five party constitution of the House of Commons. It creates a
new tension between the two chambers that I think the government
should take into account when it considers whether or not it
wants to continue with this practice of originating legislation
in the Senate.
With respect to the election of the Speaker, I think it would be
appropriate for the standing committee to consider what would be
appropriate campaigning and what kind of structures the House
might set up for candidates for the speakership to make known to
members of parliament their views, their attitudes toward the
House and so on. I think this has to be done very carefully.
The initial recommendation of the McGrath committee was that
there be no campaigning at all because we did not want to bring
the speakership into the disrepute that sometimes is associated
with political campaigning. That spirit has to be respected. I
hope we might be able to find a way to meet the needs of new
members who feel that they do not have enough information about
candidates for the speakership and at the same time respect the
original spirit of the McGrath committee that we not have that
kind of campaign.
My final comment, because I promised not to abuse the generosity
of the House, is on the matter of free votes. All votes in the
House are already free. This was achieved by the McGrath
committee. The dragon to which the Leader of the Official
Opposition referred, that is to say the confidence convention, is
slain. What is not slain is the desire for uniformity and for
obedience which exists within all political parties, including
the Reform Party and including my own.
That is what has to be slain if we are to have the kind of
parliament the Leader of the Opposition called for. That is
something that is the responsibility of political parties and not
primarily the responsibility of the House of Commons.
1135
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, as a new member of the House I am extremely proud to
take part in this important debate which focuses on the rules and
practices of the House. This is one of the few occasions when
the House is required to consider its practices. Parliamentary
procedure is as much a part of the Constitution as are the
written constitutional statutes.
The standing orders which govern the House, like all laws,
should be pliable and flexible to adapt to changing times and
circumstances.
As a member of the Progressive Conservative Party there is a
proud history of our party to improve the House of Commons. In
1979 the Clark government put forward a white paper on the reform
of parliament. Tabled by the late Walter Baker, this position
paper offered as a thesis that “the House of Commons should not
govern but should poke and pry without hindrance into the
activities of those who do”.
It was also the government of the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney
which struck the McGrath committee to which the hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona referred in his remarks. It was the same
government which accepted most of the recommendations of that
committee. Indeed I note that some of the reforms which were
brought to this House have now been proposed by the modernization
committee of the British House of Commons.
It was also the Mulroney government which agreed to the secret
ballot for the election of the Speaker, a measure that Prime
Minister Trudeau would not accept. Lest we forget, he was the
man who characterized members of parliament as nobodies when they
get 50 feet from the front door. Quite typical of his attitude.
It is obvious that some members may be feeling that they are
being marginalized as demonstrated by yesterday's antics when one
hon. member chose to retreat with his seat. There is a level of
frustration that exists on the part of members of the House.
The hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona also referred
specifically to Standing Order 56.1. There is a legacy again of
the Conservative government that has to be referred to here and
one that we would acknowledge as perhaps being somewhat incorrect
in this standing order. Recognizing one is wrong is certainly an
important part of democracy. I note that the hon. member across,
the Minister for International Trade, recently demonstrated that
when he publicly agreed the Liberal government was wrong in
opposing free trade some years ago.
I want to indicate that with Standing Order 56.1 there is the
concept of unanimous consent as it should be restored to exactly
that, unanimous consent. Under normal circumstances the request
for unanimous consent to move a motion would be a prelude to a
question being put to the House for division. The standing
order now allows a minister to put forward a motion and if 25
members do not object then the motion is put and carried. The
House does not get a chance to decide the matter. In this
parliament the government has used the standing order to suspend
the requirement for quorum despite the fact that quorum is
prescribed by the Constitution.
Essentially this standing order allows the government to run
roughshod over the opposition and the right to question and hold
the government accountable is therefore curtailed. This can be
an arbitrary exercise of power on the part of the government. It
is something that the committee should look at very closely.
I want to turn my remarks next to Friday sittings. During this
debate, particularly in the remarks of the government House
leader, there was some suggestion that there may be a movement
afoot to eliminate Friday sittings. I want to be very clear and
unequivocal about my party's position on this point. We are
completely opposed to any elimination of Friday sittings. We
feel that the present arrangement of Fridays is an important and
integral part of the process. Fridays can be as effective as any
other day of the week. I would suggest that Canadians would take
a very dim view if the committee were to do away with Friday
sittings in the House.
The government House leader did speak in reference to the spirit
of co-operation and the desire of those present to make this
parliament work. I think that is an apt observation.
However, as has been suggested by previous speakers, there is a
great deal of room for improvement.
1140
One area where I might suggest there is room for improvement is
Private Members' Business. There are certainly historic reasons
the private members' process is set up as it is, but I would
suggest that some of the rules are unnecessarily complicated and,
more important, costly to the general public.
There needs to be an avenue for members to raise an issue they
wish to bring to the House on the part of their constituents, but
they may not wish to pursue it further. They may wish to simply
bring it forward at that time.
The government House leader spoke of the esoteric notions and
traditions that evolved from Great Britain. These traditions are
fine but as I said in my opening remarks we must strive to be
effective. The public opinion demands this and we certainly owe
this to Canadians.
One suggestion would be that there be an avenue for members to
put forward items they do not wish necessarily to be brought to
the House for decision but instead brought forward for simply
airing of opinion. Instead of a lottery based on business items
before the House, a lottery of members' names would then entitle
a member to put forward an item of business for complete
consideration. This would therefore save a considerable amount
of time and money wrapped up in the current system.
A possible suggestion would be that upon a member's name being
drawn he could then decide whether it was for discussion purposes
in the form of debate or simply to be brought forward as a
motion. This would be a useful area the standing committee might
take a look at.
Time allocation and closure have been touched upon as well by
previous speakers. There is certainly a recognized need for the
government to be able to move a motion for time allocation. That
is acknowledged. However the Speaker, as suggested by the hon.
member for Winnipeg—Transcona, should be empowered to disallow
the government from invoking this quite draconian motion at
times, in the event that the Chair is of the opinion that the
closure motion being invoked is premature.
My next point concerns written questions and answers. The House
has agreed to limit the number of written questions but the
government is being extremely tardy in its answers.
Most questions can be answered within two weeks and three weeks
at the most. That is a reasonable period of time. However,
there is a major problem, I would suggest. Public accountability
in the House should insist on prompt and complete answers from
the government, particularly in light of the circumstances and
the criticisms of the commissioner of freedom of information.
There needs to be some form of sanctions available to the
Speaker when the government is not being responsive. I would
suggest a form of a yellow card or a penalty box that can be
imposed on the government when it is not responsive to these
questions.
I will now turn my remarks to the estimates. There are few
Westminster styles of parliament that have an adequate system for
scrutiny of the estimates.
Yesterday I was at the justice committee where we were examining
the estimates of the Minister of Justice. The meeting lasted for
two hours and about 35 questions were posed to the minister and
her staff. That is likely to be the only examination of her
stewardship over this ministry which comprises several billion
dollars in the present fiscal year. I suggest that is simply not
enough. Two hours is not enough time to delve into very
complicated and very crucial issues not only in justice but in
all of the ministries in this parliament.
I would like to see some experimentation with bringing some
departmental estimates to the floor of the House of Commons for
supply, similar to the committee of the whole process that takes
place at present.
This might mean that the House would have to meet during some
evenings but a longer debate and examination of beneficial issues
to the Canadian public, I would suggest, should be of primary
concern and first on the agenda.
I would also suggest that ministers, above all members of the
House, must be willing to subject themselves to the intense
scrutiny that is required. It would also lead to a more rigorous
debate in the House. The government has talked repeatedly of
openness and transparency. These are the buzzwords of the
nineties.
However, it seems very reluctant to put that accountability into
practice. It shies away from it.
1145
There was mention of the Chair and of the selection of the
Speaker of this House. I will add a few remarks to that. The
present process allows for the selection of the Speaker through
an election in which all members of the House have input. But
subsequent to that, as Mr. Speaker is aware, the deputy Speakers
are then selected at the whim or by the will of the prime
minister. That is not to cast aspersions on the present occupant
of the chair. There is certainly ample evidence of the brave,
courageous and true nature of the present Deputy Speaker. As
with the election of the Speaker, there should be a similar
process of input from other members for the deputy Speakers who
also occupy the Chair.
If a Speaker comes to the conclusion before the end of a
Parliament that he or she may not reoffer, a common practice or
courtesy might evolve, not necessarily a hard and fast rule,
where that Speaker may choose to step down so that one of the
deputy Speakers might receive the training necessary to assist
Parliament in the subsequent convening of the House. The
position of the Chair is very important to the ongoing success
and spirit of co-operation mentioned by the government House
leader.
I will discuss special or emergency debates. I began with a
reference to the position paper which the Clark government placed
before the House in 1979. I make reference to another document,
a paper that was placed before the Canadian electorate in January
1993. It was endorsed by the now Prime Minister and was presented
by David Dingwall, then opposition House leader, the then chief
opposition whip who now sits in the House as minister of public
works, and the two assistant opposition House leaders who are now
respectively the Deputy Speaker of the House and the leader of
the government in the House of Commons. That paper was entitled
“Reviving Parliamentary Democracy”.
Those four Liberals endorsed by their leader had this to say
about special, urgent or emergency debates in the House of
Commons:
The granting of leave for special urgent or emergency debates
under the present Standing Order 52 should become more generous,
thus permitting the House to consider a greater variety of
important issues that do not command the top of the national
political agenda. If the House is to claim relevance to the
interest of Canadians, it must make the most of its opportunities
to debate issues of current significance. It is time for the rule
to be restored to its original purpose of enabling the House to
add important issues to the agenda at short notice. There is no
change to any rule required for this step. The House only need
make its general will on the question known to the Chair.
This is the suggestion in the paper that was tabled by the
government House leader and endorsed by the opposition leader at
that time, the current Prime Minister. In 1993 the Liberals were
telling the electorate an idea that would be embraced by my party
colleagues and by many members of the opposition, that we should
have more time for special debates and more open discourse with
the government. It was on the timeliness issue. When something
arises that needs to be addressed on short notice, this House
should be amenable and prepared to allow for that debate to
occur.
In the past we have made requests. The Progressive Conservative
Party has requested special debates on the disastrous conditions
that exist in the fisheries on the east and west coasts. We also
requested a special debate on the situation that was brewing in
Iraq. Yesterday other members made application in this House for
debates on the megabank mergers. All these applications were
refused. I have had to assure my colleagues that the government
does not instruct the Speaker on these matters. It is clear that
the general will of the House should be conveyed to the Chair.
1150
It is time the Deputy Speaker and others including the
government House leader review the commitment they made while in
opposition in 1993. Once again I suggest the present government
be very wary of what it has said in the past and be prepared to
live up to its words.
Previous speakers have had a great deal of experience and a
wealth of knowledge they have put forward in this debate and the
House has heard some extremely insightful and constructive
suggestions. I am honoured to be able to partake in putting
forward these suggestions.
Partisanship aside, the rules that govern all of us will
continue to govern those who participate in this chamber in the
future. We must always be aware of the shifting political signs
and fortunes and the realignment of power that may some day occur
because something that is said in this House is very important.
It may come back again to be used either for or against you.
I want to conclude my remarks by referring once again to a
policy paper. The Prime Minister had this to say: “Canadians
feel alienated from their political institutions and they want to
restore integrity to them. That is why we are proposing reforms
to make individual MPs more relevant, the House of Commons more
open and responsive, and elections more fair”.
Those are noble ambitions and they call for action from the
Liberal backbenchers. They hold the key. They must do their
part. The solution to the hepatitis C problem does not lie with
the Minister of Health, it now lies with the Liberal backbenches.
In the closing pages of his book 1867: How the Fathers Made a
Deal, Christopher Moore had this to say:
If parliamentary democracy functioned in Canada, the future of
Prime Minister Chretien would depend on the Liberal Party caucus.
If the 301 men and women who Canadians elected in June 1997
recovered authority over their leaders, they would also recover
power over the making and changing of party policy.
No constitutional amendment, not even a legislative act, would
be required to return a prime minister's tenure in office to the
control of the parliamentary majority, or to make all the party
leaders answerable to their caucuses. It would simply require an
act of moral courage and a little organizing on the part of the
backbenchers.
How we collectively write the internal constitution of this
House does much to decide how courageous we are in the discharge
of our responsibilities.
Members on both sides of this House must shoulder that
responsibility, proudly and diligently. I suggest this is the
forum and the place to make the necessary changes.
Self-discipline and restraint when it comes to the use of our
time are extremely important.
With that in mind, I will conclude my remarks with the hope and
optimism that this will be a fruitful and useful debate and the
necessary changes that can be brought about will be embraced by
the government.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are moving to 10 minute speeches now so I will have
limited time and will briefly make a few comments on items that I
hope the procedure and House affairs committee will look at in
reviewing the standing orders for this parliament.
I want to make a few comments first on the importance of the
standing orders. I think it is important for our constituents
and for all Canadians to understand that the standing orders are
the rules that parliament adopts for itself to govern and how we
carry on the business of the House. They provide an important
protection not only for the institution but for each and every
one of us. They are an assurance that we can come into the House
and freely speak on behalf of our constituents without fear of
being insulted, cut off or treated less favourably than other
members of the House of Commons.
These are rules which we as a parliament have accepted and we
have also accepted the principle, certainly since I have been in
parliament, that the rules change by consensus. When there is
agreement among the parties that there is a need for changes to
make the House work better and allow each and every one of us to
be more effective then those rules will change.
That is why I was particularly perturbed by the so-called flag
flap a few weeks ago when one party chose to bring into the House
a debate regarding the rules and to make it a partisan issue.
1155
What has preserved civility and respect for one another in this
House is that we have adopted rules by consensus, by agreement
and not through partisan confrontation. That is why this debate
today is so important. All members have the opportunity to put
on record those things about the rules which they think will help
make Parliament work better and help make their jobs more
effective.
I want to mention a few items I hope will be addressed by the
committee in its review of the standing orders. First, during
the last Parliament we had the so-called Boudria solution, when
the then whip of the government party brought in procedures which
allowed us to more expeditiously take votes in this House without
spending countless hours in standing up, being counted and
sitting down, over and over again. It is time to look at
incorporating those rules into the standing orders so they become
part of the normal procedure of the House and the House can count
on how they operate.
The issue of televising committees, in particular, is extremely
important to how Canadians understand the work of their
parliament and their parliamentarians. My experience is that the
work of committees is carried out generally in a non-partisan
way. Committees work on issues that the members have a common
interest in and try to move forward the agenda of public policy
in the public interest. It is extremely important that, as often
as possible, Canadians have the opportunity to see their
parliamentarians working in that collaborative way on issues that
are important to them. Therefore I encourage the committee to
look at expanding the use of televising committee meetings.
The other issue which the committee has dealt with in a small
way, and I hope that we will continue, is the clean-up of the
standing orders with respect to gender. I was very pleased to
have the support of all parties in the House when we made a
recent amendment to the standing orders to get rid of the “he”
in reference to every person of importance or position who
operates in parliament. I trust that in amending the standing
orders further we will get rid of the archaic reference entirely
in the standing orders to every important position in this House
in male terms.
I want to also speak about members of parliament and the changes
that have been made in how parliament functions, to better
recognize that members of parliament have roles in their
constituency, roles in parliament and also, however little, a
personal life. Changes have been made in the procedures and in
the schedule of the House to allow members of parliament to
better plan their lives and have a better balance between those
many different functions they perform. Again, I hope that the
committee will look at the schedule of the House of Commons, the
length of the week, the length of the days, to see whether there
are further improvements that need to be made.
I briefly refer to the work done by the subcommittee on the
business of supply which in the last parliament conducted a very
thorough review of how to increase the effectiveness with which
this parliament holds government accountable for and has some
influence over the expenditure plans of government. A report was
tabled in the last parliament and will be dealt with again by the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I hope it
will be tabled again with a request for a response from the
government.
To implement its recommendations requires changes in the
standing orders such as the establishment of a continuing
standing committee on the estimates; various other measures to
give committees the opportunity to amend the estimates, to
improve the responsibility of the government to respond to the
work of parliamentary committees that have an impact on the
estimates; to request the finance committee to give priority in
its prebudget consultations to those committees that have done
reports on the plans of departments on the estimate and to take
into consideration the report of those standing committees.
1200
Dawson said in 1962 that there is no part or procedure in the
Canadian House of Commons which is so universally acknowledged to
be inadequate to modern needs as the control of the House over
public expenditure. Yet this is the core function of parliament,
to decide how much money the government may have, how it may
raise it and how it may spend it.
I trust that the committee will spend some time on that report
and incorporate its recommendations into its changes to the
standing orders.
Finally, very briefly I want to speak on the issue of
confidence. The official opposition in particular raised the
issue of free votes. If anybody examines the records of voting
in this House they will find that the government caucus, the
government party, has more often expressed differences of opinion
in its voting than any of the opposition parties. I urge them to
examine their own consciences before they talk too stridently
about party discipline.
It is also important for people to recognize that governments of
whatever party run on making certain commitments to Canadians.
While this is not directly related to the standing orders, it is
important for parliament and for Canadians to recognize that some
measure of solidarity behind those commitments made to the public
during an election campaign is what allows a government to keep
its commitments. That is one of the most important things in
restoring the confidence of people in their institutions.
I challenge all other parties to do as I believe my own party
does, to have a very open and frank caucus process which allows
legislation to come to this House having been thoroughly debated,
discussed and influenced by all members of the caucus. I am not
sure that happens in other parties.
The committee has important work before it. The procedures, the
standing orders which we accept as parliamentarians, are what
allows this institution to function in the interests of Canadians
and in the interests of each and every one of us to be able to do
our job of representing our constituents. This debate is an
important contribution to the work of the committee and I look
forward to what will be said during the rest of day.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to participate in the debate regarding the standing
orders which govern the rules of this House. I am sure there is
some decorum in that we can continue to achieve the legislative
agenda that is introduced by the government.
I will focus my remarks on the issue regarding the business of
supply which, as the critic of the Treasury Board, tends to fall
within my purview.
I would also like to acknowledge the work of the deputy whip of
the government in the previous parliament where we as a
committee, including members from the Bloc and others, tabled a
document called “The Business of Supply: Completing the Circle
of Control”. That document contained many recommendations for
changes to the standing orders. I would certainly like to see it
examined in detail by the procedure and House affairs committee.
The recommendations of this all party committee had full
endorsation both by the government and by the opposition in
making its report to improve the business of supply.
The business of supply deals with the way parliament approves or
grants to the government the funding it requires to carry out its
programs and to govern the country for the ensuing year.
1205
I do not think there is any piece of legislation that goes
through this House faster and with less scrutiny than the
business of supply which accounts for $150-odd billion of
spending each and every year. We go through the business of
supply in one day's debate. We approve interim supply without
any debate because the standing orders do not allow debate.
Can anyone imagine anything more fundamental and more central to
government than the way government spends its money? This House
has allowed, over many years, its authority to be eroded and
stolen by the government to the point that we are now simply a
rubber stamp. That should change.
I think of the ordinary course of business where a a bill is
introduced and amendments and subamendments to the amendments may
be introduced and we vote in the reverse order. We vote on the
subamendment. If it carries it would amend the amendment. We
then vote on the amendment. If it carries it changes the bill.
We then vote on the bill. If it carries it becomes legislation.
It is a fairly simple and normal process that is adopted not only
by this House but by all houses. It is how committees work all
over the world.
However, when it comes to the business of supply we reverse the
process. When the opposition tables an amendment to the business
of supply to reduce or to delete an expenditure proposed by the
government, that causes the President of the Treasury Board to
introduce a motion to concur with the expenditure as proposed.
That vote comes first and this House then votes on the entire
expenditure.
Let us talk about a simple program with which many people
identify such as TAGS which helps the people in Atlantic Canada.
No one has any difficulty in helping the people in Atlantic
Canada through these difficult times. However, let us say that
we as opposition would like to make some minor change to that
expenditure. We are forced by the standing orders to vote and
approve the entire expenditure or defeat it entirely before we
come to the motion that may be to reduce or change it a small
amount. After having voted to endorse the entire expenditure,
how can we turn around and vote to change it?
The standing orders are designed to guarantee that this House
votes the government's wishes on the business of supply. That
cannot be. I sincerely hope that the procedure and House affairs
committee looks at this issue very carefully.
The deputy House leader on the government side talked about
confidence and how she felt that this was being dealt with in
open debate in caucus. Open debate in caucus is an oxymoron
because caucus, as we all know, is a secret debate where the
votes are in secret and where parties do their own internal
management in private so that they do not have to wash their
dirty linen in public.
Therefore, this open debate in caucus is an oxymoron. If we are
to have open debate, surely it should be on the floor of this
House because that is why this House is here. That is why we
have Hansard. That is why we have television. That is why
we have recorded debates. That is why this House is for open
debate. To take it from the floor of this place and put it into
the caucus room where no one has any say, other than their own
particular members, is an affront to democracy. We should be
doing it right here on the floor of the House.
We have seen how confidence has applied. It is well recognized
that confidence is rigid in this country. It is more rigid than
in any other democracy in the world. If one person steps out of
line they are subject to severe punishment for their misdemeanour
or their perceived misdemeanour. When they stand up for what
they believe in or for their constituents they are disciplined.
I think of the member for York South—Weston who now sits as an
independent because he stood up and voted for what he believed
in.
Therefore, confidence is a lever to guarantee that people fall
in line regardless of their wishes and it must be relaxed.
1210
I would like to turn to “The Business of Supply: Completing
the Circle of Control”. The procedure and House affairs
committee has a road map to deal with the business of supply.
Many hours went into preparing this document. It has been called
the best document on the business of supply in 50 years. It
deserves to be adopted. It has the full support of government
members who sat on this committee. It has the full endorsation
of the deputy whip on the government side who was the chairman of
this committee. It was adopted by the procedure and House
affairs committee in the last parliament and tabled in this
House. It deserves serious consideration because it gives
parliament more authority over the business of supply. It gives
parliament some discretion to move the money around. It calls
for the creation of an estimates committee to study the
expenditures on an ongoing basis. It deals with things that we
never have before us in the House of Commons today called tax
expenditures.
The Minister of Finance will stand in this place and announce a
change in the tax rules. Let us take a simple example that
people can identify with, RRSP deductions. They are a good thing
but we never have the opportunity to debate whether we are
getting value for our money through the amount of taxes that are
forgone. Does it provide the benefits that are equal to or
greater than the taxes that are forgone? Surely we need some
methodology to talk about tax expenditures.
We need to have some methodology to talk about crown
corporations that suck up taxpayers' money by the millions of
dollars, yet there is no formal mechanism for having a debate.
We need to talk about loan guarantees that show up in the
estimates as a $1 item. They may be for a $100 million guarantee
to a foreign country or for the sale of wheat or for whatever,
but they show up as a $1 item. Only when the guarantee is called
in and it is too late to do anything about it are we asked to
approve the expenditure to fulfil our guarantee, again without
debate.
There is great room for improvement in the business of supply.
I hope that the procedure and House affairs committee will look
at this document, “Completing the Circle of Control”, recognize
that it has all party endorsation, adopt it and amend the
standing orders accordingly.
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I rise in the House today to talk briefly about the
business of private members and the recently filed report from
the procedure and House affairs committee.
The current system of selecting votable motions and bills is
based on a draw. Often there are up to 300 bills sitting in the
bin and they are drawn for order of precedence. As all members
know, they are then sent to a committee that is comprised of a
chair from the government and one representative from each of the
House parties. They decide which bills will be votable. At any
given moment there will be five votable bills and five votable
motions working their way through the House.
In 1985 the McGrath committee reviewed this business. It is an
ongoing review. We continued it in the last parliament and we
revised it in this parliament. It was referred to the House
leader as a report, which went through the procedure and House
affairs committee. It makes a few recommendations that I think
are along the line of fine tuning or making the business of
private members more reflective of what members of the House
want.
Currently we separate the listings of motions and bills. As I
said, we can select five of each to be votable and working
through the business of the House. There is time allocated for
the debate of Private Members' Business and private members'
debates often result in a vote.
It is not a static system. As I have mentioned, it has evolved
over the years as a response to the demands and concerns of
members and it is continuously being improved and redefined.
The study that was undertaken in the last parliament was
endorsed by this parliament. The recommendations include four or
five quite different suggestions.
1215
One is the concept of a maximum of five votable bills and
motions. The committee decided this was an artificial separation.
Given that they get the same amount of time for debate in the
House, we would like to see that artificial separation removed.
In other words any combination of 10 could come forward and be on
the House agenda.
The second recommendation was to alternate the precedence order.
Right now the bill is put into a draw and is selected literally
through the luck of the draw. Sometimes there are 300 bills. A
private member's bill can stagnate for many years. Sometimes they
are drawn on a regular basis. My colleague from Mississauga
South is probably the champion having had more bills drawn. He
probably has shamrocks hanging from both ears.
The system we recommend so that the bill could be pulled out of
that lottery and brought before the private members committee
much more quickly is that the bill could be jointly seconded by
100 members of the House represented by at least 10 members from
each of the parties in the House. It is not an easy process but
it is more orderly. A bill that is of great interest to a
majority of the members of the House could then go through the
seconding process with 100 signatures and go before the private
members committee to decide on its votability. We consider this
a rather strong departure from the lottery system that is
currently in effect.
The third recommendation concerns when a draw is held before a
deferred vote. Votes are deferred all the time and we defer
private members' votes. The debate is finished in the House, the
reading is finished, everybody has spoken on the bill and the
vote is deferred to the following Tuesday for example. We would
like it to be deemed off the list at that point, once it is
deferred. When there is another draw we could then fill that
space with a new private member's bill. This is a housekeeping
rule which gives more bills the opportunity to be deemed votable.
Another recommendation concerns an issue on which a lot of
concern was expressed by many private members who came before our
committee. When a bill finishes its debate in the House it is
referred to a committee for amendments and discussion. Sometimes
because the committee is too busy or maybe because there is an
ulterior motive that is implied, the bill dies there. We believe
that once the bill has had second reading and it has been voted
upon in the House it is no longer a private member's bill but is
a bill of the House.
We recommend that after second reading when a bill is referred
to a committee it becomes a bill of the House and the committee
shall report within 60 sitting days. The committee can ask for
one extension of 30 days if it is too busy to have considered the
bill. If at the end of that period there are no amendments
suggested, the bill should be deemed reported without amendments.
That will cause all committees to make sure that a private
member's bill is treated in the same fashion as a bill of the
House.
The fifth recommendation appears on the surface to be a rather
frivolous recommendation. Right now we like to separate private
members' bills from government legislation. In the normal system
of voting we start in the front rows and work our way back. We
suggest for private members' bills on both sides of the House
that the sponsor vote first and then the voting begin in the back
rows and work its way forward. We think this would keep everyone
honest. There would be no influence by the front rows on either
side of the House. We thought this would be an interesting
diversion and a way of keeping the thought processes involved
with private members' bills totally independent.
Members may recall that the House was prorogued halfway through
the 35th parliament. The House leader introduced a bill that said
all bills, government legislation and private members' bills,
would be reintroduced at exactly the same stage they were when
the House prorogued. This is not from one parliament to another;
it is when there is a prorogation in the middle of a parliament.
We thought it worked well. It speeded up the process and it
stopped private members' bills from dying and having to go back
through the lottery. We recommend that be enshrined in the rules
governing private members business.
Legal advice is very important to private members when drafting
private members' bills. We want the bills to be as accurate as
possible, as votable as possible and as realistic as possible.
We suggest that the House appoint a law clerk and parliamentary
counsel for the House of Commons who would be responsible for the
provision of legislative drafting services specifically to
members, who would give them unbiased advice and would be without
any party affiliation.
1220
The last recommendation of the report was to give priority to
members who currently do not have a lot of bills being drafted.
In other words a member who went to the clerk's office for a
first effort in a session and did not have three or four other
bills being drafted would be given priority. That encourages as
many members as possible to get involved in the process.
When we held the review which came up with these recommendations
a lot of people said that all private members' bills or motions
should be made votable, that there should be no process to select
votability. A lot of people gave us written submissions. A lot
of people gave submissions in person.
It looks on the surface like a really great idea. Everybody's
bill would be votable. It would cut down dramatically the number
of bills that would have time to go through the House. It would
make each of those bills less important. There would be no way
of jockeying them into importance. Every bill would be voted on
mechanically. The conclusion of the committee at that time was
not to make every bill votable.
I just came out of a procedure and House affairs meeting where
we are talking about it again. We are looking at the criteria.
As I said initially in my remarks, it is an ongoing process. It
is here to serve the backbenchers specifically. It is their
opportunity to draft legislation and to have an impact on the
country and the legislation of the country. We will again revisit
this. It is one of those processes that never stops. We will be
looking at the criteria. We will be looking again at the concept
of making every bill votable.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am delighted to follow the remarks of the member for
Mississauga Centre. I too intend to speak on private members'
business and I endorse many of the recommendations she made.
I begin by referring to the remarks of the member for Calgary
Southwest in his speech a little earlier in this debate. He
suggested that the government side could very easily have free
votes. His proposal was that individual backbench MPs should
always examine legislation and vote exactly according to their
evaluation of that legislation and that it should not be a show
of lack of confidence in the government.
The problem with that, as the member for Calgary Southwest
should know, is that each one of us in the backbench does not
have the resources of the government in examining all the
legislation the government must put forward. We also have
commitments to our ridings. We have commitments and interests and
specializations.
No individual backbencher on the government side or on the
opposition side for that matter can possibly hope to examine
every bit of legislation with the kind of due diligence that is
necessary to always vote independently. We have to trust our
leadership. I do note on the other side that the opposition MPs
also usually trust their leadership and vote with their
leadership.
That is not to say however that there is not a need for more
independence to be shown on behalf of backbench MPs. I think the
solution for that is in improvements in private members'
legislation.
One of the problems is that our role as backbench MPs is not
seen very clearly by the public. What we actually do is work in
committee. We adjust legislation in committee.
Members on the opposition side, and fortunately I am not on the
opposition side, but the opposition MPs by their criticisms
contribute in a major way to the progress of legislation. Their
criticisms enable backbench government members to arm themselves
in caucus to push the government in the direction they want to
go.
For example, the fact that the Reform Party came to parliament
in 1993 in such strength certainly gave some backing to those of
us in the Liberal caucus who are fiscal conservatives and wanted
to push the Minister of Finance in the direction of cutting back
spending and bringing down the deficit. Now there are more
members of the New Democratic Party. This gives, shall we say,
ammunition to those members in the Liberal caucus who want to
push the government in the direction of more social spending.
1225
The opposition makes very important contributions to the
progress of policy and legislation in the House. The problem is
that the public does not see this. Some opposition members from
time to time feel a sense of frustration, as we do occasionally
in the backbench when we are not recognized for the efforts we
make in committee.
We saw an example yesterday in the opposition benches. A member
was terribly frustrated by not getting the attention he felt he
deserved. I am referring to the member for Lac-Saint-Jean who
felt it was necessary to take his seat out to the lobby before
the press in order to get attention. I submit that this was
extremely juvenile and a great disrespect to the rest of the MPs
who do feel that we are contributing but do not have to pull
pranks for the media.
That aside, what can we do as backbench MPs to make the public
see that we do have an important role in this House, a role that
they can see on a daily if not weekly basis? The solution is in
private members' business. We have to expand the opportunities
of meaningful private members' business in this House certainly
to the extent that the member for Mississauga Centre mentioned
but even more so.
There is a great opportunity for private members to engage in
amending existing government legislation. One of the problems now
in parliament is that when the government enacts legislation it
does not come up for review again for approximately 10 years.
This is a formula which exists. It is a tradition in this
parliament.
The reason is that governments feel there would be a lack of
confidence in the government if once the law was passed and went
out and was tested in the field, in Canadian society it was found
to be inadequate in certain ways. Past governments have been
very reluctant to return to the legislation to make the
adjustments that would make that law better.
We as parliamentarians cannot anticipate all the problems of
legislation when we pass it. When legislation gets out into the
community there are inconsistencies. Examples are the tobacco
bill, the gun bill and the competition bill. The competition
bill is 10 years old and we are only revisiting it now with
amendments in Bill C-20.
Private members could play a vital and important role in the
legislative life of this House and this nation by doing more to
amend existing legislation, to fix it up and make it work better
in society. For example the notorious gun bill did go through
but is not working. We as members and the government should not
be afraid if members on all sides of the House introduce an
amendment to the gun bill and support that change. I would
propose that we look in that direction to give backbench MPs a
more meaningful role.
I would also suggest that we do good service to improve private
members' business to take the monopoly of writing legislation
away from the Department of Justice. Almost all meaningful
legislation that comes into this House is written by the
Department of Justice. It is not that the department does a bad
job in general but the job is sometimes inconsistent. It is the
old story that if there is no competition in an endeavour then
the quality of the product deteriorates. If we had better and
more meaningful bills coming from private members through the
legislative counsel rather than through the justice department
maybe we would get an overall improvement in the quality of
legislation that actually comes before this House.
How do we do this? The member for Mississauga Centre made one
very good suggestion. This is a recommendation of the
subcommittee of which she was the chair. She indicated that we
ought to have a system whereby if an individual member has a very
good bill and the member can obtain the support of 100 seconders
on all sides of the House including the opposition benches, that
bill should jump the lottery and should get on the order of
precedence.
1230
That is a way of getting quality bills introduced in the House
by private members. It is a very good suggestion. I hope that
the report which contains that recommendation is tabled by the
government and I hope the government will show a certain amount
of sympathy for doing so.
We also have to make more time for meaningful Private Members'
Business. It is difficult to extend the hours of the House. I
would suggest that we do away with private members' motions.
Private members' motions do not accomplish anything in the House
and we all know it. It is an opportunity for partisan point
scoring by the opposition. That is fine and so it should be.
Sometimes it is an opportunity for partisan point scoring by
members on the government backbenches. The reality is that
private members' motions do not commit the government to do
anything. It is a charade. I recommend very strongly that
private members' motions be set aside in favour of more private
members' bills. That is what we want.
There is one flaw in this scenario. It goes back to what the
member for Calgary Southwest said. If we give this kind of
initiative to backbench MPs will they use it wisely? Will
backbench MPs on all sides of the House debate private members'
legislation intelligently, coherently and with due diligence? We
are all human on both sides of the House and sometimes we do not
do our homework. One of the problems of giving a lot more power
to private members to create legislation is that occasionally bad
bills will slip through.
We have a new role for the Senate. The Senate is dying to have
something more useful to do. If we improve the quality of
legislation that comes from Private Members' Business and make it
meaningful, the Senate will have the time to give it due
diligence scrutiny. It would be a new role for the Senate.
There would be more public confidence in the Senate. Improving
private members' bills would improve public confidence in
backbench MPs and in the Senate.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is a
pleasure to rise in this House today to discuss our Standing
Orders to determine whether some changes may be warranted and
also whether some of the existing provisions should be not only
maintained but strengthened.
I salute the open-mindedness of the members of all political
parties in this House, and particularly the government party,
which has agreed to hold a debate on the Standing Orders in this
House.
I think it is rather unusual to have parliamentarians discuss
the Standing Orders in this place to allow us to begin a review
process that will no doubt be taken further by the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
That having been said, while the open-mindedness of the members
of this Parliament ought to be saluted, I must immediately
express a concern. It is one thing to discuss the Standing
Orders in this House, but it is another to take into account the
recommendations, comments and concerns voiced in this place
today.
Do government and other members of this House have any intention
of following up on this debate?
Will this not just be another of those sterile debates we have
all too often in this place, debates that end up leading nowhere
or to a unilateral decision by the government? I certainly hope
not and I do hope the government will take note of what is said
here today.
Right off, I would like to address the issue of the privilege of
this House. The Standing Orders set out the procedure applicable
when the privileges of this House have been breached.
Parliamentary jurisprudence, customs and traditions and even the
Parliament of Canada Act all show that there are, in this House,
a number of privileges enjoyed not only by the House as a whole
but also by individual members in the performance of their
parliamentary duties here in this chamber.
1235
We are told that for centuries these privileges have been sacred
and carry with them certain safeguards. In the past, this House,
members of this House and other parliaments in the British
tradition have used provisions provided for in the Standing
Orders, the legislation and case law to have their privileges
upheld, privileges which, it must be pointed out, are considered
sacred.
Unfortunately we cannot but notice that through the years, maybe
as a result of changing political mores, maybe as a result of
expanding communications, who knows, the procedures to uphold
these privileges have become increasingly toothless.
It has become increasingly difficult to have the Speaker of the
House rule that, in a matter which, in the opinion of some
members of this House, represents an obvious breach of the
privileges of the House, there is indeed a prima facie case of
privilege or even contempt of Parliament. Once we have gone
successfully through this first screening, the assessment of the
matter raised in the House by the Speaker in his wisdom, then we
must debate a motion usually aimed at referring the matter to
the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
First I must point out that, over the years, there might have
been, on the part of members of this House and the Speaker,
regardless of the person who sits in the chair, a lack of
political will not only to enforce procedures protecting
parliamentary privilege in a concrete way, but also to consider
any measure aimed at protecting it as being of the utmost
importance.
When we debate privilege, which is often referred to the
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, we are faced with yet
another problem. If the question involves in any way the
government majority or a parliamentary majority made up
sometimes of only the party in power or other times of the party
in power and certain opposition parties, it becomes absolutely
impossible to have it recognized that yes indeed there has been
a breach of the House's privileges.
I am referring specifically to the case that has been before the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The facts
are as follows. We passed a motion in the House to refer to the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs the matter of
the statements made by certain MPs in the Ottawa Sun that, prima
facie, constituted, or could constitute, breaches of the
privileges of the House.
Obviously, an objective examination shows that these statements
were made only by members of the government party or of the
Reform party.
Accordingly, when we examined the matter in committee, the chair
and members did everything they could to squelch debate, to keep
light from being shed on this very murky affair. The report is
therefore very indulgent—I use the term deliberately—with respect
to the members of the House who made these statements.
1240
Traditionally, the Speaker of the House does not interfere in
decisions taken in committee and in decisions taken by committee
chairs.
This, I think, is an aspect of the Standing Orders that deserves
closer examination because, although each one of us firmly
believes that the person who occupies the chair in this House
will act in an objective and impartial manner, so as to protect
all members' individual rights, we do not, nor will we ever,
feel this way about committee chairs. Why? For the simple
reason that these chairs are partisan.
For the most part, they are Liberal MPs with partisan interests
to defend—which leads me to another question.
As I said, we do not have the absolute conviction that committee
chairs will apply, not only the Standing Orders of the House,
but also the spirit that lies behind them, which is protection
of individual rights, the parliamentary rights of each and every
member in this Parliament.
Unfortunately, we have had this unpleasant experience in the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in connection
with the référence to committee of statements made by members of
this House to a daily newspaper which, in the opinion of the
Speaker, might constitute contempt of the House.
I shall return later to that question of contempt, if time
allows, but I would like to take advantage of this debate to
raise the question of committee chairs. Traditionally, at least
two committees are headed by members of the opposition, the
Standing Committee on Public Accounts, and the Standing Joint
Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations. It stands to reason that
this should be the case, since the very nature of the control
Parliament must exercise over the government's actions is at
stake.
It would appear that, in the case of the Standing Joint
Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations, since the Reform Party
refused to take the chair position, the Liberals decided that
they would, thus usurping the tradition that this position is
reserved for the opposition.
In keeping with the very logic of this committee's serving as a
control over government regulation through this Parliament, the
position of chair ought to have gone to the next largest party
in opposition after the official opposition.
We will also have to be looking very soon at the matter of the
weekly timetable for House sittings, and I trust that changes
will be made which will allow more freedom
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is interesting to hear members opposite speak about the need
to show respect for this place. In a moment I want to get into
some of that and some of what we might describe as antics that
have occurred in the House which the House has no ability to deal
with and that some members opposite have been perpetrating on the
Canadian public.
I am a new member of the House of Commons since the last
election but I have some comparisons that I would like to share
between this place and the provincial legislature of Ontario.
We have heard speakers talk about the need to make Private
Members' Business easier to deal with, the need to bring them
forward and make them votable as they say. I certainly concur
with all that.
While there is a lot to be said for our parliamentary democratic
system, there is some frustration that members on all sides feel
when it comes to putting forth ideas and making achievements.
1245
To give an example, when I arrived here I noticed that we use
analog clocks in this room. Our speeches are timed to a 10
minute timeframe. We share our time with other members. I
suggested to the Speaker that it would be nice to have a digital
clock, start at 10 minutes and have it count down to zero in
order to avoid the Speaker's having to cut the member off at the
end of debate. Interestingly enough, I received a letter from
the Speaker saying they have adopted my suggestion. So my first
great claim to fame in Ottawa is that we are going to have
digital clocks installed.
An hon. member: What is the problem?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: The problem is it is going to probably
take two years because we have to wait for the renovation. It is
not as simple as taking a clock off the wall, but at least it is
progress.
One of the things soon learned when becoming a parliamentarian
at any level is that you have to be prepared to accept your
achievements in small doses. I was pleased in my last session in
the Ontario legislature to sponsor a private member's bill that
would prohibit young people under the age of 18 from buying
lottery tickets. At first blush this was questioned as can they
do that now. People were stunned. I remember the premier of the
day, Premier Rae, being astounded to find out that there were
kids lined up in the corner store playing Pro Line sports. They
were actually betting their lunch money on Monday night football
or on the outcome of the NHL hockey game. Everyone was astounded
to find out it was happening.
The subsequent investigation and publicity took it right across
Canada and everyone said the kids should not be able to do that.
I think our society really feels that we should not have kids
gambling on pro sports in corner stores. That is certainly not
the vision of the kind of Canada that I or members in this place
would like to see.
That private member's bill was subsequently supported
unanimously in the parliament of Ontario and it went through
first, second, third reading and royal assent in 16 sessional
days. This was a record in the province of Ontario and unheard
of in Canada for any private member's bill to receive that kind
of attention and success.
I recall as I walked out of the chamber everyone slapping me on
the back and congratulating me and my colleagues. My comment to
one of them was thank you, but the problem is this appears to be
as good as it gets. I really think that is the issue. We come
here in numbers of 301 with views, aspirations, goals, visions
and with information from our ridings. Perhaps we have different
political perspectives on issues of concern to our community but
we come here looking for ways to make these issues reality. The
system is such that in my respectful submission my experience
here is that one can accomplish more through the caucus system
than one can through the official system of committees and
parliament. I think that is wrong.
The reality is that in the experience of the caucus that I am a
part of the government listens to the people in the backbench who
are bringing messages and information from their ridings. I have
seen numerous examples where policy of this government has been
changed by intervention from members in the House of Commons who
sit on the backbenches. This is a very positive thing, something
we can be proud of and something our constituents should know,
but it should go beyond that. There should be an opportunity
that goes beyond hoping your name gets pulled out of a drum to
introduce private members' bills. If eliminating the motions
which my colleague suggested earlier would provide more time for
private members' bills then I think that is a very constructive
suggestion.
I want to talk about some of the comments I have heard and that
are heard from time to time about members suggesting we need to
have more concern about member privileges. The word privileges
tends to dominate the landscape here in Ottawa.
Members are always concerned about their privileges. We had a
huge debate because one of the members made disparaging remarks
at the Olympics about our flag. We had a huge debate over
whether her privileges had been violated. We have other members
who stand up from time to time about comments made outside this
place, concerned about their privileges.
1250
There is another word that I do not hear enough members in this
place talking about and that in my view the standing orders do
not address. That word is responsibilities. Along with
privileges come responsibilities. When we think of what is going
on in Ireland, when we think of war torn countries where their
solution is murder and mayhem to political differences, when we
realize that the difference between the Prime Minister's desk and
the Leader of the Opposition's desk is the distance of two people
holding out extended swords and the tips simply touching, when we
realize that our weapons are our minds and our ammunition is our
words and that in this great country we simply use this
institution to put forth those viewpoints, we realize what a
cherished responsibility we all have.
I was very disappointed in light of that issue of being
responsible to the House of Commons and responsible to the people
of Canada because I believe those two issues are intertwined; we
cannot show disrespect in this place without showing disrespect
for all Canadians.
The member for Beauharnois—Salaberry has made comments that
were quoted when he was a parliamentary mission to justify his
reasoning for the separation of the province of Quebec, saying
that Quebec would be more democratic and more respectful of
minority rights than under the Canadian federal system if it
separated. That is contempt for this place. That is contempt for
this country. It has no place in this chamber or in this great
nation.
I think it is unfortunate that in this House our standing rules
do not have a mechanism to call that member forward to stand up
and be accountable for the remarks he made while on taxpayer
expense travelling under the privilege of being a member of this
House and denigrating this country and this House and everything
we stand for.
Finally, the nonsense I saw yesterday of a 24 year old member of
the Bloc standing up and taking his chair out of this place in
some kind of a demonstration is just the silliest thing I have
ever seen in my days of watching this place. I have a 27 year old
who left home recently. He moved out on his own and he had the
good sense not to steal the furniture. I would suggest that the
member opposite was just grandstanding to try to make a point of
some kind. He should realize that maybe in his case we should
charge him with theft of chair and maybe we should change the
locks. Once a young man leaves home it seems to me that young
man should try to find it on his own.
I would hope that we could look at a way to put in place rules
in the standing orders to hold all members of this House
accountable for their actions, to make them respectful of this
place both in the House of Commons and outside when they are on
official duties. I would like to see that kind of amendment take
place that would bring true dignity and responsibility to
Canada's House of Commons.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
take part in the debate to improve—and I know you personally
care a lot about this issue, Mr. Speaker—the democratic process
and respect for minority groups in every assembly, particularly
here in the Parliament of Canada.
I did not much appreciate the comments made by the member who
just spoke. He took advantage of an anecdotal situation that
occurred yesterday and that involved one of our young
colleagues, who is about the same age as our children.
Our young colleague was making a statement, asking us to be more
receptive, to pay more attention to members who do not
necessarily belong to parties that are well represented here.
Indeed, it must be understood that numbers, not substance, are
what matters in this House.
1255
In all assemblies, what people care about and what inspires
them is ideas, not screams.
Over the years I noticed that, as a rule, it is those with the
best and most inspiring ideas that we try to silence.
I do not intend to pass judgment on yesterday's incident in the
House involving the member for Lac-Saint-Jean. Instead, I will try
to be more open and receptive to the message from our fellow
citizens, who want Parliament to be a place where the best ideas
are often put forward by backbenchers or by members of small
parties, and want these members to be heard.
I am pleased to sit with the hon. member for Shefford, who cares
a great deal about young people, children and families. Just
about all her comments in the House are aimed at improving the
well-being of families that have problems.
We are here to promote our ideas. The message sent to us
yesterday is that poverty is on the rise across the country. We
have not even been here one year, and on two or three occasions,
I had the opportunity to express my concern about the
impoverishment of our society, even though economic indicators
and figures may say that progress is being made. The fact is
that poverty is very much on the rise.
I have risen in the House on two or three occasions to question
the government with respect to the message we received from the
Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops about the disappearance
of all social infrastructures. I would have liked a debate on
that. I have put this question to various government members on
two or three occasions. Yet, governments are no longer doing
anything to remedy the lack of support for social agencies that
help the most disadvantaged.
After I lost my seat in 1993, I had the opportunity to work as a
volunteer with a national organization known as the United Way.
This organization does extraordinary things to help the very
agencies that help the most disadvantaged. I have not had much
feedback or positive reaction indicating a new awareness of this
gradual disappearance and weakening of the agencies there to
help the most disadvantaged, there, in fact, to help the
government ensure that the poorest members of society receive a
fairer share.
We are here to convey both our party policies and our personal
points of view on a variety of issues. There is not a lot of
leeway. Things are improving, but too slowly for my taste.
I can give an example. The Parliament of Canada is not
particularly accustomed to the presence of five parties here in
the House. That is too bad because, with respect to policies
that are very important for the future of our country,
particularly everything to do with the throne speech, the
government's general policies are set out, not necessarily in
any detail, but very clearly.
A party such as ours, a national party whose roots predate
Confederation, has tried in vain to make it possible for its
amendments to be put to a vote.
It has been impossible. I think that, just because there are
only 20 of us, and that will soon drop to 19, this is no reason
why we should not have access to an amended parliamentary
procedure allowing our amendments with respect to the throne
speech to be voted on.
1300
Sometimes, all it takes is one parliamentarian. It has happened
in the past, and the history of the House of Commons shows that
it is possible for one parliamentarian to push through measures
that are extremely constructive and important for the future of
the country. We were not given the opportunity to do so during
the throne speech debate.
It happened again with the budget statement. We suggested
directions we thought were interesting. I am not saying our
ideas are better than those expressed by the other members of
this House. All we wanted was to contribute in a constructive
manner, but we were not allowed to.
Because we are the fifth party in the House, we were unable to
push through what we felt were very progressive measures and I
will give you some examples.
It does not make sense for the government to hoard, keep in the
bank, $19 billion this year in the employment insurance fund.
This is absolutely crazy. At a time of high unemployment, when
we need more money to invest in economic development, in SMBs or
in training, the government is sitting on $19 billion. Moreover,
we were unable to have the motion to drastically reduce
employment insurance premiums, which are still way too high, put
to a vote.
Tax cuts are another example. There is nothing like tax cuts to
boost job creation or the economy. I realize that this
government will argue that they had to reduce the deficit. It is
always the same old song “When the Conservatives were in
office—”
When we were in office, we eliminated the $16 billion current
account deficit. We took structural measures like free trade,
which made our exports grow from $90 billion to $215 billion.
All the Liberals are doing right now is pocketing money and
covering the deficit. I think a more progressive approach is
required and steps should be taken.
To this end, the House of Commons must be more responsive to
initiatives from the NDP and the Progressive Conservative Party.
It is odd that our motions relating to major bills are not
considered votable.
The same is true of committees. We have to wait weeks or months
to obtain committee reports. Yet we draw inspiration from these
reports when we take part in the debates in this House.
With respect to private members' business, I think we will have
to take a very close look at this to ensure greater
responsiveness to such measures, so that as members of the
third, fourth or fifth party represented in the House of
Commons, we can try to put across our ideas, which, I am sure,
would help give Canadian parliamentarians a slightly more
positive image.
In this spirit, I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for granting me the
privilege of expressing my views.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
comment on the motion on our standing orders, pursuant to S. O.
51(1).
I believe this is a worthwhile debate, even if some consider it
a mere formality. The standing orders regulate almost every
aspect of parliamentary procedure, and the legislative process
could not function without them. Let us take the example of a
debate that is still very fresh in our memories, and those of
all Canadians, the flag flap. Without a concise set of standing
orders, the House would find itself in a terrible mess from
which no one would benefit.
In the time available to me I will not be able to address all
questions surrounding the standing orders in any depth.
I will therefore limit my comments to a few areas, and to some
related issues of particular interest to me.
1305
[English]
First I would like to turn to the issue of private members'
bills, clearly a popular topic in today's debate. For many
members, private members' bills are one of the most visible ways
members can influence the debate of the House and reflect the
particular concerns of their constituents. One current problem
with private members' bills is the system of making bills votable
or non-votable.
Currently a very limited number of private members' bills are
deemed votable. This designation is decided unilaterally by a
subcommittee of the House procedural committee. There is no
appeal and no justification given for this decision.
The reasons for the designation of non-votable should be given
to the MP sponsoring the bill. A right of appeal of the
subcommittee's decision should be created. This right of appeal
would be before the substantive committee most directly concerned
by the subject matter of the bill. The committee would be asked
to study the bill for a limited period of time to give the author
of the bill a chance to present the problem and the context that
gave rise to the legislation.
Without unduly tasking committee time this hearing would provide
a more visible record of the myriad of concerns that members
raise through private members' bills.
I understand that currently there is an examination of the
legislative and procedural changes proposed in the last
parliament by the House affairs and procedural committee. This
report contained many suggestions designed to increase the number
of private members' bills, to increase the number of bills that
would be votable and to increase the number of those bills that
could be adopted by the House.
As the government House leader mentioned in his presentation on
this issue, any of these changes would require the House to
perform the close scrutiny of private members' bills that
currently occurs on government bills. It is clear that increased
scrutiny would fall in many ways to committees. My suggestion
about the right of appeal of votable designation would be a
compromise between the present system and the proposals of the
House affairs and procedural committee.
Committees and the House would not be overtaxed with frivolous
legislation while private members' bills would get the hearing
sponsoring MPs deserve and desire.
A related topic is the availability of legislative drafting
counsel for private members' bills. Hon. members will be aware
of the consternation expressed by some members during the
previous parliament regarding the availability of legislative
counsel for private members' bills. Essentially this problem
arose as the private members' office lost legislative drafting
advisers.
In my opinion the innovative project between the House and the
legislative drafting masters program at the University of Ottawa
should be attempted again. This kind of practical experience is
essential for graduates. In addition, these students would
provide an important service for members of parliament.
As lawyers, these masters students are well aware of the
confidential relationship between the solicitor and their client.
Furthermore, given the success of the policy in legal internships
currently available to members' offices, I feel that a similar
approach to legislative drafting would be welcome.
[Translation]
I would like to comment on the distinction to be made between
bills that are financial in nature from those that are not. I
feel, and I believe I am not the only one, that more and more
private member's bills are financial in nature.
Subsequent to a reform to the standing orders in 1993, a member
can, under certain circumstances, introduce a bill which
involves public moneys, provide it obtains a royal
recommendation before third reading.
There is no provision, moreover, to prevent a member from
introducing a bill which would reduce allocations of funds.
This raises matters of principle, however. The British
parliamentary system has bequeathed us certain basic principles
we have a duty to respect, including that of responsible
government.
Canadians insist that their government be answerable to it for
its decisions, particularly anything of a financial nature.
1310
This can only be the case if we allow members of Parliament to
introduce tax bills and if we pass these bills. We should
probably review the related provisions of the standing orders,
to ensure that the principle of government accountability is
fully maintained.
[English]
Let me turn briefly to another issue that has been vigorously
discussed in this parliament, that of electronic voting. Let me
say from the outset that I do not support this initiative.
Forcing all members to stand in their place and be counted is an
important part of the job of a member of parliament. When
sensitive issues are debated and decided members are forced to
declare their vote or their lack of vote as the case may be. I
feel strongly that electronic voting would remove some of the
symbolic accountability from this place.
[Translation]
I have one last point before concluding. The standing orders
provide that, during an opposition day, a member of the party
tabling the opposition motion can amend the wording of the main
motion. Since the standing orders also allow the member of the
opposition party who begins the debate to share his or her time
with another member, that second member has the first
opportunity to propose an amendment to the wording of the
motion.
However, this prevents any other member of the House from
proposing an amendment to the main motion, and not only to the
amendment to the motion. This procedural tactic is unfair, in my
opinion, and the standing orders should be reviewed and amended
accordingly.
I hope members of this House share my views on these issues
relating to our rules.
It is our responsibility to ensure the standing orders are as
concise as possible, if this House is to operate effectively.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to enter the debate today. It is an interesting
debate because it is one of those occasions where we actually
have a debate in the House of Commons. People come with ideas
and exchange them. Far too often we see ourselves here with our
set pieces and not listening, but I think the debates on the
standing order changes have been useful and helpful. Perhaps it
is because they affect us all as parliamentarians.
In the brief time allotted to me I would like to talk about six
different areas of the standing orders which I believe are in
need of change. The first relates to the taking of votes and the
practice of applying votes, the same practice we have been using
since the start of the 35th parliament.
While every member of the House would agree that this practice
has greatly reduced the time it takes to record votes, it is also
true that this time and money saving measure can and has been
denied by only a single voice. In other words, even though our
vote is recorded in Hansard as having been cast, any one
member can stand and say he or she wants everybody in the House
to stand again, again and again, as many as 20 to 30 times in a
single evening. Because what is most important is the vote
itself that is a time waster.
My first recommendation would be that the procedure of applying
votes by party should be institutionalized in our rules. Instead
of requiring unanimous consent, what is now common practice, a
minimum of five members would be required to force a traditional
stand up vote. Such a standing order change would not infringe
on the voting rights of anyone but would be consistent with the
rule requiring five members to force a recorded vote. In that
sense it is consistent, would speed things up and would make it a
regular part of voting.
I would especially like to pay tribute to someone who works in
our House leader's office, Mr. David Prest who first came up with
this idea back in the last parliament and brought it forward as a
time saver. One day, if we were ever to send to Mr. Prest the
amount of money the House saved by using his original idea for
applying votes, he could retire a very wealthy man. My hat goes
off to him for that initiative.
The second issue I would like to address is that of House orders
or motions which direct a standing committee on how to act. The
problem I see is that the House may pass a motion, as it did in
the last parliament, to create, for example, a victims bill of
rights, or earlier in this parliament a motion to toughen up the
drunk driving laws. Once that motion is passed by the House and
sent to committee there is no guarantee that it will be dealt
with or resolved in committee.
1315
In both instances just mentioned, the motions were brought
forward by the Reform Party and were supported by a majority of
the members of the House. Yet no action was taken at committee.
It is for this reason that I recommend that committees be
required to report to the House on the progress of any order
given to them by the House within a prescribed number of sitting
days. There should not be any open endedness about these. When
they are referred to committees, they should have to report back
by a certain date.
Third, I would like to touch on a specific standing order which
all parties in this House have spoken against at various times,
Standing Order 56. Under this standing order when unanimous
consent is denied, a minister can move a motion without notice,
without debate or amendment to suspend the standing orders.
While 25 members rising in their seats can have that motion
withdrawn, 25 members is a far cry from unanimous consent. At any
other time when someone asks for permission to table a piece of
paper, to put a motion before the House, any one person can stop
that by saying no to the unanimous consent.
Standing Order 56, which gives a minister special power to
suspend the standing orders, is in my opinion dictatorial and an
abusive rule. That is why I recommend that Standing Order 56 be
deleted when we go through these standing orders.
The fourth item I want to address is Standing Order 73. It
allows the government to designate that a bill be referred to
committee before second reading. This process evolved, when I
was first here, in the 35th parliament. It has evolved, I do not
think intentionally, into a shortcut for the government which
basically restricts one stage of the legislative process to 180
minutes of debate. The limiting of debate on any bill should be
considered on a case by case basis which only the House
collectively can decide. This should not be a decision left
solely to the government which can unilaterally decide to limit
debate on a bill. Therefore I recommend that Standing Order 73
be deleted.
During that debate on Standing Order 73 it may be that some
people will say we need something in there to allow for the
flexibility of amendments, in other words when amendments can
come to the House. If this is the case, that is the only part of
that standing order that should remain. If the House decides to
amend rather than delete this standing order, I would recommend
there be restrictions on the types of bills that are allowed to
be considered by Standing Order 73. In other words, bills based
on ways and means motions should not be allowed to proceed in
this fashion. We do not want to see rules of the House used to
limit debate. That is a decision for the House as a whole, not
for the government side alone.
My fifth point relates to the question and comment period that
follows most speeches in the House. Under the current rules the
most important speakers—it could be argued the most
important—cannot be questioned in debate. In other words, if
the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition or the minister
sponsoring the bill speaks on the bill, we cannot as members of
parliament question the minister, the Leader of the Opposition or
the Prime Minister following their speech. What may be very
intriguing or may set the agenda for the entire bill or the day's
debate, instead of a question and answer and a give and take on
that very important speech, there is nothing. We are not allowed
to have an exchange.
The few times that we have asked for unanimous consent to allow
that exchange to take place have been some of the best debates in
the House. It is between a very knowledgeable minister, a very
concerned backbencher on one side of the House or the other. That
give and take has made for some very good dynamics and
interesting debate in the House. A provision should be introduced
to allow for questions and comments for those people.
Finally, I would like to address the issue of committee reports
tabled in this House. The vast majority of these reports are
never adopted by the House let alone acted on. The
accountability of the government with regard to its response to
committee reports must be improved. I think of times when
reports come from the procedure and House affairs committee, a
committee I sit on. It may have to do with a question of supply.
It is tabled in the House.
1320
The House adopts that it be tabled but there is no vote on
whether it is concurred in. In other words, for the folks who
are watching on TV, if we put a concurrence motion forward, we
start the debate. I say I would like to debate the tabling of
that report and I would like to debate the contents of that
report. Here is my motion and away we go. We can do that. We
start the debate. We give our points of view and maybe one or
two others do. The government inevitably and repeatedly will get
up and say it is a nice little debate here, folks, but we move we
return to the orders of the day. As soon as the government does
that, the debate is finished. Instead of dealing with that
report, the report instead of becoming a report of the House
drops to the bottom of the government order paper, not the
House's order paper.
I say those reports are the property of the House and should be
dealt with by the House. It is not right when they are defeated
like that or a motion to go to government orders occurs that the
report becomes a government order itself. That is not a
government order. I would argue that is a committee report and
it is not the property of the government.
In other words, the procedure where a concurrence motion becomes
a government order once debate on the motion is concluded should
be disallowed. It should come back at another date for further
debate and a decision by the House.
The government should not have control over this process. That
is why the further recommendation on that is that the House
always be permitted to have a free vote on a committee
concurrence motion, if it is in the interest of the House. Many
of those motions are adopted by unanimous consent. They are
routine motions and we do not want to tie up the House or the
voting time of the House.
We will be having a report soon from the procedure and House
affairs committee again on the referral about the comments of
some of the members of the House and whether they were
contemptuous. That will come forward in a report. It will be
tabled in the House. I would like the House to decide on that.
The report from the committee is one thing but because that was a
decision of the House to send that to committee there is no
decision of the House to put it to bed once and for all.
We end up with a motion or a report and it just hangs there.
There is no final determination of what to do with it, whether
the House supports it or opposes it. It just sits there
festering away, waiting for a nice day.
Those changes would make the House more responsive. It would
make it fairer to the House as a whole and not just the
government side. I think it would make things quicker and
therefore cheaper. It would be better all around for both the
government and the opposition benches.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
today's Order Paper provides that we should look at the Standing
Orders and procedure of the House and its committees.
This is, in fact, a very important topic, given the government
machinery and the legal and financial issues we look at here. I
think it is extremely important that parliamentarians be able to
say what they think about what is going on in the House, and
especially outside it, in committee.
What I find unacceptable, however, is that no follow-up has been
announced.
Members talk, they talk for the sake of talking here, but I
would love to see the government propose substantial amendments
with respect to what goes on in the Parliament of Canada.
Some of the things that go on here are pretty strange. One
example is how committees operate. Since I have only 10 minutes
to speak, I would like to focus more specifically on the issue
of committees.
Since 1993, I have had the opportunity to sit on various
committees, including the Standing Committee on Justice, the
Standing Committee on Finance, and the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs. Each time, the drill is pretty
much the same.
What is most disgraceful is that, when we look at committee
minutes, we see that, when the Conservatives were in power, the
Liberals made remarks about these committees, particularly about
the way they operated.
They were critical of the way committees operated, of the time
allowed the opposition, of the way witnesses were questioned,
and so on.
1325
Now that the Liberals are on the other side of the House, they
behave exactly the same way, and it is all right. This is the
way it is supposed to be. Personally, I believe it should not be
so.
Currently, the government has too much influence on directives
and the way committees work. I believe it is bad, because MPs do
not feel valued when doing very important work in committee,
where they can have direct access to ministers and effect
changes. This is the way it should be in a perfect world, but in
actual fact this is not the case.
Also, I am taking this opportunity, the first I have had in the
House, to draw the attention of the Chair to the issue of quorum
and members who are late for committee sittings. I raised the
issue this morning in committee because this happens all too
often. Again this morning we had to wait for Liberal members who
were late. A committee which was supposed to start at 9 o'clock
started at 9.25 a.m.
As a Bloc Quebecois member from a riding in Quebec I have better
things to do than wait for Liberals so we can have a quorum in
committee. I know I am digressing a bit, but if we want to
improve the way the House operates, government members should at
least have the decency to arrive on time, especially when they
have received proper notice.
This being said, I will return to the topic at hand, which is
the recognition of the work done by committee members, among
other things.
Even though they do not talk about it any more—and I can
understand why—the Liberals opposite will certainly remember
the 1993 red book, which contained a whole chapter on giving MPs
a greater role in the House and in committee.
In reality these red book promises were also broken. Do you know
what is most frustrating for an MP who does his job as a
committee member? I could give you several examples, but I will
talk about a specific bill, the firearms bill.
The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights heard
numerous experts and witnesses, worked hard and travelled across
the country. Individual committee members travelled to various
municipalities and regions to consult local people. We worked
very hard to improve the bill. At the time, the Bloc Quebecois
was the official opposition. This took place during the 35th
Parliament, but I could also talk about the 36th Parliament.
In this case, however, it was so obvious as to be a good
example, in my opinion. The Bloc Quebecois worked like mad to
propose a series of amendments to the government. During the
hearings, which lasted not two or three days but entire weeks,
the justice committee heard witnesses and experts of all kinds.
When the time came to adopt this bill clause by clause and for
the official opposition, which was the Bloc Quebecois at that
time, to submit its amendments, what met our eyes on the other
side? Liberals I had never seen hide nor hair of in the justice
committee, who had no clue what they were doing there
themselves.
They had been given a very precise mandate, however, which was
to help defeat every opposition amendment, and to get the bill
through without any changes.
That bill, on firearms, was highly controversial in all Canadian
provinces, Quebec included. The Minister of Justice of the day
appeared before the committee and we reached agreement on a
point or two.
1330
But as for the rest, the 45 amendments proposed by the Bloc
Quebecois, only two or three were accepted, not during the
committee examination but in negotiations in the parliamentary
corridors. The Liberals who came just to help push the bill
through knew nothing about these negotiations.
This is most deplorable, if one wants to make the work of
members more relevant. Members are not here just to say yes or
no, or to do what a minister tells them to.
Speaking of ministers, another thing that is rather frustrating
to committee members is what happens when the minister
responsible for this or that department comes to visit.
Just yesterday, we had the Minister of Justice come to the
Committee on Justice and Human Rights to debate her department's
budget. What was involved was not $200,000 but millions. For
the Supreme Court alone, the budget is $14 million.
The minister comes, grants us a mere two hours, and we are
supposed to be grateful. There we are, 15 or 16 MPs with some
fairly precise rules to follow, and very few concrete answers
forthcoming from the minister.
What is more, the minister can take up half of the time
allocated to us, when we still have a question or two to ask
her. We ask her to come back, but it is not known when she will
be able to do so. The Minister of Justice is a busy woman, and
all the other ministers are equally busy.
I see that my time is almost up, but I think that if we want to
enhance the contribution made here by members while improving
the parliamentary system, it is time the government took a good
hard look at this issue.
I would have liked to say a few words about references made by
this House in the past, like the last one, which concerned the
Canadian flag. In that case, which was referred to the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, the decision made in
this place had already been concocted by the Liberals and the
Reformers outside this House to stifle the matter as quickly as
possible. And then, to make themselves look good, they referred
the matter to the committee, leaving the final decision up to
members.
It does not work that way. There are things going on behind the
scenes that the public does not see.
To ensure that democracy is protected, time has come for
government members opposite to take their responsibilities and
perhaps to strike a real committee to look into this whole issue
and improve the Canadian democratic system.
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of
today's debate seems to be the collective release of emotions,
group therapy or the promotion of the existing system. As a
young member whose experience is not as extensive as that of
some of his colleagues, I will nonetheless offer a few
suggestions or at least set forth a number of personal
observations.
Of course, the purpose of today's debate is not to call the
parliamentary system into question. One may not like it,
complain about the government, and keep saying that committees
do not operate as they should, but it is important to realize
one thing: we must work together at enhancing the role of
members of Parliament.
There is a price to pay for using British parliamentary rules
and that is the fact that the government sits in this House,
which is not the case in the American system. There are pros and
cons.
It only makes sense that when the government—that is the
executive branch—sits in this House with the legislative
branch, it must have some tools to work with. In politics, we
use checks and balances.
I will not start moaning and say that the situation in
committees is awful. Oddly enough, things work very well in the
agriculture and agri-food committee, on which I sit, and in the
official languages committee. We get along, there is no
arm-twisting, contrary to what some members may claim, and the
ministers do not come and tell us what to do. No, that is not
the way we operate. We understand each other and we operate that
way.
However, I want to deal with the role of a member of Parliament
in the House of Commons.
In my opinion, it is important to give a greater role to
backbenchers, not only to members of the opposition parties, but
also to government members.
1335
Quite often, under the existing procedure on specific issues,
there is a draw; we put members' names in a hat, and then there
is a draw to determine which member can introduce a private
member's bill, but it is a long and frustrating process. I
understand that there used to be a fast track procedure in
place.
I think that if at least 100 members support one of their
colleagues who wants to introduce a private member's bill, this
legislation should get priority.
If several members representing all parties agree on a given
bill and believe there is a consensus, but not necessarily
unanimity, I think it would be appropriate to give back more
power to the lawmakers.
All this would, of course, take place in the context of how
parliament works. Earlier, someone alluded to back room
dealings, saying how awful they are. We will not play holier
than thou today, because there are some who can play that game
really well.
If we asked members how many of them have read all the Standing
Orders of the House of Commons, we might be very disappointed. I
must candidly admit that I did not read them all. It is by
working here that we learn how this place operates.
I remember the late Maurice Bellemare in the National Assembly,
who became minister after Maurice Duplessis told him to learn
the code of procedure. Those who know how to take advantage of
the code of procedure can play a very important role. This is
the way we should look at things.
Of course, the role of a member is to be efficient and
responsible. However, this can be frustrating at times,
especially when one feels that the government is taking too much
space. But, as I mentioned earlier, that is the way the British
parliamentary system works. We have to accept it and use the
procedure to find ways to play a role.
In our system, the legislative and the executive are one.
Therefore, to form the government, it takes a majority. A party
must have a majority. Thus, Bloc members will always complain
because they will never form the government.
But one thing is certain: we are so democratic here that we let
people say just about anything in the House, and we hear them
often. Not only are the Bloc members allowed to say anything
they want, but they leave with the furniture. Some are putting
together a trousseau and taking the chairs. This is so
democratic.
What is certain is that we have an important role to play. We
must look into ways to improve operations. Earlier we talked
about committees. I believe that when everybody is acting in
good faith and interested in making things run smoothly, we can
get along.
A case in point is the fisheries and oceans committee, which was
supposed to enjoy greater autonomy.
If there are people who still say that the government is
twisting their arm, I think they should take another look at
things, and rethink how it works.
When we listened to the chair, our friend from Newfoundland, it
was very clear that he had done his homework. So, what am I
saying today? If we all do our homework, if we learn our
procedure and how things are supposed to be done, we can achieve
our goals.
Now, it is clear that the member, despite everything, may feel
undervalued. He feels that way because he sometimes has the
impression that, as a backbencher or opposition member, he does
not have direct access to certain things, or he feels that the
government in power can run the whole show. I must say that I
completely disagree.
A member who does his work well and learns all the basics can
achieve his goals.
Undoubtedly, there are times when we are overloaded. I myself
sit on three or four committees. It is clear that we cannot
always delve deeper and keep up with everything. That is when
it becomes necessary to help each other and to find the best way
of doing things.
We have often, however, discussed the issue of how voting takes
place.
1340
I must admit that I find it a bit tiresome when one person rises
and calls for a recorded vote. As long as we agree to either
support or reject a motion, the whip usually says that, with the
unanimous consent of the House, the members will vote for or
against.
It is clear that a member is not most effective when he must
rise each time. Furthermore, it is clear that the whole issue
of electronic voting has been the subject of numerous
discussions, but sight must not be lost of the role the member
plays by taking part.
Taking the floor time after time on the same subject, whether on
the amendments or something else, is an enormous waste of very
precious time. For us, time is precious, and I agree with the
hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm on that. Our time is valuable,
and sometimes there are other things we need to be doing.
Yet again, I am soft-pedalling it here because democracy is what
this is all about. Respect for the institutions and traditions
has made the country work. Compared to other countries, we
probably have one of the best parliamentary systems in the
world. That is why we need to be very prudent. We can make
some improvements, adjust certain rules, but it is unthinkable
to question the entire parliamentary system.
Our viewers must not be given the impression that it is not
working, and that some shocking things are going on.
On the contrary, I think we can give ourselves good marks. The
MPs are doing a good job, and they have the capacity to assume a
vital role and to represent their constituents well.
In terms of changes to the standing orders, as I have said, I do
not have the experience my colleagues do, as I was elected less
than a year ago, but it is clear from all of the debates that
have gone on since the beginning, on all manner of subjects,
that if MPs had more opportunity on the issue of bills, that
might be worthwhile.
If we could enhance the role of members by improving certain
aspects of private members' business, that might prove equally
worthwhile.
As for motions, if a little more time were available, not Friday
afternoon or some evening in the week, and if we could address
them in “prime time”, as they say, that too might be worthwhile.
I believe that in this context changes need to be made.
I am, however, offended that a good system continually in use is
still constantly being questioned, so that once again the
impression is given that the institution is being devalued. I
am therefore calling upon my colleagues to be very prudent. The
baby must not be thrown out with the bath water, nor the
building demolished just because the roof leaks.
We have a good system and I think we can still do good work,
with a proper knowledge of things and perhaps a few small
improvements. But, please, let us not devalue the institution.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I begin by
apologizing for my voice. I became hoarse by attending a trade
fair. I stood listening to the people of Elk Island for so many
hours that at the end of the day, from listening so much, I was
hoarse. However, I will try to do my best.
In the few minutes I have available I would like to address two
items. I could probably go on for a whole hour if I were given
the opportunity but I want to address but two items.
The first one has to do with standing orders regarding the
elections of the chairman of a committee. On this item my issue
is really quite short. It is very succinct. The way we elect
the chairman and the vice-chairman of a committee right now is
totally inadequate.
For those people in the gallery or watching on television who do
not know how this works, most of the time when there is an
election to a position we accept nominations.
1345
For example, in an ordinary meeting one would ask if there are
any nominations. Whoever is in that group can stand up and
nominate whomever they want. When the list is complete, either
by secret ballot, by show of hands or however it is decided, the
people will choose from the list the candidates they want.
However, it is just not done that way in the committees here in
the House of Commons, but it ought to be.
The way it is done here is that a person proposes a motion and
moves the name of a member to be the chairman. The motion is put
to a vote and when it is decided that is the end of it. The
other people do not even get a chance to have their names put on
the list.
As I have observed, what happens is that normally the first
person to be recognized is a person from the government side.
That may be appropriate, but it does not allow for any other
names to be on the list. Therefore, instead of having a true
choice here, it looks as if this is all orchestrated in advance
and members are merely going through a charade in order to
confirm what has already been decided in the back rooms. This is
not good enough.
What I would like to see happen is that the clerk, who is the
temporary chairperson of the first meeting of a committee, would
recognize whomever wants to make a nomination and then keep on
going until all the nominations are in. I know that in any
committee I have been in not everyone wants to accept the
nomination. In this process they would have to be asked if they
are ready to accept the nomination and, if they are, they are put
on the list.
This list could be easily done by putting the names on a board
or whatever and then everyone could just vote by number in a
secret ballot. The ballots would be counted and the results
would be announced. This, to me, is so simple. It would be the
right way of doing it, as opposed to the way it is done here
where, by and large, everybody gets herded into the corral and
prodded with an electric prod as to what they should do or say. I
think this method would offer a lot more freedom and would be a
more democratic choice.
It could be that a government member will still win. I expect
most of the time that would happen because by the composition of
our committees the majority of the members of the committee are
on the government side. However, sometimes we miss the use of
the talent of very good people who happen to be in one of the
opposition parties who would probably do a very good job.
Maybe it would not be such a bad idea to empower more members of
parliament than just those who happen to be on that side who have
more colleagues than the other guys. A party becomes government
by having more of its colleagues win.
That is my first point. The second point that I want to address
today is the issue of private members' business. I have really
become distressed with private members' business. I will concede
that government bills are not unimportant, many are very
important. However, I have observed that some of the best ideas,
those ideas which more accurately reflect the wishes of the
constituents out there, come from the people who make us hoarse
from listening to them at trade fairs and other places. These are
the ideas which are brought to the House by a member of
parliament.
The member of parliament may agree with his or her constituent's
idea and decide to put it in a private member's bill. Lo and
behold, the member does that and it now becomes a process almost
as unlikely as that of winning the lottery in Canada: Will this
bill ever get passed? A private member's bill has to pass many
hurdles and some are formidable. I will admit, having a House
with 301 members, that it is not practicable for each member to
have a bill every session. It would take an awful lot of
debating time.
1350
However, I really believe that the standing orders should be
changed so that much more of the grassroots work that comes from
our ridings is at least considered in this place where we can
debate the issues and actually vote on them.
I find it particularly offensive when I look at the way private
members' business works now. I will accept the lottery draw.
For those who may not be informed, when we have so many members
of parliament, a large number of them choose to submit private
members' business, either a bill or a motion, and that is
figuratively put into a pail and then they draw the names of the
people who have submitted bills and motions. It is a random
draw. They choose 30 such items to start with and then replenish
from time to time as the list is used up.
It may be a very good issue, but if it is not drawn it will
never be debated. I do not really know a practical way of
overcoming that, except that I would like to see the standing
orders changed to provide more time for private members' business
so that more of these issues can be brought to the House of
Commons for debate and vote.
In any case, once they are drawn, that assures one hour of
debate. If it is a very good issue and it is drawn, the member
will say “Whoopee, my bill got drawn. We get to debate it in
the House of Commons”. They will stand in the House of Commons
and some of their colleagues on both sides of the House will
discuss the pros and cons and, in the end, they will say, “That
was a great time. Let's go home. It is the end of private
members' business”. There is no vote on it. The only ones that
get a vote are the ones which pass the next, almost impossible,
hurdle and that is the hurdle of being approved by a so-called
all party non-biased committee.
Here again many good motions and bills are passed over because
the people on that committee, for whatever reason, think “We
should not really let the other members vote on this”. I know
it is a time constraint because we do have a rule that there be
two full hours of debate on a bill that is going to be voted on,
but I would rather have half as many bills and have them come to
a vote and at least give that individual member the pride of
going back to his riding and saying, “I really tried”. But to
just come with that idea or notion, make it into a lottery, not
even get it voted on, really gives an empty feeling to an
important issue.
I am talking about important things like concurrent sentencing.
I am talking about things like Income Tax Act revisions which are
so important and which the government just never gets around to.
Mr. Speaker, not only have you given me the signal that my time
is up, but as you can hear, my voice is starting to say it is
time for me once again to listen. So I will sit down and do
that.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
seeing the clock I assume I will deliver half of my speech before
question period and the balance after.
In the 1985 report to the House with regard to reform there was
a quote which I would like to read into the record. It states:
The purpose of reform of the House of Commons in 1985 is to
restore to private members an effective legislative function, to
give them a meaningful role in the formation of public policy
and, in so doing, to restore the House of Commons to its rightful
place in the Canadian political process.
I believe that ideal, that objective, still is applicable today.
A number of members have commented on the process that private
members' bills go through. I would like to deal with the issue
of private members' bills in the time allotted to me.
I have had some success in terms of dealing with private
members' bills. If I look back at the record of the 35th
Parliament, I submitted eight bills, five of which made it
through the lottery. One item was made votable and one in fact
passed at second reading.
1355
I also had four private member's motions, all of which were
selected in the lottery. Two were made votable and both passed
in this House. Based on that, I know that I have had more than
my share of opportunity to bring issues before the House.
But there is the other side of the coin. There are many members
of parliament who have worked many hours to bring forward issues
that are important to themselves, to their constituents and, by
and large, to Canadians as a whole. Many of those bills do not
see the light of day.
The process that we have, a lottery, is basically a game of
chance. I wonder in terms of the importance of issues of the day
whether we should leave the fate of those issues simply to chance
in a lottery. I am not a fan of the lottery process. In fact, I
believe, as I see from the reform that has taken place in the
House of Commons over the years, that a call for more efficiency
within the House seems to be the order of the day. I for one, as
a member of parliament, do not want to be in this place less. I
want to be in this place more. I want to hear what members have
to say. I want to hear their ideas. I want to hear what
rationalization they have.
All of us cannot be up on all issues. All of us cannot be
sensitive to the issues, regional issues and local issues. We
learn from each other in this place. What has happened is that
we have basically restricted the opportunities that members have
to bring those issues forward.
All members of the House will know that when we go to committee
there are witnesses who appear before us. The presentations of
the witnesses are helpful and informative, but by far the most
important part of those hearings is the question and answer
period. That is where the dynamics take place. That is where we
find out what the weaknesses are. That is where we find out
where the strengths are. That is where we find out the most
important information that we need to know to do our job.
I believe the same kind of principle should apply to private
members' business. When I conclude my remarks after question
period I am going to make a case as to why we should also have
questions and comments on private members' business in the House
of Commons.
The Speaker: I see, my colleague, that you received my
signal for one minute left. You have approximately six minutes
left in your discourse and you will have the floor when we resume
debate.
It being almost two o'clock we will proceed to Statements by
Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Translation]
ARMENIAN PEOPLE
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on April 24,
Armenian Canadians and all Armenians will commemorate the 83rd
anniversary of the genocide of 1.5 million victims perpetrated
in 1915 by the Ottoman Turks.
Modern Turkey has yet to recognize this serious crime, which has
already been recognized by the United Nations Commission on
Human Rights, the European Parliament, the Permanent People's
Tribunal, Argentina, Brazil, Cyprus, France, Greece, Israel,
Lebanon, Russia, Syria, Uruguay, Venezuela and, just a week ago,
Belgium.
Closer to home, this genocide has been formally recognized by
the Quebec National Assembly and the Legislative Assembly of
Ontario.
The Armenian genocide has been documented and its existence
proven beyond any doubt. All unanimously agree that it should be
recognized internationally.
I therefore urge the hon. members of
this House to recognize the Armenian genocide and extend my most
heartfelt wishes to the Armenian people, a building nation—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.
* * *
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I stand in the House today to call on the government to
end the suffering of two of my constituents, both of whom
contracted hepatitis C as a result of government negligence and
incompetence.
Allan Ordze contracted hepatitis C in 1975 and he wrote to me
about his shattered dreams and his feelings of hopelessness. He
fears every day for his family and wonders how he will care for
them when his condition worsens.
Lisa Holtz contracted hepatitis C in 1985, just six months
before the government accountants set their arbitrary date for
compensation. Lisa too wonders how she will care for her three
boys when she is sick and too tired to stand.
Allan and Lisa do not want the government's charity or
apologies. They do not want to hear from any more government
bureaucrats and accountants. They want justice and compensation
for themselves and their children and they want it now.
* * *
1400
WOBURN COLLEGIATE
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to congratulate a group of students from my riding
of Scarborough Centre.
The Woburn Collegiate robotics team recently competed in the
U.S. first robotics competition in Orlando, Florida. This
competition is a national engineering contest that immerses
thousands of high school students from over 150 schools in the
exciting world of engineering and robotics. Woburn is the first
and only Canadian team to ever compete at this competition and
was very proud to carry the Canadian flag and represent our
country.
The Woburn Collegiate robotics team produced an excellent robot
for the competition and was awarded a prestigious judges award.
Let me point out that only 15 of 166 teams received such an
award, proving indeed that Canadian students are among the best
in the world in science and technology.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the students and the
teachers of Woburn CI on their hard work in reaching this
terrific goal. I also thank the Secretary of State for Children
and Youth and the Minister of Human Resources Development for
their assistance with this worthwhile project.
* * *
CANADIAN NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR THE BLIND
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker
on March 30, 1918 Captain Edwin Baker, Dr. Sherman Swift and five
other blind and sighted Canadians founded the Canadian National
Institute for the Blind. For the last 80 years this private
voluntary and non-profit organization has provided rehabilitation
services for blind, visually impaired and deaf-blind Canadians
across the country.
One of the CNIB's most important services is providing visually
impaired Canadians with books, magazines, videos and other
material in Braille and on audio cassette free of charge through
the CNIB library. The library is the country's largest producer
of Braille and audio materials.
The CNIB also offers educational scholarships to worthy clients.
I congratulate one recent recipient, Kristy Kassie, a client at
the CNIB Halton Peel district office who is pursuing
post-secondary studies at York University.
I congratulate the CNIB on 80 years of dedicated service to
Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC MINISTER OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are still
story tellers in the Quebec government.
After having accumulated a deficit in excess of $1.5 million as
dean of the university in Rouyn-Noranda, running for the New
Democratic Party of Canada in the 1988 election, having failed
to deliver on promises made by Jacques Parizeau in the last
provincial election campaign, Quebec municipal affairs minister
Rémy Trudel soon found himself stuck, on April 7, in a meeting
at his office in Rouyn-Noranda with people who had come to ask
him for an explanation for his government's plans for social
assistance reform.
In front of the cameras, Minister Trudel said there were
thieves. If Minister Trudel has theft charges to lay against
some individuals, Quebec has judges to hear his case. Otherwise,
the citizens of his region are likely to think that his
statement was off the mark.
Mr. Trudel, next time you find yourself in front of cameras,
tell us a story about the Quebec mining fund promised by your
government.
* * *
[English]
DRUNK DRIVING
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to remember a sad anniversary. One year ago on April 19, my very
own son's birthday, three people were taken from the world in a
head on collision between a pick-up truck and a Greyhound
passenger bus on highway 43 just outside Fox Creek, Alberta. As
is too often the case the driver of the pick-up truck was
impaired.
On this anniversary a group of family, friends and Greyhound bus
drivers gathered to remember. On behalf of the official
opposition, and I am sure all members of the House, I extend our
message of condolences to their families, friends and colleagues.
Let us remember their message: when you drink and drive someone
is going to die.
* * *
BRAVERY
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
take this opportunity to congratulate the 16 individuals recently
awarded the medal of bravery for their acts of heroism.
The upcoming presentation ceremony holds special significance
for Erie—Lincoln riding as two of my constituents will be
decorated by the governor general in recognition of acts of
bravery in hazardous circumstances.
The quick actions of William John Gordon of Dunnville saved
several individuals from a burning automobile wreck. This
gentleman acted without concern for his own safety to help in a
situation that could have been fatal for all those involved.
I nominated Luis Rodriguez, a Honduran immigrant from Fort Erie,
for the medal of bravery for saving the life of an American
citizen who fell from his fishing boat in the frigid waters of
the Niagara River. Mr. Rodriguez assisted the distressed
gentleman into his boat and then swam to shore towing the boat
behind him.
On behalf of my riding and all Canadians I thank Mr. Gordon, Mr.
Rodriguez and all medal recipients for their selfless acts of
bravery. They have our admiration and respect. They have made
us proud.
* * *
1405
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like the Minister of Health to listen to the human side
of his hepatitis C decision.
One of my constituents, Mrs. Joyce Smith from Mission, B.C.,
writes:
My three grown children are trying very hard to accept the fact
mom is not the same. She does not smile or laugh as often as she
used to. They do not want to talk about the fact that I am
dying. I stare at our two beautiful grandchildren and wonder if
I will live to see them grow up. I look into my husband's eyes
and I know that he is afraid of the future. My husband and I
have worked so hard, and raised our family, and now it was
supposed to be our time together. But, the almost unbearable
fatigue that I deal with prevents us from going very far or doing
very much together.
Another one of my constituents, Mrs. Laura Stoll, urges me “to
do the right thing and support compensation for all victims”. I
certainly support compensation for all victims. However, how
much longer will the Minister of Health continue to say no to
people like Mrs. Smith and Mrs. Stoll? Where is his sense of
fairness, his sense of human compassion? My constituents and all
other Canadians would like to know.
* * *
NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this week we celebrate National Volunteer Week, a time
to thank and honour the many people who donate their time to
fellow Canadians.
I thank the thousands of volunteers in Guelph—Wellington who
generously donate their time to better our community.
Canadian volunteers in the recent past have been called upon
more than ever to help communities in need. Thousands of
volunteers aided the flood victims in the Saguenay region of
Quebec and the Red River Valley in Manitoba, while others
assisted in the recent ice storm. Guelph—Wellington's 11th
Field Artillery Regiment helped in devastated areas in eastern
Ontario.
Volunteers are very important in communities across our great
country. Guelph—Wellington has many generous volunteers. I
congratulate and thank them all for their time and dedication.
* * *
BETTYE HYDE
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today we
celebrate Bettye Hyde's nomination for the Royal Bank award for
Canadian achievement. The Royal Bank will remember Bettye Hyde.
When it tried to close her bank branch Bettye rallied the
neighbourhood and won.
It has been a lifetime involvement for Bettye Hyde, mother,
community volunteer, early childhood educator and
environmentalist.
[Translation]
That is why we like Bettye and believe that her achievements and
life meet the criteria set by the Royal Bank with respect to
this award.
Bettye Hyde, who is 80 years of age, is still an active person.
Just imagine what it would be like if there were more Bettye
Hydes in Canada.
[English]
Bettye was big enough to keep her money in the Royal Bank as
long as it keeps its branch in her neighbourhood. Is the Royal
Bank big enough to honour someone who fights for the way things
should be, not the way those in charge say things have to be?
Whether the Royal Bank chooses Bettye, she is a winner and that
makes us all winners. It is called community. It is something
even a bank should understand.
* * *
NUNAVUT
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise this afternoon to convey a message from my constituents of
Nunavut.
Yesterday was to be a crucial day for us. It was to mark the
beginning of the last leg of a journey that began many years ago.
Yesterday was supposed to be about Nunavut and its creation. It
was supposed to be about the formation of our new government.
Instead the people of Nunavut are left disappointed. They feel
confused and robbed of their day.
It is our responsibility as parliamentarians to act in the best
interest of all Canadians. It is important that we remain
focused on the tasks at hand and not let our personal agendas
interfere with progress.
I remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition, on behalf of the
Inuit, that quick implementation of Bill C-39 is essential. Any
delays could destroy the hopes, dreams and dedication of many
generations of Inuit.
* * *
EDUCATION
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, federal
cutbacks in provincial transfer payments have had a negative
impact throughout Nova Scotia's educational system.
High schools and elementary schools have had to restrict the
number and quality of programs being offered to their students.
School board officials have increasingly had to rely on the
dedication and devotion of our educators to devise new cost
efficient programs to offer our students.
Such is the case at the Yarmouth Memorial High School where
teacher Ken Langille has been instrumental in developing an award
winning law program for his grade 12 students. A winner of four
provincial, three national and one international awards for
teaching, excellence and innovation, I would like to welcome Mr.
Langille and his students who are seated in the gallery today,
hoping to hear the government introduce positive solutions to the
education crisis.
1410
On their behalf and on behalf of all those concerned with
education, we call upon the government to begin addressing the
serious financial crisis facing education in the country.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC FLOODS
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, only a few
short months after the ice storm, several Quebec ridings,
including mine, the riding of Châteauguay, were faced with yet
another one of nature's vagaries, river flooding.
Thousands of homes were flooded and hundreds of families had to
seek refuge with relatives, friends or in shelters. Municipal
services, municipal councils and volunteers were stretched to
the limit.
However, there were visible signs of solidarity, support and
sympathy everywhere in Quebec, especially in Châteauguay. Thanks
to the solidarity characteristic of Quebeckers, victims found
comfort and support.
On behalf of my party, I would like to thank the many volunteers
and those in charge of municipal services, and to the victims I
say “hang in there”.
* * *
[English]
PORT MOODY—COQUITLAM
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today we welcome the newest member of the House in the
government caucus, the member of parliament for Port
Moody—Coquitlam. An eminent municipal leader in British
Columbia for a quarter of a century prior to his election, the
hon. member will share his wealth of experience with us as he
takes his seat and represents the people of his constituency.
His byelection victory is even more impressive when one
considers that governments seldom win in byelections, let alone
safe opposition party seats. During the campaign the Leader of
the Opposition said “A lot of people are going to be watching
this riding, not just in B.C. but across the country, because it
is the first chance for the voters to say what they think of
government policy”.
The voters of Port Moody—Coquitlam made known on March 30 their
approval of the government's policies and accomplishments, all
done for the well-being of our citizenry and country. I join
others in welcoming our newest colleague and the newest member of
the Liberal team, the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam.
* * *
HEARING AWARENESS MONTH
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Canadian Hearing Society is once again proclaiming the month of
May as Hearing Awareness Month. The regional office in
Peterborough is enthusiastically participating in this initiative
as a way of educating the citizens of Peterborough about hearing
loss and raising awareness of the deaf and hard of hearing
population in the community.
The theme this year is noise pollution. In May the mobile
testing van will be travelling around Ontario offering free
hearing tests at the regional offices. The Peterborough regional
office is hosting an open house on May 25 in conjunction with the
arrival of the testing van.
During May I encourage all residents of Ontario and Peterborough
who have concerns for themselves or a family member to take
advantage of this opportunity provided by the Canadian Hearing
Society and contact their regional office for further
information.
Our best wishes to the Canadian Hearing Society and the people
it serves. We hope Hearing Awareness Month goes well.
* * *
[Translation]
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the industry
minister wrote in the 1997 report on federal activities in
science and technology: “More than ever, people and innovation
are key to growth and prosperity.—the life and work of every
individual and business will be rooted in the new economy”.
Since it brought down its budget and announced a slight increase
in funding for granting councils, the government thinks it will
solve all the R&D; problems.
However, the cuts imposed by the government have had a severe
impact on the scientific and technological community.
Since 1993, the number of federal employees working in the
science and technology field has gone down by 5,400 person-years,
a 15% decrease.
The government should realize there is still a lot to do to
bring real stability back to research in Canada and to stop the
hemorrhage caused by the drastic cuts it made in this area that
is so important to our future.
* * *
[English]
NEW MEMBER
The Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House
that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral
Officer a certificate of the election and return of the following
member:
Mr. Lou Sekora, for the electoral district of Port
Moody—Coquitlam.
* * *
1415
NEW MEMBER INTRODUCED
Lou Sekora, member for the electoral district of Port
Moody—Coquitlam, introduced by the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien and
the Hon. David Anderson.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
CUBA
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we join in welcoming the new member as he takes his
seat. We just hope he will not take it literally.
If the Prime Minister is going to Cuba he should be going for
the right reasons. He should be going for human rights reasons,
not for a holiday.
According to Amnesty International political opponents of the
Castro dictatorship are routinely tortured. Last year, for
example, two dissidents were placed in a small storage cabinet by
police and gassed with noxious fumes for over an hour just
because they criticized the government.
When the Prime Minister is in Cuba will he publicly raise these
human rights issues?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, of course we will raise the question of human rights and
policy rights because we believe in a policy of engagement of
dialogue and of conviction.
Isolation leads nowhere but if we are engaging with them in
discussions and offering help as Canada has been able and willing
to do, the people of Cuba and the president of Cuba will
certainly be happy to have a dialogue. I am sure that it will
create some positive results just as the Pope's visit did a few
weeks ago.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I remind the Prime Minister that he is not quite the
pope yet.
That was a pretty weak and fuzzy answer from the Prime Minister
on his reasons for going to Cuba.
If he is really going to Cuba on a human rights mission what
concrete measures will he be asking for? Will he be asking for
freedom of speech? Will he be asking for freedom of political
association? Will he be asking for freedom of religion? What
concrete human rights measures will he be asking for?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have had a dialogue with Cuba for some time. The
minister of foreign affairs was there last year. We have
developed a program of 14 points.
1420
Among the points is the strengthening of an ombudsman in the
national assembly in Cuba who looks at the political rights and
civil rights of citizens. It is a positive engagement. In Chile
over the weekend most of the leaders of the Americas were very
pleased that the Canadian Prime Minister was willing and eager to
go.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, a communist ombudsman is a contradiction in terms.
When the Pope went to Cuba earlier this year he was able to free
some political prisoners because he talked publicly and openly
and concretely about human rights abuses in that country. He
brought up the subject publicly for all Cubans to hear. He was
less concerned about embarrassing Castro than he was about
freedom and human rights.
Will we see the Prime Minister on television, not glad handing
with Castro to satisfy the anti-American component of his own
caucus, but publicly raising human rights abuses in this harsh
political dictatorship?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have supported a resolution at the UN asking the
government of Cuba to protect the human rights of its people. We
have been acting publicly on human rights with Cuba for a long
time and everybody knows that the Prime Minister of Canada is not
a very shy person.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the health
minister is trying to compare the hepatitis C tragedy with
another major tragedy in Canada by saying who would pay for
breast implants. The answer of course is that the companies
which made those breast implants will pay for them. There are
ongoing lawsuits. We do not want to hear this foolish, feeble
argument any longer.
Will the health minister admit publicly that this was a major
public tragedy in Canada caused by the federal regulators who
distributed poisonous blood?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member cannot escape the larger point. Whether it is breast
implants, whether it is pharmaceutical products that caused death
or other damage, the broader question is at what point does the
state have a responsibility to pay cash compensation to those who
are injured because of risks inherent in medical procedures or
medical devices. That is a very large question.
The ministers of health of Canada, all of them from all
governments of all stripes, in a very unusual move were unanimous
in saying that in this particular tragedy in the years 1986 to
1990 when something could have been done, that is the period when
compensation should be paid.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister says when should the government pay. The answer is when
the government is responsible.
We have here a minister who is hanging on to this legal argument
as though it were a thread, and that is all he has. The truth of
the matter is insurance pays for medical mishaps, but this was no
accident. There was incompetence and negligence on behalf of the
federal regulators.
Will the minister just acknowledge that this was not a medical
accident?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member belittles the legal analysis and then he proceeds to
create it by talking about negligence and fault.
The member illustrates the difficulty of the question because if
in fact governments are going to pay for that for which they are
responsible through fault, then indeed the ministers of health
are right in saying the period 1986 to 1990 is the period during
which compensation should be offered.
Before that hepatitis non-A, non-B, which is what it was called,
was a known risk in the blood system but the authorities agree
that it was not until the early part of 1986 that Canada should
have put the test—
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday I asked the Minister of Health to show greater
compassion and to compensate all individuals infected with
hepatitis C, and not just those infected between 1986 and 1990.
Unfortunately, the minister did not follow up on my request.
Therefore, my question today is for the Prime Minister.
Since the government is looking at a surplus of several billions
of dollars for 1997-98, does the Prime Minister not think that it
gives him more flexibility to show compassion and to compensate
all victims infected with hepatitis C?
1425
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this is an issue that we have been discussing for a long time in
this House. The federal government and all the provincial health
ministers, including the one from Quebec, came to the conclusion
that, in terms of public interest, the period selected was the
one for which the public sector had a responsibility. All the
governments in Canada collectively decided to compensate
victims, as advocated in the proposal that was approved by all
health ministers.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
are not criticizing the agreement reached with the provincial
governments. Provincial governments will be responsible for
health care services to these victims, and they have done more
than their fair share, given the cuts made to transfer payments
by the federal government.
A while ago, the government did not hesitate to compensate all
those infected with the HIV virus as a result of blood
transfusions. Now, it refuses to do the same for those infected
with hepatitis C. Is it not eminently unfair and arbitrary to
act like this? Is it because the number of HIV victims is much
lower than the number of people infected with hepatitis C?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Health has fully explained this matter on a
number of occasions.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Prime Minister.
This government obviously has a problem. It cannot get its
priorities straight and is short on compassion.
How can the Prime Minister justify his government's decision to
hand out millennium scholarships that nobody wants, and to buy
used submarines, just to keep the military happy, but not to
compensate all hepatitis C victims? What sort of priorities are
these, Prime Minister?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the 100,000 Canadians who, starting in the year 2000,
will receive millennium scholarships to pursue their education
and attend university will know that the Canadian government has
very good priorities.
The Speaker: My dear colleagues, I would remind you that you
must always address the chair.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, will the Prime
Minister admit that he has the means to compensate all hepatitis
C victims, since the billions he has cut the provinces are now
in his pockets?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our
priorities in this matter are shared by Quebec's Minister of
Health and the Government of Quebec. We shared the position
expressed in the agreement. We agreed with all ministers, all
provincial, territorial and federal governments that, for us,
the priority is to maintain the public health system in Canada,
and therefore to compensate only those who contracted the
illness during the period between 1986 and 1990, during which
time the governments were responsible.
* * *
[English]
BANKING
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
finance minister talked tough yesterday about bank mergers.
“Just watch us” sounded like the minister might even consider
for once putting public interests ahead of corporate interests.
But Liberal commitments are a bit like a mirage in the desert.
As you get closer they vanish. Commitments to revisit NAFTA,
vanished; to abolish the GST, vanished; to introduce national
child care, vanished; to repeal drug patent legislation,
vanished.
Why should we believe this finance minister when he says he is
tough enough to take on the megabanks?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, commitments to invest in research and development, done;
commitments to reduce unemployment, done; commitments to increase
the child tax benefit, done; commitments to eliminate the
deficit, done; commitments to put this country on the path to
fiscal and human prosperity, done.
[Translation]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the nature of
the debate has to understood.
The Minister of Finance says that he does not intend to be told
what to do by the banks. He says: “Just watch us”. Canadians
have just watched this government once already, with the GST.
And what happened? The GST is still with us, and one minister
had to resign.
Does the Minister of Finance intend to resign if the mergers go
ahead the way the banks want them to?
1430
[English]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is pretty clear that the leader of the NDP does not
like Canadian banks. That is very clear.
I would like to ask a question. It occurred to me the other
day, when the NDP government in British Columbia was the only
government, either provincial or federal, to reduce the taxes
imposed on the banks in its last budget, the question which
crossed my mind was, is the NDP government in British Columbia of
the same party that the one the leader heads?
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance said “the decision on the bank mergers will
be made by this government, by this Parliament and by the
Canadian people”. It seems to the Canadian people that the
Liberal lobbyists and the Liberal sheep over there will decide
this issue.
If the minister is truly sincere, will he ask the finance
committee to begin immediate hearings right now to give Canadians
the access they deserve?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would simply point out the difference between the
Liberal members on this side and the Tory members on that side.
The Liberal members on this side set up a caucus task force some
time ago. They have gone from coast to coast. They have had
hearings on the mergers. They are in the process of putting
together a very insightful and important opinion. At the same
time the members of the Conservative Party have sat there. They
have made speeches but they have not done one darn thing.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the PC
caucus believes that all members in this House deserve access,
that all Canadians deserve access and that it should not be
discussed in the back rooms of the Liberal caucus behind closed
doors.
Why will the Liberal Minister of Finance not bring this bank
merger issue out of the Liberal back rooms and into the open?
Will he ask the finance committee to study this issue beginning
immediately before the House adjourns for the summer?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, those hearings by the Liberal caucus task force were in
Vancouver and they were in public. They were in Peterborough and
they were in public. They were in Winnipeg and they were in
public.
The fact is that the Liberal members of parliament are preparing
themselves for the finance committee hearings which are going to
be held in September. The only question is, what is the Tory
party doing apart from speaking to a couple of its banking
friends on Bay Street?
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a
captain wanted to lighten his ship's load so on a stormy day he
warned that the ship would sink unless some men were thrown
overboard. Gripped with fear the crew turned on each other and
as a result several were lost.
The health minister warns that compensating all hepatitis C
victims will sink the entire medicare ship. He is deliberately
creating fear in Canadians so they will be willing to sacrifice
fellow Canadians who have hepatitis C. How can he use such an
unethical public relations ploy? How can he sink so low?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is not very often that we find unanimity among all the
governments in Canada on one issue, let alone an issue as
difficult as this one. All the governments in Canada agreed on
the public policy question of compensation for hepatitis C
victims. It was not easy. It is a tough issue.
The hon. member does not paint it correctly when he describes it
as he did. It is a very broad question of just where the state's
role is in paying cash compensation to people who are harmed
through the health system, through medical procedures which all
inherently carry risk. I urge the hon. member—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Wanuskewin.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): There is a big
difference, Mr. Speaker, between accidents, negligence and what
has occurred in this particular instance.
The Liberal Party presents itself as the party that promotes
Canadian unity and sharing and community, but that is not the
truth. At the very first sight of choppy waters it is pitting
the majority of Canadians against hepatitis C victims.
Why is this government attempting to orchestrate a second
assault on these victims by trying to turn their own friends and
neighbours against them?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member speaks as though this was a unilateral act by
this government. In fact it was a decision shared in by all
governments, indeed Progressive Conservative governments among
them.
The Government of Prince Edward Island, the Government of
Ontario, the Government of Manitoba, the Progressive Conservative
Government of Alberta all agreed that this is the appropriate
approach.
1435
I say to the hon. member, do not duck the tough question. Face
the tough question of public policy. That is what the ministers
of health did and we believe we have done the right thing in
terms of public policy.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Prime Minister.
For some time now, the Mexican government has been expelling all
foreign observers from Chiapas, among them two Quebec women. As
a result, the Minister of Foreign Affairs called for
explanations from the Mexican government, and those explanations
were totally unconvincing. For the Prime Minister, the incident
is closed, but at the same time the Minister of Foreign Affairs
is proposing the creation of an international commission of
inquiry into the human rights situation in Chiapas.
Since the Prime Minister was insisting that human rights be on
the agenda of the Summit of the Americas, can he tell us what
exactly the Canadian position is on this matter?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have discussed this problem with the President of Mexico. He
explained that the persons expelled had not complied with the
laws of that country, and that all foreigners were obliged to
leave under the circumstances.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs and myself insisted that work on
this matter continue. We even offered the Mexicans the
possibility of sending a delegation of Canadian
parliamentarians, and we hope they will accept our proposal.
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what is the
logic behind the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Canadian
government's desire to create another commission of inquiry,
when the Canadian representatives on the international civilian
commission dispatched to Chiapas have been trying to meet with
him for more than a month now?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the logic is very evident. A group of
parliamentarians representing the broad base of Canadian citizens
would be able to provide this House and the government with an
accurate and objective assessment of the conditions that are
taking place in Mexico. It would be done in a way that would
enable it to be shared entirely in an open public way without the
kinds of question marks that relate to the past incident.
* * *
BANKING
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
have the very real spectre of less banking choices in the
immediate future for Canadians. The finance minister is hiding
behind his task force report hoping the whole issue will go away.
It is not going to go away and frankly, Canadians deserve an
answer.
Our position is very clear: no mergers without competition. What
is the minister's position anyway? Does he even have one or do
we have to wait for him to phone Matthew Barrett, John Cleghorn
and Charlie Baillie to find out what the position is?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is very important to understand the role of the task
force.
Essentially there are very great changes, globalization,
technological changes affecting all of the financial services
industry. The task force is looking at the evolution of that. It
is also looking at the insurance industry. It is looking at the
roles of credit unions. The task force is putting together the
context within which the debate in this House and across the
country will take place.
If what the hon. member really wants is to have competition and
to have a public debate, what he should be prepared to do is
support the submission of the task force and the debate that will
follow therefrom.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister said watches, but they are doing nothing. It is like
watching paint dry, frankly.
Ordinary Canadians are terrified of what these mergers will mean
to them and their businesses. The banks have the shareholders
speaking up for them, the lobbyists. They even have high profile
Liberals speaking up for them, but it is a one-sided
conversation. The Minister of Finance is mute on this. Why will
he not stand up for Canadians and let them know that they are
always going to have some options? Why will he not stand up for
competition?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have never watched paint dry, but then I have never
been a member of the Reform Party caucus.
I would simply point out to the hon. member that while the banks
and other interests may well have Reformers or NDPers standing up
for them, the Canadian people have this government standing up
for them.
* * *
[Translation]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
March 24, Ramon Mercedes, aged 23, of Dominica, who traveled to
Canada on board the cargo ship Eclipper, had to have both his
feet amputated because of frostbite and lack of adequate medical
care.
1440
How can the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration explain the
inhumane treatment inflicted upon Ramon Mercedes, who was
deported without treatment immediately after his feet were
amputated?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): As you know, Mr. Speaker, to protect the
individual's privacy, I am not at leisure to give details about
any case in particular.
I can however assure the members of this House that I have
personally reviewed the facts of the case and that all
procedures were applied in accordance with our obligations,
responsibilities and the provisions of the law.
Like all Canadians, I care and am concerned about the fact that
people may think that we acted less than compassionately in
returning this individual to his country of origin. That is why
I have asked that, in the future, officials of my department be
more humane, show more compassion—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. minister. The hon.
member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does
the minister not consider that a full investigation would be in
order and should include the medical care provided to Mr.
Mercedes upon his return home?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said, all procedures
followed in this case were in accordance with our obligations
and responsibilities under the law, which did not stop me from
asking that, in the future, our officials show greater
compassion in such exceptional cases.
* * *
[English]
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
justice minister must not hide behind the complexities of the
Young Offenders Act any longer. The 10 year review is done and
the recommendations are in. The minister has had 10 months yet
she has accomplished absolutely nothing. If the justice minister
is not up to the job, will she step aside and allow someone else
to bring in the needed amendments to the Young Offenders Act?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated on a
number of occasions in this House, unlike the hon. members on the
other side, this government will not take a simplistic approach
to the review and renewal of the youth justice system in this
country. We will take an approach that reflects the values of
rehabilitation and reintegration, of protection of society and of
prevention.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
justice minister has had 10 months to bring in amendments to the
Young Offenders Act. She has read the report to parliament and
its recommendations. She has heard from the provinces and their
people. She has dozens of lawyers at her beck and call yet she
has accomplished absolutely nothing.
The justice minister is either incompetent or paralyzed by the
bleeding hearts in her own caucus. I ask her, which is it? Why
the inaction?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I reiterate that far from
being inactive, I, my department and other caucus members on this
side of the House have been consulting, discussing and talking to
people who live in our ridings. In fact I will table a response
in this House in a timely fashion.
* * *
[Translation]
ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, during
the election campaign, the leader of the Liberal Party went on
and on about how his government would be transparent, once in
office.
After four years, however, our experience confirms the view
expressed yesterday by the information commissioner, John Grace:
the Liberal government is no more transparent than Brian
Mulroney's was.
This having been said, how can the Prime Minister stand behind
the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who is systematically
refusing to give us any information of interest with respect to
the shady business of Option Canada? Does the Prime Minister
not think it is now time to act in order to save his
government's image?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when it comes to transparency, we have nothing to learn
from a party that deliberately loses the tapes when it finds
itself in hot water.
* * *
[English]
CHILDREN
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, over the past 10 years the civil conflicts around the
world have led to the disablement and death of an estimated two
million children with over five million often separated from
their parents. Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell us what
this government is doing to protect the human rights of children
caught in conflict areas?
1445
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, clearly this is an issue which is becoming very much
a priority on the international agenda.
About a month ago we convened a major international meeting of
experts to look at how we could deal with the issue of children
caught in conflict. With the co-operation of the Minister for
International Co-operation and with the Minister of National
Defence we are working on what we can do both domestically and
internationally to provide direct assistance to children who are
carrying arms and involved in conflict to give them the option to
go back to their families and school.
We want concrete results on a number of major continents. We
want to help form a coalition around the world that will address
the problem.
* * *
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Justice is having great difficulty in explaining her
delay in introducing amendments to the Young Offenders Act.
I have a very straightforward question for her today. Will she
introduce her legislation in time for parliament to properly
review and consider it before the summer recess?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated before, I
will table the government's response to the standing committee's
report in a timely fashion.
Upon that tabling there will be ample opportunity for this House
to consider its recommendations.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister has indicated that this is a complex issue and I would
tend to agree.
We just witnessed her predecessor's overly simplistic fiasco
with the 1995 amendments. But 10 months?
I ask the minister: How complicated is public safety and
accountability?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we have already indicated,
the renewal of the youth justice system is a complex issue. It
is one in which we must balance a number of competing values,
values which I have identified before in this House.
Unfortunately, I am saddened by the fact that there are those on
the other side of the House who do not appear to appreciate, one,
the importance of this issue and, two, the complexity of this
issue.
* * *
BANKING
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is to the Minister of Finance.
As the minister knows, about 30,000 people will lose their jobs
if the two mega mergers go ahead. The MacKay task force is not
looking specifically at jobs. The Competition Bureau is not
looking specifically at jobs. About 30,000 jobs represents the
size of a small city. It is no small matter.
I want to ask the minister, in light of that fact, that there is
no consideration of job loss, is the minister not now convinced
that we should start immediately with an all party parliamentary
committee so that people can have their say about job losses in
this country?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has made it very clear that it is very
concerned about jobs. When the final decision is made that will
certainly enter into the consideration, as well as a number of
other issues, including competition, service to the consumers of
urban and rural Canada and the overall state of the financial
sector industry in this country.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
minister is just saying “watch us”. I want to know whether or
not the minister is really getting what I am getting at.
There will be about 30,000 jobs lost. What does he have against
letting the people of this country have their say now? Give the
people of this country a platform to speak through an all party
parliamentary committee. That is what parliamentarians are
elected for. That is what parliamentary democracy is about. Why
is he afraid of doing that now? Give the people a chance to
speak.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is certainly our intention to give this parliament
and the Canadian people a chance to have their voices heard. In
fact, we intend to do exactly what the hon. member suggests.
However, we will do it according to this government's and this
country's timetable, not the timetable set by a couple of large
financial institutions.
* * *
THE ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources, who I
understand chairs the cabinet committee on post-TAGS.
Thousands of TAGS recipients will have their benefits terminated
on May 9. My question to the minister is: Will there be a
post-TAGS announcement before May 9? If there is not an
announcement by that time, will those individuals who are
scheduled to have benefits terminated receive benefits from a new
program?
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is a
very good question.
One of the issues which the member asks for is when there will
be an announcement on the form of post-TAGS. As the member knows
the Harrigan report has been submitted to the government. We
have had negotiations and discussions with the provinces and the
interested parties. When the time is right we will be making an
announcement that the member would be glad to wait for.
1450
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I would remind the member that May 9 is fast approaching
and we have thousands of people whose benefits will be cut at
that time.
Is the government considering dealing with the post-TAGS
multicomponent TAGS program, consisting of early retirement,
licensed buyout, an economic development program and continued
income support?
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have
discussed the Harrigan report in this House on a number of
occasions. As the member mentioned, those factors were discussed
in the Harrigan report.
We are looking at all aspects in order to help people who are
being moved out of an industry that is in grave danger and in
distress. When we are ready to announce the details of it we
will do so. It will certainly not be today by the parliamentary
secretary.
* * *
CANADIAN SPACE AGENCY
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as you know the Canadian Space Agency is
participating in medical research being conducted onboard the
space shuttle Columbia. I would like to hear what the
Minister of Industry has to say about the practical benefit to
Canadians of this medical research.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am sure all Canadians share with members of this House
a great deal of pride in the fact that last Friday another
outstanding young Canadian, Dr. Dave Williams, was launched on
the space shuttle. He is our seventh astronaut to board the
shuttle. He is participating in a very important mission. It is
entirely a scientific mission involving a neurolab in which
studies will be conducted to improve human understanding of the
brain and nervous system. Dr. Williams is uniquely qualified for
this task. As he accomplishes this task he will bring pride to
all of us. He will give us a better understanding of a variety
of neurological disabilities which face Canadians.
* * *
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the official opposition would like a straight answer
from the justice minister. We do not want to hear another
lecture about the complexity of her department and we do not want
to hear for the 400th time that she will bring forth YOA
amendments in a timely fashion.
Will she introduce her legislation in time for parliament to
consider it prior to the summer recess?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again I can only reassure the
hon. Leader of the Opposition that I will table the government's
response in a timely fashion.
* * *
[Translation]
SOFTWOOD LUMBER
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Canada-U.S. softwood lumber dispute could heat up again, given
the recent proposal by the U.S. customs department to modify the
building lumber tariff rules.
My question is for the Minister for International Trade. As the
passage of such a proposal would create a dangerous precedent
for trade policy, can the minister tell us what his government
is doing to protect the building lumber producers of Quebec and
Canada?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I had an opportunity to discuss the importance of this
issue with the American minister.
We said that the government would take the opportunity to speak
with the industry. I met with Quebec industry representatives
seven days ago. Last Friday, we held a teleconference with
national industry representatives and my department and, after
assessing the situation with them, we are prepared to share our
reaction with the Americans.
* * *
[English]
BANKING
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Finance who yesterday said “just watch
us”. He was implying that he and his government may not approve
the megabank merger. We in the New Democratic Party caucus
believe that in the end the Minister of Finance and his
government will cave in to the banks.
The minister is a risk taker. I am prepared to bet $100 that in
the end he and his government will cave in. Will he accept the
bet?
1455
The Speaker: Does the Minister of Finance want to answer
that question?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, you cannot deprive me of the chance.
Double or nothing, we will do the right thing.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
finance minister feels personally slighted that the banks made a
business decision without consulting him first and that is why he
is stalling. He is stalling while hundreds of thousands of
Canadian jobs lie in uncertainty. The minister has the
opportunity now to do the right thing and involve Canadians in
this debate.
Will the Minister of Finance ask the finance committee to hold a
non-partisan forum before which ordinary Canadians can appear to
discuss this important issue of bank mergers in Canada and not
discuss it as a partisan vehicle of the Liberal Party caucus?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the reason the MacKay task force was set up well over a
year and a half ago was that when Canadians came to debate this
very important issue they would have the best information
available to them and they would understand not where the banking
industry has been, but where it is going, where the insurance
industry must go, where credit unions must go.
I fail to understand why the hon. member would deprive Canadians
of the best information possible when that debate is going to
occur. I do not understand why he would deprive this House of
that information. We are going to make sure they have it.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. The ultimate
decision on the hepatitis C question rests with him. He knows in
his heart that this government has a moral obligation to
compensate all hepatitis C victims.
Can he explain why there is a public obligation to unemployed
fishermen in Atlantic Canada and not to innocent victims of
hepatitis C whose lives are at risk?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, after many months of discussion with the provinces I
came to the conclusion that the best way to deal with the problem
was to make the offer that was made a few weeks ago. It was
decided by ministers of health of all the provinces, representing
all the political parties that exist in the land.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, again the Minister of Health says that the government
has no public obligation or legal obligation to the innocent
victims of hepatitis C.
I would like the Prime Minister to explain why a profitable
company like Bombardier is entitled to public funds when innocent
victims whose lives are at risk are not entitled to any public
funds.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
that is not what the Minister of Health said at all. What the
Minister of Health said is that if we look at the tough question
of when should governments pay cash compensation to those who
are injured by risks inherent in the medical system, then you are
approaching a difficult question of public policy. Thirteen
governments agreed on that question of public policy, that in
this instance they should pay for the period during which
governments could have done something to change the outcome.
Governments could have acted and did not during those four years
from 1986-1990. That is why we chose that period. It is a very
broad question beyond that as to whether everyone harmed should
be compensated.
We concluded that you cannot keep the public system of health
care in this country if you are going to—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Victoria—Haliburton.
* * *
LAND MINES
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria—Haliburton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Defence signed an agreement last
December on the banning of land mines. Can the Minister of
Defence update this House on the progress of Canada's
participation in the summer de-mining program?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have been pleased to work with my
colleague the Minister of Foreign Affairs on this great Canadian
initiative to try to rid the world of anti-personnel land mines.
Our own Canadian forces have seen much of the terrible incidents
that occur as a result of land mines taking limb and life from
many innocent victims in places like Bosnia. They have worked
with the local forces. They have worked with the local police in
de-mining activities. We are beginning again, as the summer
approaches, to participate by assisting, by training and by
giving information to these local forces so they can, in fact,
protect the people in their communities.
* * *
CIDA
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the CIDA minister has allowed $815 million of CIDA money to be
spent mostly on feasibility studies for projects that do not even
get off the ground. There is no follow-up procedure to verify
how the money is spent. Businesses take the money and run.
The money does not reach the poor. There is no accountability.
1500
Will the minister call in the auditor general because she failed
to stop the waste of tax—
The Speaker: The hon. minister responsible for CIDA.
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the basic solution to poverty in the developing world is
no different from what it is in Canada. The need is to create
jobs through private investment.
Indeed the hon. member, on February 6 in the House, said
“Private investment has proven itself to be the real answer to
poverty, not aid”. Two months later he is criticizing a program
that encourages private investment in the developing world. Why
has he changed his tune?
* * *
[Translation]
COAST GUARD
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The radio communication centre of the Canadian Coast Guard in
the Magdalen Islands is closing down today. Yet, stakeholders
from everywhere urged the minister to reconsider this
irresponsible decision. The last ones to do so are the 34
volunteers of the Coast Guard Auxiliary, who handed in their
resignation to protest that closure.
Considering the closure of the station and the absence of
volunteer auxiliary members, how does the minister intend to
ensure the safety of the 430 fishing boats and the 100 or so
pleasure craft that navigate around the islands?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member that the coast
guard search and rescue vessel will remain at Cap-aux-Meules. We
will have the capacity to handle search and rescue incidents from
that station and of course others.
As he correctly indicated, some members of the volunteers, the
auxiliary, have resigned. I regret that, but we will rebuild
that force to make sure it too remains the effective force for
search and rescue that it has been over the years.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of Mr. Ahmed Qurie, Speaker of the
Palestinian Legislative Council, and fellow members of
parliament.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I would also like to draw attention to
the presence in the gallery of Mr. Vitaliy Nikolaevich Klimov,
Chair of the Leningrad Oblast Legislature, accompanied by members
and staff of the various legislatures of the Northwest Economic
Region of Russia.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
1505
PRIVILEGE
MR. JUSTICE LOUIS MARCEL JOYAL—SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: Further to the question of privilege
raised by the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington on February
3, 1998, I wish to inform the House that the Clerk has received
from the Executive Director of the Canadian Judicial Council
documentation in relation to comments made by Mr. Justice Marcel
Joyal of the Federal Court of Canada. I am tabling these
documents now and I consider this matter to be closed.
I have notice of a question of privilege by the hon. member for
Fraser Valley.
INTERPARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATIONS
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a question of privilege with regard to a news release put
out by the Minister for International Trade on March 30, 1998
entitled “Marchi meets with Chinese leaders in Beijing and
announces Canada-China Interparliamentary Group”.
The minister announced in his release:
International Trade Minister today took part in a series of
bilateral meetings with senior Chinese leaders and announced the
establishment of the Canada-China Interparliamentary Group.
There is no Canada-China interparliamentary group. There has
been an application to the joint interparliamentary council to
establish such a group, but contrary to the minister's perceived
powers and authority in these matters there is no such
interparliamentary group until parliament grants such status to
that group, and that has not happened to date.
I have made proposals in committee to revamp parliamentary
associations to include a greater emphasis on the Asia-Pacific
countries and on the Americas. However, none of the changes that
the minister has proposed or that I might have proposed has ever
come to pass.
For the Canada-China friendship group to advance to the status
of interparliamentary group it must first apply to the Joint
interparliamentary Council. It then must get approval from the
House through the Board of Internal Economy and the internal
economy committee of the Senate.
The minister has given the impression that this association will
be sanctioned and funded by parliament. I find this to be a
clear contempt of the House.
Just to go through a few precedents, Mr. Speaker, the member for
Calgary—Nosehill brought a similar matter to your attention on
February 26, 1998. She complained about an article in the
Toronto Star naming the head of the Canadian millennium
scholarship foundation. Her complaint was not who was named but
the circumstances which led to the announcement.
In that case there was no legislation before the House setting
up the said foundation. Nor was the budget statement containing
the suggestion to set up the foundation adopted. She argued that
the situation had brought the authority and dignity of the
Speaker and the House into question.
The precedents are many regarding this issue. The government
and its departments are continuously mocking the parliamentary
system in this manner. The member for Prince George—Peace River
raised a similar matter regarding the Canadian Wheat Board on
February 3, 1998. During that discussion the member for
Langley—Abbotsford pointed out that the Speaker was asked to
rule on a similar complaint in March 1990 regarding a pamphlet
about the GST.
I made a case on October 28, 1997. In that instance the
Department of Finance started to take action before the bill
authorizing the department to act was passed by the House. I was
concerned at that time that these actions undercut the authority
of parliament.
Your ruling on that question of privilege has been repeated time
and time again, Mr. Speaker, and I will repeat it once more. The
Chair said on November 6, 1997:
—the Chair acknowledges that this matter is a matter of
potential importance since it touches the role of members as
legislators, a role which should not be trivialized. It is from
this perspective that the actions of the Department are of some
concern. The dismissive view of the legislative process,
repeated often enough, makes a mockery of our parliamentary
conventions and practices. I trust that today's decision at this
early stage of the 36th Parliament will not be forgotten by the
minister and his officials and that the department and agencies
will be guided by it.
At page 250 of the second edition of Joseph Maingot's
Parliamentary Privilege in Canada it states:
—there are actions that, while not directly in a physical way
obstructing the House of Commons or the Member, nevertheless
obstruct the House in the performance of its functions by
diminishing the respect due it.
How many times must parliament be mocked in this way? How often
can we accept this disrepectful behaviour by ministers who
continuously make announcements and pronouncements both here and
internationally about what the House is to do when the House has
not yet done it?
At page 225 of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in
Canada contempt is described as “an offence against the
authority or dignity of the House”.
1510
I would argue that these accumulated complaints, left
unchallenged, will only continue to give the impression that
parliament is irrelevant and that the cabinet and its bureaucrats
run our lives. This I find to be an offence against our
authority and dignity in the House.
Cabinet has no role to play in setting up interparliamentary
groups. The process is clearly outlined in a document titled
“Parliamentary Exchanges Policy” adopted by the Board of
Internal Economy in January 1990. That document makes absolutely
no reference to cabinet's authority in the matter of setting up
interparliamentary groups.
Members of cabinet have no right to presuppose if parliament is
to accept any suggestion put forward by them including
legislation and the spending of taxpayers' money. Parliament
must not be seen as some sort of obstacle that the bureaucrats
must overcome. Parliament must be respected if we are to function
in this place. Parliament must not be taken for granted by a
minister who is looking for a press release or a headline in a
foreign country.
I believe the House must conclude that the minister and his
department are in contempt by their actions. Mr. Speaker, I ask
that you rule this matter to be a prima facie question of
privilege, at which time I will be prepared to move the
appropriate motion.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on the same question of privilege. I thank the hon.
member for raising the matter. It is a serious matter that a
minister of the crown should take it upon himself to announce the
existence of an interparliamentary group.
This concern is twofold. First, there is the question of
process and whether the minister has any right to do so. I would
submit, along with the hon. Reform whip, that the minister had no
right to do so. I was part of discussions prior to minister's
departure for China, along with other parliamentarians from all
parties, about the advisability of trying to go beyond what
exists now in terms of the Canada-China friendship group and what
that might be called.
I was concerned and I expressed my concern at the meeting I was
invited to that not only might it be wrong for the minister to
announce the existence of such a group, but it is obvious the
concerns I expressed at that time about the appropriateness of
calling it an interparliamentary group were also ignored.
One of the traditions of the House with respect to parliamentary
associations is that parliamentary associations are associations
between parliaments. There is no way whatever one thinks of
communist China that one can maintain that it has a parliament in
any sense of the word that we have a parliament. In fact in other
parliamentary associations we have had countries expelled or
temporarily suspended because they did not have a parliament that
met Canadian standards of what a parliament was.
One of the concerns I expressed at the meeting to which I was
invited was that we were to have some kind of elevated level of
exchange with China, which I was not absolutely against but was
concerned as to what we called it. I did not want it to be named
in such a way as to call into question the very important
tradition in the House of only having parliamentary associations
between parliaments. We could call it legislative exchange or
any number of things. Certainly there are legislators in China.
How they are elected and whether it is a one party state and all
those kinds of things do not take away from that fact, but
whether or not we should call it an interparliamentary group is a
very serious matter.
The minister is to be doubly condemned, first, for doing it
without the permission of parliament and, second, for not having
the sensitivity to call it something other than an
interparliamentary group.
It just goes to show, Mr. Speaker, that it appears that they are
willing to breach any principle, to destroy any tradition we
might have had in the name of trade. It does not matter any
more.
The communist Chinese leadership said it wanted an association,
the equivalent of what we had with the United States. The old
Canadian ministers were over there just doing exactly what was
required of them. No matter what parliamentary process or
traditions of parliamentary associations, if that is what the
Chinese want they will just give it to them because they will do
anything. They will kiss anything in order to get more trade.
That is what this amounts to. The government will kiss anything,
anywhere of anybody in order to get more trade and stomp all over
parliamentary procedure and a strong parliamentary tradition
about democracies and parliaments. What for? So they could
please their masters in Beijing.
It is disgusting, Mr. Speaker, and I think you should rule it a
contempt of parliament.
1515
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to say a few words on this matter.
I was surprised to hear the statement involving this news story.
I always regret it as a parliamentarian when matters are brought
to my attention through the media as opposed to the usual
procedures here in this House.
I want to say two things. First, if it is a fact that a
minister or a ministry acted in a way that would pre-empt a
decision of this House, prejudge what the House would wish to do,
prejudge what our parliamentary associations would wish to do,
then that would be wrong and it would be a matter for concern
here.
As a member, I cannot tell for sure all of the precise facts.
However I want to make it clear, and I hope all members feel the
same way, that it is simply not the place of a ministry or a
minister to pre-empt and prejudge this House. Not only is it
disrespectful of the House but many members in this House are
active in the trade and international relations envelope. I for
one have an interest in the Pacific Rim as do many members in
this House.
One runs the risk of embarrassing colleagues when things like
this happen. If some of us happen to be out in the field and we
hear that a ministry is doing something purporting to act for the
House, this would be wrong if it has occurred in that way.
The second thing I would leave with you, Mr. Speaker, is that if
the minister's or ministry's announcement in China was more to
the effect that it was the intention of parliamentarians here to
set up and create an association or group such as that noted in
the article, that would not be quite so bad as announcing that in
fact the thing was to be done or that it was already done.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I want to support the comments that have been made which came
from three different parties basically.
The real question is how many times is this really going to go
on. I want to remind you, Mr. Speaker, of your own words in this
House. I am going to spend a little bit of time on this because
there is a certain amount of frustration gathering among many
members in this House on these types of decisions.
Mr. Speaker, I want to remind you of your own words on November
6. You said that this dismissive view repeated often enough
makes a mockery of our parliamentary conventions and practices.
You concluded by saying that you trusted that your decision at
that early stage of this parliament would not be forgotten by
ministers and their officials and that the departments and
agencies will be guided by that.
I challenge you, Mr. Speaker, to determine how often is often
enough in this House. Are you not as offended as we are that
parliament is mocked in this way time and time again? This is at
least the third time in this parliament that this has come up. My
colleagues and I are getting a little tired of quoting these
words because we are beginning to wonder if they mean anything at
all to the government. After all, that is what we are all here
for. Our words must count for something.
Having said that, I recognize that without the authority of this
House, your words, Mr. Speaker, really do not have authority do
they? Without our support the Speaker's power and authority are
limited. I do not think we should let our institution and our
Speaker twist in the wind on this issue any longer. I say let us
back up the words of our Speaker this time with some teeth. Let
us show those teeth and if necessary, let us bite a few
bureaucrats and ministers with those teeth.
1520
The last time I addressed this issue I quoted from Joseph
Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, page 221 and I
wish to do so again. It describes a prima facie case of
privilege in the parliamentary sense as one where the evidence on
its face as outlined by the member is sufficiently strong for the
House to be asked to debate the matter and to send it to a
committee to investigate whether the privileges of the House have
been breached or contempt has occurred.
I believe that the case brought forward by the member for Prince
George—Peace River on February 3 represented another incremental
affront on the House and the case for a prima facie contempt of
parliament against the ministers and their departments had
reached a flash point at that time. If the situation had reached
a flash point on February 3, it caught fire on February 26 in the
House when the member for Calgary—Nose Hill brought up another
complaint regarding the millennium fund. Today if we do not take
action we are at risk of being burnt to the ground and the mace
melted into a pane of brass. The cabinet and its bureaucrats
will have won and the members of this place will have lost the
final battle.
Mr. Speaker, I sincerely urge you to allow the member to move
his motion so we can end this mockery of parliament. This cannot
go on any longer. If it continues to go like this, we will be up
time and time again in the House. At some point the Speaker has
got to put some teeth into this issue.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to put on the record that I understand that the minister of
course was the author of the announcement in question. I will be
brief and succinct. Whatever decision you deem would be the
correct one, not having been the author of course I cannot be the
person who would be somewhat admonished, but possibly I might be
as responsible and maybe even more responsible than the author,
the minister in question, on this particular issue.
As a member of that body, the Joint Interparliamentary Council,
which deals with these issues, I am privy to the discussions.
From time to time, as my colleagues probably do likewise, I make
estimates, judgments as to where they might go.
I will have to stand on my record in terms of respect for the
institution, the chair and for my individual colleagues. Whatever
I might have contributed to this matter I will accept my
responsibilities. However, I am certainly totally confident that
there was never any intent, my own, the minister's or the
government's, to be disrespectful in any way of this institution.
If in fact I erred in my judgment, I will accept the
responsibilities and the admonishment of the chair.
My peers, without commenting on the technical aspects of the
issue raised by my esteemed colleague from the New Democratic
Party, the member for Winnipeg Transcona, as to parliamentary
associations and what that in itself can bring through a debate,
that remains to be seen. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, to be quite frank
and honest with you and with my peers and colleagues of the
House, I could possibly be more responsible than the author
himself on this issue.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, on the same issue I could
add to what I said earlier that I do have a copy of the press
release of March 30. It is my first opportunity to go through
the press release and bring a copy here today. I would be
prepared to table it if you would like me to do so at this time.
1525
The Speaker: My colleagues, as you know, I take all
questions of privilege very seriously in this House.
I address myself specifically to the member for Fraser Valley.
Did I understand the hon. member to say that this particular
matter was to have gone through the JIC, the Joint
Interparliamentary Council, and then it was to go to the Board of
Internal Economy? Did I understand the hon. member to say that?
Could he address himself just to those two questions I have.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, the document that I have,
which is the appendix from the Board of Internal Economy about
how we establish these associations if we decide to establish a
new one, is quite explicit. It does not include the cabinet in
any way.
There are two things I would like to underline here, that after
a probation period of at least two years an ad hoc parliamentary
exchange group which has already been established be given the
opportunity to become a friendship group, and after a further
probationary period this friendship group be allowed to apply to
the advisory council, which has now been updated to the Joint
Interparliamentary Council, to become a parliamentary
association, and that the proposal for the funding for that be
submitted to the Board of Internal Economy. In other words, it
has to go through that process, I believe. None of that has
happened to date.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for that
specific information.
He also said that he has in his possession a copy of the
announcement itself. I would like him to table that today. I
want to take this matter under advisement and I will get back to
the House.
I do note that four members of the Board of Internal Economy
have addressed this particular matter today. I do note that the
Board of Internal Economy is going to be meeting next Tuesday,
unless my information is wrong. I want to put that on the record
because that to me has a bearing on what I am going to be doing.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, in regard to that, you
should also know that the issue will also be brought before the
Joint Interparliamentary Council. It is on the agenda for the
Joint Interparliamentary Council to address at its next meeting.
The problem again is that it has not been addressed. I am not
sure what the council may or may not do. My point of privilege
is that that has been presupposed by the minister's announcement.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to join the whip of the official opposition in saying how
important it is for members of the Board of Internal Economy to
express their views on this issue. I would like to briefly
express, if I may, the views of my party.
The problem facing us at this time is a
very complex one in that, theoretically, we should have a system
in which, as Montesquieu would put it, the legislative,
executive and judiciary powers must be separate.
This distribution of powers under the British parliamentary
system exists only in theory, however, since what we have in
fact is the legislative power, with the House of Commons and
Senate that make up parliament, and the executive power, with
cabinet, the government and its employees.
Furthermore, we well know that the executive power rests with
the majority party in parliament, which makes this distinction
rather moot, as I just said.
The problem facing us, and the whip of the official opposition
referred to it earlier, is the fact that, for the fourth or
perhaps even the fifth time in this Parliament or the previous
one, the government jumped the gun in announcing measures that
had not yet been considered, let alone approved, by this
parliament.
In this respect, I would just like to add my voice to that of
the whip of the official opposition in expressing concern about
this government's tendency to take parliamentarians and their
support for granted.
1530
In my humble opinion, the privilege of this House has indeed
been breached, given that, in theory at least, this House can
freely decide, and members of cabinet must not presuppose what
this parliament's decision will be.
[English]
The Speaker: I thank you, my colleagues, for your
interventions. I reiterate that I want to take this under
advisement.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
STANDING ORDERS AND PROCEDURE
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
before question period I was discussing a recommendation that
there ought to be questions and comments during debate in private
members' business.
We just came through question period. The galleries were
filled. People were watching the proceedings in the House. We
covered at least 20 different areas of discussion on a sharp
basis, with interesting insights on behalf of not only the
questioners but the responders.
At committees we see the same thing. The interventions of the
witnesses in committee are always interesting. There is no
question in my mind or any members mind that the dialogue between
the members of the committee and the witnesses is by far the most
illuminating part of committee meetings. That is where we find
out the strengths of arguments. That is where we find out the
weaknesses. That is where we find out the raison d'être, for
making decisions on interesting parts of bills, motions and other
affairs that come before committees.
When we consider what happens when we debate government bills,
during the 20 minute speeches with 10 minute comment, there is a
lot of vibrancy in the House. There is a lot of interaction.
There is a lot of information. When we get down to those 10
minute speeches with no questions and comments, the energy in
this place goes away. Quite frankly it goes away because members
can no longer participate. I suggest that the quality of
speeches also deteriorates because there are no questions to be
asked of that member. When someone says things which are very
good, I want a chance to say they are very good and ask for
elaboration. If they say things that are obviously off base or
misinformed, I also want an opportunity to point this out so that
is not going to be misinformation in the House.
Without questions and comments things can be said in this place
which are not very helpful to any of the issues which come here.
The situation is even worse when we get down to private members'
business. In private members' business if issue is not votable,
it is a 15 minute speech and a five minute wrap-up. One member
from every other party gets a chance to speak for 10 minutes.
Nobody else gets a chance to say anything. It is a tragedy.
The reason it is a tragedy is there are some very good bills
which come here. Members should be told on the floor that they
have a good bill but there is a problem here and here is what we
think they should do. Members should be told they have a bad
bill and here are the reasons. We need this interchange and this
dialogue. That is when we find out what is good and what is not
good. My recommendation to the House is that we do have Q and A
during private members' business.
Earlier today I had an opportunity to meet with two constituents
of mine, Gillian Barber and Laura Morris of Port Credit secondary
school, who are here with the forum on young Canadians. One of
the items on their agenda is the role of a member of parliament.
I told them that today I was going to stand up in the House and
try to do my best to raise some enthusiasm for private members'
business. It is an area which I think is losing its impact in
this place.
The issues of votability and the lottery are demeaning to
members of parliament. I find it insulting that members of
parliament, who have worked hard to bring items forward, have to
go through some arbitrary chance process to get on the order
paper. They then have to go through some other virtually
impossible process to become votable so their item has a chance
to live. The probabilities of those things happening are so
close to zero that there are members in the House who will never
get an item on the order paper. This is not right.
Now is the time for the House to deal with these things. Now is
the time for members to say now is a good time to do something
about this. Now is the time to say that private members have a
role to play. Not only do we have a role to play, but we have to
be seen to be playing a role by our constituents.
1535
I want to come here to talk about the local issues and how
federal legislation reflects things that happen at the federal,
provincial, regional and local levels. I want to hear what other
members have to say about that issue as well. I do not want to
think there is a member over there who never had a chance to rise
in this place to do the best that he or she can to say here is
what I think, judge me on my ideas, judge me on the rational
thinking I am putting forward and give me your best shot because
I know I have done a good job.
Members of parliament are not afraid to rise in their places to
say what they believe on issues of importance to them. We should
respect that more and amend the rules of the House so private
members' business is not given less time but rather more time.
This place does not meet from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. I would be
happy to come here to listen to what other members have to say.
I have two final recommendations. When a member puts in a bill
for drafting, that bill should be grandfathered so nobody else
can submit a similar bill an usurp that spot. Once a member has
reserved an issue, that member should have the courtesy of having
that issue reserved. I have a recommendation with regard to the
carry forward between sessions. When an item has already been
picked we should carry forward at the same stage those items that
have already passed at second reading. Anybody who is on the
order paper who has passed the impossible test of going through
the lottery and the votability thing should also be maintained
and should also remain on the order paper.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I rise on behalf of the people of Okanagan—Coquihalla to
participate in this debate on the House of Commons standing
orders. It is important not only for the members of this House
but for the general public as well that we have the tools
available to us to be able to act in a democratic fashion in the
House of Commons. If it were not for the democratic tools, those
rules and the standing orders, we would be at the mercy of a
majority government that would impose its will on the people of
Canada. That would leave us as members of parliament as nothing
more than actors and the House of Commons as a mere stage.
I will devote my time today to a discussion of royal commissions
and how they relate to the parliamentary system. Under the
current standing orders, royal commissions are not included in
the rules of the House. They are separate. We should review
that. I hope the standing committee will look at some of the
recommendations I bring forward today. In recent history we have
witnessed some major commissions that have fallen short of what
the public was hoping to see from them.
Commissions should be at arm's length from the government. They
may have a fairly immediate impact on legislation that comes
before the House. An example would be the Somalia inquiry. Now
we have Bill C-25 which is supposed to address the changes in the
National Defence Act in relation to the military justice system.
However, the Somalia inquiry made it clear to many Canadians that
royal commissions do not represent the unbiased and autonomous
bodies they were intended to be.
It is with the Somalia commission in mind that I speak in the
House today with the intent of establishing a practice where
parliament is required to have input into the mandate of royal
commissions. It should not just be the executive branch of
government, but parliament would participate in the mandates of
royal commissions. MPs would be active participants through the
committee system in the appointments of the commissioners and
they would be active in reviewing the recommendations of royal
commissions as well. All such recommendations should be
automatically referred to a standing committee. The committee
would then be required to consider and report to the House. The
House could then consider the report.
I will look at the Somalia inquiry which was established in
March 1995.
This government established the Somalia inquiry with pressure
from opposition parties in the House of Commons. The commission's
final report was cut short by the government.
1540
As I mentioned, commissions of inquiry are to be at arm's length
from the executive branch but in this particular instance the
Government of Canada interfered with the commission and did not
allow it to complete its report. That is interference. When a
process where there is judicial independence is wanted, like a
commission of inquiry, there must be that independence.
The incomplete report presented was comprised of five volumes
and had 160 recommendations. The Prime Minister put the cost of
the Somalia inquiry at some $30 million which in reality was
closer to $13.8 million. I will get to that discrepancy a little
later.
The minister of national defence stated that the government had
created a commission with the most wide sweeping powers possible
in Canadian history. That is a direct quote from the then
minister of national defence.
The Somalia commission had the mandate to inquire into and
report on the chain of command, leadership, discipline,
operations, actions and decisions of the Canadian Armed Forces.
It was to look at the predeployment of troops. It was to look at
the deployment of troops and it was to look at the
post-deployment of troops but it was not able to do that because
again we had interference by the executive branch of government.
In other words, what I am saying is that because of the process,
because of the interference problem with royal commissions, we
have a system where the executive branch can ask commissioners to
look at this much information in this much time and with this
much money to do it.
The system is set up now by design, by the government, to fail.
I think there should be a process where parliamentarians have the
ability to look into those problems.
From the beginning, the commission of inquiry into Somalia
became a battle between the commissioners and the Department of
National Defence over documentation, altered documents,
government interference on the inquiry's work, the decision to
halt the inquiry before the work was completed and the final
recommendations that followed.
This government cut the documents short but yet it took almost a
year for the commission of inquiry which did not even have
anything to start with, not even a paper clip. It could not get
the information required from the Department of National Defence.
And then when that issue was raised all of a sudden the material
flooded in. Some 600,000 pages were delivered to the
commissioners.
I have a quote from one of the commissioners: “These documents
arrived in disarray, often without an explanation of their
significance or context”. Questions arose about inconsistencies
in the documentation. Logs were missing or they included entries
that had no information in them. Entries were missing. They had
duplicate serial numbers.
Commissioner Desbarats stated: “Because attempts were made to
destroy some documents within national defence headquarters we
are now embroiled in a detailed inquiry into the whole question
of cover-up”.
We never got to the question of cover-up. The commissioners at
the start of the inquiry said there was a possibility of a
cover-up but by the end of the inquiry, in the middle of their
investigation, they said there were no allegations anymore. It
was the issue of cover-up. There was a cover-up and this
commission was not allowed to continue.
Parliament should have been able to intervene and give the
direction and find out from departmental officials what was going
on. But at the time I stood in this House as defence critic for
the third party in the House of Commons and each and every day
the minister of national defence would respond to my questions on
Somalia by saying let the commission do its work.
The government would not even let the commission do its work.
That is inexcusable and that is why there must be some controls,
rules and regulations in place for this House of Commons when it
comes to commissions of inquiry.
I would like to touch on costs. I did mention earlier that the
Prime Minister put the cost of the Somalia inquiry at some $30
million when explaining why the government wanted the commission
to finish its work. This is when it was wrapping it all up, when
the commission had not even progressed half way through the
mandate.
1545
That $30 million figure was inflated. It was absolutely
inflated. We know that. The day that figure came out, the day
the Prime Minister made that comment, I contacted by phone the
Somalia commissioners who told me the accurate figure was $13.8
million.
It was a PR campaign by this government to tell the Canadian
public we have got to stop, we spent too much money. It was a PR
tactic. Unfortunately it worked. It should not have happened
and it is wrong.
Finally, the minister of national defence acknowledged that 132
of the 160 recommendations of the commission were supported while
others were simply put on the shelf because they did not fit into
the plans of the department.
This is not even the true picture of exactly what happened
because, as I explained, the commissioners of inquiry only had
the ability to look at the predeployment phase and a portion of
the post-deployment phase, never got to the completion of the
deployment phase or the post-deployment phase which would have
looked at the issue of cover-up.
Mr. Peter Adams: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Members get only one opportunity for a full debate on the
standing orders. There has been great interest in changes to the
standing orders.
I have been listening very carefully to the hon. member and I
understand I think at least one point that he has made with
respect to the standing orders. But I feel that most of the
member's remarks do not relate to this debate which is required
in the standing orders on how this House functions.
I would be grateful if the member would keep to the topic.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I remind the hon.
member that he should keep to the debate as closely as possible.
He has only 31 seconds left.
Mr. Jim Hart: Madam Speaker, I know how difficult it is
to hear about how royal commissions relate to this parliament,
but this is very much in the context of how royal commissions
should relate.
In conclusion, I submit that the following be included in the
standing orders of the House of Commons. One, that parliament is
required to have input into the mandate, appointment of
commissioners and recommendations of royal commissions.
Two, all recommendations should be referred to a standing
committee. Three, the standing committee will then consider the
recommendations and report to the House. Four, the House will
then consider the report.
It is our responsibility to ensure—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must interrupt the
hon. member at this point. His time has expired.
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I rise today to take part in the debate under Standing
Order 51.
As a new member of Parliament, I will not delve into the history
of parliamentary procedure. Instead I will provide insight into
the practices that have proved their value to date in the 36th
parliament and those which may require adjustments to further
improve the operation and productivity of this House.
The structures which have been developed and put in place
throughout the evolution of parliament serve as road signs for
those of us within this House to do the business of parliament.
They allow for an orderly progress of the business of the House.
One of the challenges facing parliament immediately following
the last election was ensuring the equal opportunity of all
parties represented in this House. Political commentators called
it a pizza parliament and suggested it would have great
difficulty in reaching a five party agreement as to party
representation and participation in question period and on
committees.
I would be remiss to portray this as an easy process. In
reality, the whips and House leaders of all parties represented
in parliament deserve recognition for endless meetings held prior
to the commencement of the 36th parliament.
However, consensus was reached, basing representation on party
proportionality, as explained by my colleague from
Glengarry—Prescott—Russell earlier today. This consensus among
all other tenants of parliamentary procedures and rules has laid
a foundation for fairness. A demonstration of this fairness is
evidenced by the election of the Speaker of this House, which
included members of all political stripes, including an
independent representative.
1550
Party whips are key to the evaluation of fairness in negotiating
all party agreement. A team is an apt analogy for the business
of this House. A team relies on the input of all members in
order to play the game. This House requires the work and
participation of every member in it to carry out its daily
business.
[Translation]
Yesterday, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean made a statement of sorts
by walking out of the House of Commons with his seat.
[English]
Yesterday's event was an example of a member of this House
dissatisfied with his ability to represent his constituents in
order to feel he makes a difference. While it is unfortunate
that personal frustration occurs, there are avenues where members
can express their views. They can offer to enlighten their
colleagues in this House. They can bring the concerns of their
constituents forward to this legislative body and they can
institute change.
There is always room for improvement through the use of standing
committees, question period, members' statements, votes and
private members' business as well as House debates. There are
many routes with which members of parliament of any political
view can move their envelopes forward.
Our current voting structure balances the philosophical
overarching decisions with political reality. Regardless of the
ongoing debate of our system that voting is archaic and that we
should move to an electronic method, discarding our treasured
tradition of rising at our seat, the act of voting will continue
to be a blending of constituent concerns, party values as well as
personal points of view.
The current committee structure is key to all party
consideration and examination of a multitude of facets of any
given issue or any piece of legislation. This forum is used for
reviewing, discussing and amending legislation. In my estimation
it is an incredibly valuable process. The procedure and
subsequent ability of committees to hold public consultations
across the country serves to provide Parliament with a regionally
specific concerns on many key issues.
As a member of the Standing Committee on Finance I saw the
importance of this consultation firsthand during last fall's
prebudget hearings. It is a huge task to consider and
incorporate the competing needs of Canadians in submitting budget
recommendations. There is a great variance whether it is rural
and urban needs, regional differences, the social demand for
reinvestment as well as the realization of fiscal responsibility,
the overall need for budgetary accountability.
The system of consultations worked and it worked well. The
budget introduced by the Minister of Finance earlier this year
reflected the needs of Canadians, the concerns of committee
members, the input of cabinet and the calculated fiscal
accounting of the Department of Finance. Members who feel they
have no avenue for change need only to review the minutes of the
finance committee's prebudget hearings and compare them with the
budget documents to see the correlation that exists.
As for improvements to the operation and work done by standing
committees there is room for more exploratory work, aiming at the
proactive development of legislation rather than the reactive
review of legislation once it has been introduced.
The nature of debate in Parliament is to bring together diverse
views, both political and ideological, and find consensus or
majority of opinion. The process is necessary in the evolution
of legislation. Although government bills dominate the
legislative landscape private members' bills allow individuals to
lift personal causes or local ideas to a national stage in order
to receive debate. Not all private members' bills become
votable. In reality during the entire 35th parliament out of 408
private members' bills introduced in this House 119 were debated,
47 were deemed votable, while a total of 9 passed.
While on the surface this ratio may seem less than impressive,
and I am not about to say that it does not need improvement
because I believe it does, private members' bills bring issues to
the attention of all members of this House, including the
government. In some cases over time the issues percolate into
government policy and although it may not be under the exact
terms of the private member's bill the issue does get addressed.
1555
Earlier in this debate the Reform whip suggested that the
justice committee failed to report during the 35th parliament on
an issue of the rights of victims of crime. This issue
originated as a private member's bill. In fact, this is untrue.
The justice committee tabled a report in the House last April.
That report is available to all members of the House. The real
truth is that Reform members present walked out of the committee
just as the motion to approve the report was being brought
forward.
A new committee has undertaken a national consultative process
on victims rights. It will be held in June of this year and a
further report will be tabled in September 1998. I appreciate
the opportunity to set the record straight.
As my colleague from Mississauga Centre pointed out, change is
needed in moving private members' issues forward. I listened
with interest to her recommendation and also urge the committee
to carefully consider an alternate means of dealing with private
members' bills.
Of particular interest is the bringing forward of bills based on
signatures of support versus the current lottery system. Through
collecting support of at least 10 members of each party for a
total of 100 members, private members' bills would have the
opportunity to be debated based on their perceived importance to
parliament and Canadians rather than merely left to the luck of
the draw.
The structured and strict running of question period has allowed
more effective use of the allotted time. Throughout the week it
allows questions of importance to be raised with the appropriate
minister.
A recommendation which has been made in the past and which I
support is weekly in-depth question and answer periods involving
a designated minister. I suggest that Friday question periods be
scheduled with regional ministers on a rotating basis, allowing
greater debate on issues affecting each region or, in a related
vein, that each Friday an assigned minister would be available
for in-depth debate on specific issues relating to their
portfolios.
This would provide both members of parliament and their
constituents the opportunity to have local concerns raised in a
focused forum where the minister will, based on the region or
portfolio chosen, provide regionally specific responses to the
questions posed.
While much more can be done to improve the accountability and
the procedure of parliament, I feel it is necessary that we
continue to adapt parliament to the changing environment. We
must safeguard democracy and preserve the valuable traditions of
this institution.
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it gives
me great pleasure this afternoon to talk about the standing
orders and procedures of the House and its committees.
I have been a member of parliament now for 10 years coming up in
November. Having come here in 1988 as a member of the opposition
and now a member of the government, that should give me some
insight at this point from an individual's perspective as to
whether the House of Commons as I know it does work.
There are a couple of concerns that I have as an individual
member I want to bring forward this afternoon. Before I do I
want to talk about the obvious function of parliament itself.
Parliament has two major functions. One is legislative and the
other is accountability.
We should always keep in mind when we are having discussions in
this place whether those two functions are being adhered to
closely so that no matter what the government decides to do, the
legislative agenda of the party in power is brought forward. That
is obviously the wish of the people, having voted for that party
to be their government for a period of time. I think it is also
very important that there is an accountability process built into
that program.
In the last 10 years one of the things that has interested me
most about parliament is the issue of accountability.
If there is anything that irks the people back home in
Kenora—Rainy River, it is the fact that they always want to feel
that members of parliament are being accountable to them the
taxpayers. This brings me to the first issue which is very
obvious to all of us in this place.
1600
The standing rules and procedures of this House in the last
number of years have changed dramatically. When I first came to
this place a member could speak for 20 minutes as a backbencher.
We could speak freely for 20 minutes on any particular topic. The
lead speaker could speak for a very long time if he or she
wished. Now under the procedures they have made it 10 minutes.
I bring to the attention of the House the unfortunate belief
that we are going backward by restricting the freedom of speech
in the House of Commons. We should be allowed to speak, within
reason obviously, for as long as we would like to speak, as long
as the government's agenda, the government's program is allowed
to go forward by all parties in the House.
We seem to place restrictions on ourselves. The thrust of what
we believe and what we hear from our constituents in the ridings
is not brought forward in debate in the House of Commons because
of the restrictions of time limitations which are put on us. For
example, in the short time that I have, 10 minutes, it is very
difficult to put a comprehensive argument together about what the
House of Commons should and should not be doing. I will leave
that for a moment.
The other issue is the one of accountability. I wanted to speak
very strongly about accountability because it has two facets.
Accountability to my constituents means the ability for me to
stand up in the House of Commons as often as I possibly can to
defend in this case the program of the government, the party I
represent. I explain why we have chosen a particular program, a
particular initiative for the good of the people as we see it. If
I cannot do that because there are restrictions, because there
are agreements between House leaders and between parties which
restrict the amount of time we can have on a particular bill, I
do not think it does anyone any good. It is one of the problems
we need to look at very seriously.
The other is the issue of accountability in the committees. I
want to speak specifically about committees. As a member of
parliament for the last 10 years I have noticed that in committee
even though the opposition likes to promote, as I did in
opposition between 1988 and 1993, the importance of committees as
it relates to accountability, whenever we decide we want to look
at the estimates it is the least important thing to the
opposition members. They will not say that publicly but in fact
it is true.
It is not something which generates a lot of excitement by
members of parliament in committee. They continue, as the
opposition is now doing, to say we should look at the whole issue
of the estimates for the human resources development department,
which is the department I am presently on the committee with.
There are huge amounts of dollars involved in human resources
development, close to $60 billion. How often do we look at the
estimates of human resources development in committee? So far
this year, not at all.
There is now a filibuster in the human resources development
committee on a piece of labour legislation because members of the
opposition would like to delay the bill. They have been sitting
on the same clause all morning. That will delay the ability of
the committee to look at the estimates.
We need to seriously look at the importance of accountability in
committees and give members of parliament the opportunity to
reflect on those estimates. As boring as they may seem to people
on this side or that side, it is one of the major functions of a
member of parliament.
If we can get agreement by members of all parties on all sides
of the House that they will allow the program of the government
to go forward, we could then open the rules of this place. We
could on the one hand speak on behalf of our constituents as a
member of parliament and on the other hand make sure that the
program we ran on as a party and as a politician is moved forward
in the weeks and months we sit in this place.
1605
That brings me to the third and I think the most disturbing
issue of this parliament and other parliaments as I have seen it.
It is the issue of private members' bills. For the sake of
argument there is very little attention or care taken on private
members' bills and private members' business. In fact it is
non-existent if people in this place wanted to be very blunt and
frank about it.
We will never get a good system for private members' business
and for the bills that come to this place until there is an
acceptance by the Canadian people first and by the members of
parliament that private members' business is very separate from
the government's business from the parties they work for and the
business they believe in.
Even though we continue to stand up row by row, individual by
individual, the fact remains that private members' bills are not
looked at by the government or by the opposition as private and
on which they can vote whichever way they choose. I have seen on
numerous occasions in this place since 1988 not only the
government but the opposition using private members' bills as an
opportunity to send a signal to the Canadian people. Let me give
one example.
It is well known to all of us that if we voted for a Reform
private members' bill as a private member on the government side,
they would take the opportunity to use that private members' bill
and the fact that we supported it to try to embarrass the
government and the member in the member's constituency. Because
of this, there is no ability for members of parliament to feel
free to support individual private members' bills.
If in fact we were to open up the process and if the Reform
Party were to stop pretending that they do believe in private
members' business and that they vote independently, then we could
get on with the very important work of putting together a private
members' process, one which would allow us to put forward our
constituents' points of view. In rural ridings such as mine we
do not have the opportunity to debate rural issues as often as we
would like to do so.
As I mentioned earlier, the 10 minutes, the short time I had is
finished, which does not allow me to elaborate on a number of
other points.
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Madam Speaker,
listening to this debate today I have to say I was impressed that
there have been so many positive references to the Special
Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons.
I would like to make all hon. members aware that many, many
years ago this committee was chaired by the former member for St.
John's East, the Hon. James McGrath. He represented St. John's
East for many, many years. I think he was in this House for
roughly 21 or 22 years. It is rare in my experience at least
that a report which is 13 years old still maintains a certain
amount of relevance here in parliament. It says a great deal
about the quality of work that was done at that time by the Hon.
James McGrath.
This morning the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough
referred to the Liberal position paper on parliamentary reform
which was published back in 1993. It was published at that time
under the signature of the prime minister.
One of the changes the Liberals promised was for the opportunity
for MPs to present their grievances here in the House of Commons.
After all, this is what the people of Canada, our constituents,
sent us here for. One of the changes they promised was the
opportunity to present grievances here in the House of Commons.
1610
The Liberals said that members of the House and more importantly
the people they represent have to have the fullest opportunity
available to place problems and grievances before parliament.
The rules providing the vehicle for that, such as presentation of
petitions and members statements, must be revised to facilitate
that process. We do not have too many opportunities here in the
House of Commons to present our grievances.
To give one example, a very important thing happened in
Newfoundland recently. It affected the member for St. John's
West, the member for St. John's East and the member for
Burin—St. George's. It was the moving of the Marine Atlantic
headquarters from Moncton to North Sydney in Nova Scotia. The
member for St. John's West, the member for Burin—St. George's
and myself wanted the opportunity over the last week or so to
present our views here on that very important matter. However
there was no opportunity for us to do so.
Statements by members are only one minute long. It is very
difficult indeed to make a case on a very important issue in
one's province in one minute. Even in petitions we can only
speak for 45 seconds to a minute. It is very difficult to make
one's case in that period of time.
The Liberals went on to promise that they would increase the
time available for members statements but it has not happened. To
date there has been no effort to do that and no dialogue on that
issue.
I encourage the House to make more time available for members to
raise many of these very important grievances which Canadians
have against the treatment they receive from their government.
Earlier this year the House was asked to approve changes to the
Constitution regarding the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland,
another very important issue. As the House knows, there are no
special provisions in the rules regarding the consideration of
constitutional amendments and there should be. Since it requires
only the passage of a single question for the adoption of a
constitutional resolution, there should be some protection and
procedures laid out in the standing orders. There should be a
mandatory committee procedure and a guarantee that local hearings
will be held so that Canadians can have access to the members of
the House of Commons.
Finally in the limited time I have available to me, I want to
offer an observation about the way the House considers the
important business of supply and estimates.
I spent many years in the Newfoundland House of Assembly as did
my colleague, the member for St. John's West. It is a small
house with 48 members but that house demanded a much higher level
of scrutiny and debate before money was appropriated and
expenditures authorized.
This House needs to look seriously at the estimates process. We
owe that to Canadian taxpayers. We are spending their money.
This will mean that ministers will have to be more available to
committees. There will have to be less game playing on the part
of witnesses. There will also have to be more time spent and
more time made available for the very important business we have
to conduct here.
I would like to endorse the feeling of the House leader who
spoke this morning concerning the need to simplify private
members' business. If there are ways that changes can be made
and rules changed, then we on this side of the House, if it is to
give additional time to members to make their constituents'
cases, would support them.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to join in this debate this
afternoon. Hopefully this debate will move the government to
make some much needed changes to the procedures of this place, to
the standing orders and to the way in which we conduct business
in the House of Commons.
1615
I note that a number of those preceding me in the debate this
afternoon referred to private members' business, among other
issues. Certainly that is a very important issue for every
member, regardless of which party they happen to represent in
this place. Whether they are opposition members or government
members, private members' business is a very important issue. In
fairness, I think even the backbench members on the government
side have seen the inherent problems in the process.
On a number of occasions when I have written newspaper columns
at home, done interviews and held meetings in consultation with
the constituents of Prince George—Peace River I have referred to
the lottery system of private members' business. We have to be
lucky in order to have our bills chosen. I think this is true of
all members, or the vast majority of members. They put a lot of
time, effort and thought into drafting their private members'
bills. In many cases the bills address a specific need that they
see is lacking in legislation. Perhaps it has to do with
something specific to their particular riding or their area of
the country. They put a lot of time into drafting their private
members' bills, introducing them in this place and then they sit
and wait, and wait, with the slim hope that they might be
fortunate enough to win the lotto 649 and have their name drawn.
Then when they have their name drawn they go to the next step,
which unfortunately is to go before a supposedly non-partisan all
party committee to plead their case. They go on bended knee
after they have been fortunate enough to be one of the ones to
have their name drawn. They go before this committee to try to
convince it that of the 15 drawn theirs should be one of the 5
that are fortunate enough to have their bill made votable. It is
a process that I have been critical of, as I think a great many
members have been on both sides of the House.
Reformers are system changers. Those of us who were elected in
the first go around back in the fall of 1993 were sent to Ottawa
to change the system, to change the way that governance is done
in Canada. It is one of the prime reasons for which the people
of Prince George—Peace River supported me as a Reform candidate
back in 1993. They said “We want you to go down there, Jay, and
try to change the system”.
Certainly Reform has been criticized many times over the past
four and a half years for running up against the wall, the wall
of the old traditional ways, the old system. We are constantly
pushing the envelope and saying that we were sent here to change
the system.
Yes, there are a lot of traditions that we respect in this place
as very loyal, patriotic Canadians, but there are a lot that we
question. We say “Just because it has been done that way for
130-some years, does that make it right? Does it make it the
most efficient and the most effective way in which to govern a
country as large and as diverse as Canada?” There are many areas
where change is needed.
We were sent to Ottawa to change the system, to change the way
in which Canada is governed. Of course, ever since our party was
formed back in 1987 we had our blue book of principles and
policies which contain sections about democratic reform.
These were things that we felt, in broad consultation with
Canadians, should be changed to make parliament more responsive
to what I call the real world outside these hallowed halls, the
real world in which the vast majority of Canadians live and work
each day.
1620
Therefore, this debate today is particularly appropriate for
Reformers. We are talking about the standing orders, the
procedures, the traditions and certain things that require reform
and change.
Hopefully what we viewed yesterday we will not have to view
again. A member of this place became so frustrated with the
process and felt he was failing his constituents and all
Canadians that he resorted to the atrocious stunt of stealing his
chair and rushing out of the House of Commons to try to make the
point to the government that the system needs some serious
changes, that it is in serious need of a major overhaul. We are
not talking about tinkering.
I would like to speak briefly to order in council appointments,
the system whereby the government makes appointments. This
process was widely criticized long before I ever decided to run
for politics. I think it is high time we had a different process
in place for the appointment of individuals to a lot of these
boards.
As the agricultural critic for the official opposition I am very
aware of this at the moment. Bill C-4 is currently being debated
in the Senate. It has already passed this House. The bill calls
for a board of directors to be set up in order to govern the
Canadian Wheat Board. Of that board of directors, which will
consist of 15 individuals, the government, in its infinite
wisdom, only decided to have the farmers elect 10 of them. Five
of the directors will continue to be appointed.
I think a lot of my colleagues, as well as myself, hear a
growing resentment from Canadians about a lot of these
appointments as we travel in our ridings and across Canada. I
could run down a long list of some of the ones who are the most
questionable, individuals who have been appointed to particular
boards, many of them very highly paid. In fact, many of them are
much more highly paid than you and I, Madam Speaker. They have
been appointed to these boards with very high salaries and very
questionable attributes. It seems that many times, at least on
the surface, it is more likely because of party affiliation or
who they supported that they get these jobs, not because of what
they know or do.
Ironically, there is another bill which was being considered
this morning in the standing committee on agriculture, which is
Bill C-26. It also calls for the possibility of a board. In fact
it states in the legislation that the minister for agriculture
may set up an advisory board consisting of up to nine
individuals, all appointed. A number of witnesses appeared
before the committee this morning who raised questions about how
the individuals will be selected and whether they will
necessarily be the best people for the job.
I could have gone into a lot of other issues that are important.
Time allocation and closure come to mind, as well as questions on
the Order Paper. There are so many issues that on the surface
seem dry and somewhat mundane. People probably do not have a lot
of interest in them. But, in reality, once they are explained to
the viewing public, they show a great deal of interest in them
because they affect the way in which our country is governed.
1625
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington—Prisons.
[English]
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to participate in this debate on the motion deemed
to be put according to Standing Order 51, namely that this House
takes note of the standing orders and procedures of the House and
its committees.
In this brief period I would like to address two points, the
first perhaps broad and general in terms of the work of members
of committees, and the second being a specific recommendation to
add a new standing order following Standing Order 98 in order to
correct an obvious problem that continues to sit on the books.
Individuals come to this place with firm convictions that they
can contribute and can add something to the big picture and, most
importantly, they can make a difference on issues and matters
that are of concern to their constituents. Members come here to
serve their constituents. Members come here also as part of a
political team, a party which reflects in a general way their
beliefs, their values and their collective attitudes. An
election result is the combination of the presentation of the
individual candidate and the party that the individual
represents.
A member's arrival in the House of Commons is an experience
which I would suggest flattens the idealistic to the more
pragmatic because this is, after all, a place of government by
ministerial responsibility and it is through the ministerial
system that one must work to see a result or an influence on
policy and ultimately on decisions. Through the 18 standing
committees an individual member of Parliament has an opportunity
to directly influence decision making in the broadest sense of
the word.
On October 22 of last year the Ottawa Citizen published a
column by a writer known as Susan Riley in which she noted:
Everyone knows that the ordinary member of Parliament is a
pitiful creature, shut out of important decision-making,—ignored
by the media and ranked below lawyers in public esteem. Everyone
has remedies for this sorry situation including more free votes,
a higher profile and more travel for Parliamentary Committees,
better decorum in the House and more opportunity for private
members to introduce their own legislation. But nobody,
including MPs themselves is willing to do anything other than
complain.
In that column she addresses the role of committees.
In my experience the 18 standing committees of this House have
little or no relationship with the minister responsible for the
department. In a parliamentary ministerial government it is
astounding to me that ministers only appear for perhaps two hours
before a committee to explain why draft legislation is necessary.
Is it not equally unbelievable that a minister will appear for a
couple of hours to explain or defend the estimates of an entire
department involving perhaps billions of dollars?
This is pro forma ministerial involvement in the workings of
committees. It is an absurd method of paying lip service to
committees, yet there is no real interchange between the minister
on the one hand and the committee on the other.
Our system of ministerial democratic government is looking for
change. As collectives, committees have seen less resources
devoted to them in terms of support, staffing, travel allowance,
access to the minister and freedom to travel. This skewers the
function of this place. The executive and the legislative
function of each department, which is vested in the minister,
grows more powerful while the counterbalance, which is vested in
the committee, continues to shrink.
The time has arrived for every member of this House to get
serious about what this place is and what it might be. As my
friend and colleague, the member from Rosedale was quoted as
saying last year: “Valuable work is still done in committees.
It is as if you're dropping a pebble into a deep well”.
Perhaps members of this House would like to give themselves
something larger than pebbles to deal with. This is an issue
which does not fall along partisan political lines. This is an
issue which speaks to the office of member of Parliament and to
the very institution itself.
This is an issue on which we as members can agree to move back to
committees a meaningful role for members.
1630
We need to move the role of committees to a level of greater
importance, and this can be done in a number of ways. We can
allow some free elections of chairs or we can allow votes in
committees as are conducted in the British parliamentary system.
Most important, give back to committees the resources and support
staff such as researchers and legislative counsel, in order that
all committee members can receive objective, impartial and expert
advice in the course of deliberations.
Standing committees are not intended to be puppets or extensions
of the department with which they are aligned. They are to
examine, test and recommend improvements in what ministers
propose. Yes, there are political and philosophical differences
in committees but at the same time one cannot assume that any
department as represented by its minister is always correct or
always perfect.
Yet committees have been disempowered. The Standing Committee
on Procedure and House Affairs should be looking at ways to
return some modicum of real control. It is easy to say that
committees are masters of their own destiny. Destiny I would
suggest will always be an abstract idea without the supporting
rules and resources to give that cliche meaning.
The other issue to which I wish to speak specifically involves
the standing orders surrounding private members' bills, namely
Standing Orders 98 and 99.
[Translation]
In fact, these private members' bills, after a review by a
standing committee of this House and third reading, are sent to
the Senate.
There, these bills must be treated like public bills. As we
know, the Senate committee can take several initiatives.
However, if an amendment is made during the review by the Senate
committee and is approved at third reading, the bill will come
back to the House, which must then reconsider the bill.
In fact, the House can accept or reject the Senate amendment. It
is time we recognize that this is a major problem.
It is simple: there is no means, no process to conclude debate
on an amendment made by senators.
[English]
This is the ultimate catch-22. This is the treadmill that never
stops yet moves nowhere. The fact is the rules are silent on this
point with the end result being every time the bill, as amended
by the Senate, comes before this House, there is no end to the
process.
A private member's bill which has received the approval of this
House and is amended, however slightly in the other place, can
come back here and be hijacked forever. We know there are
specific rules for debate, namely three hours at second reading
and two hours at third reading. Yet when a private member's bill
returns from the Senate amended, the rules say nothing. The end
result is that private members' legislation can be debated
forever without the closure that a vote on legislation as amended
by the other place will bring. We can say this will never happen
but it has happened.
In conclusion, this is a simple, pragmatic, easily accomplished
change to the standing orders specifically which can be made to
correct this obvious shortcoming. By adding after Standing Order
98 a new standing order, a limit of two or three hours can be
imposed and a vote be required after the period of debate.
I hope the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
will move to add this section and to correct this obvious
problem.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to comment on the Senate. Bills should originate in
this House and only in this House. It is we, the elected
members, who should originate bills. They can go to the Senate
afterwards. That is the way it is meant to be. However, bills
should not originate in the unelected, unaccountable Senate and
then come to this House. They should originate in this House.
The standing orders should be amended to say all bills ought to
begin in the House of Commons.
1635
My second point deals with the estimates. Normally it is the
practice with the estimates to bring the government department
before committee. However, in the Senate this does not happen.
In the 35th parliament it was the first time ever in parliament
that it started in committee. I was on the public works
committee. We passed a motion within our committee to ask the
Senate to appear before our committee. That in turn required the
unanimous consent of the House of Commons.
The chair of our committee brought that motion forward. There
was unanimous consent of this House to send a letter to the
Senate to appear before the committee to justify the estimates.
The Senate refused. That is the crux of the problem. There is
no vehicle available to Canadians to have the Senate appear
before any body to justify the money being allotted to it. This
is not a witch hunt. This is simply accountability. We are
asking the Senate to be accountable.
The practice that sets a deadline to have the main estimates put
to a vote in the House is practical when committees have the time
and authority to summon departments and agencies to appear before
them to justify their spending. That is the normal route with
the estimates. As I said earlier, considering that the Senate is
not bound by an order of the House of Commons or its committees,
Senate estimates should be allowed to stand over and be
considered on a day after the last allotted day. The estimates
of the Senate would only be considered after the Senate has had
an opportunity to send a representative to appear before a House
standing committee.
At present, the only threat the Commons can make is to vote down
or reduce the estimates of the Senate. A hold over might be less
confrontational and would add another option to bring some
accountability to the Senate.
Those sum up my two points. First, all bills should originate
in the House. Second, there should be some vehicle for the
Senate estimates to come before a body of this House for
scrutiny.
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
tomorrow I will have been elected 10 years. I was first elected
to the provincial legislature in Manitoba on April 22, 1988 and
spent five years there before being elected here in 1993.
I can recall on more than one occasion standing in the loges in
the house talking to other members and collectively wondering
what we were doing much of the time. We found ourselves involved
in a series of activities, routines and rituals that grew out of
the traditions of the house that left a lot of us feeling that
they were simply a diversion from the work that brought us here
in the first place. They were an impediment to doing what we
thought we were elected to do.
Tactically it became important if we wanted to change the course
of a bill to put pressure on the government by delaying the
passage of bill through the house. We had a rule that allowed us
to speak for 40 minutes. We had members getting up making speech
after speech for 40 minutes at a time on subjects that they had
no passion about, no feeling about, but simply because it was
necessary to occupy that portion of time.
We would organize hundreds of witnesses to come before the house
committees on bills simply to delay, not to add to the debate,
not to add to the quality of the work that was being done, but to
play the tactical games that dominated the activities of the
house.
However, there were some things in the provincial house that I
rather liked when I contrast them with what I am doing here. I
want to focus a bit on that. First I want to compare some of my
experiences in the provincial house with the ones I had when I
came here.
1640
I find this place, strangely enough, even though it is almost
six times the size of the provincial legislature, a more
accessible place when I wish to speak. The work I do is no
different from the work that everybody in the House does. I
represent a number of Canadians. I spend as much time as I can
in my home community working with people, meeting with them,
hearing what concerns they have, asking them questions about
things the House is seized with, taking their opinions and
bringing them back into this place. It comes back in a number of
ways.
Compared to the provincial legislature I was in, I find there is
more accessibility to the floor of the House through S. O. 31s,
through the question and answer period after speeches in most
debates and through the late show. There are opportunities for
me to rise in the House on a regular basis and put on public
record the opinions, the feelings and the attitudes of the people
I represent. For me it is a significant improvement.
I also note some changes that have taken place in the House over
the last few years since I have come here relative to the work of
committees that I think represent a first important step in what
could be, not is, a substantial improvement in the functioning of
committees.
The ability of committees to set their own agendas is an
important power that committees could exercise more efficiently
than perhaps they do at the present time.
Another is the lining up of committees with departments so that
members of a committee are dealing not with just the legislation
or just the estimates but with the whole picture of the
department, the planning documents, the estimates, order in
council appointments, all the legislation and the annual reports.
We begin to move in a cycle that allows a committee to really
have input into the operations of a department throughout the
course of a year. I think that is an extremely important
structure and one that has come about in the last few years since
I have come into this place in 1993.
However, it is a flawed process in two important ways. If we
look at what happens in September with the consultations done by
the finance committee there is a focusing of attention in the
House on that process. A statement is made by the finance
minister and the committee goes off to solicit opinion from
Canadians that then gets reported back to the House and is
reflected or not reflected, depending on the issue, in the budget
that comes down a few months later. It is a process that
receives a strong mandate from the House and a lot of attention
from the House and produces a result that I think has grown in
quality each year.
That process works because the finance minister takes it
seriously. He pays attention to it. He works with it. He
utilizes it as the tool it really is supposed to be. It is
supposed to be all of us going off into our ridings, talking to
people about the issues before the government at that point in
time, and the finance minister works with the committee to frame
those issues. We collect the opinion, we discuss it, we debate
it in communities all over the country, then we bring it back on
to the floor of the House and it plays a part in the final
document presented in February. That is a big part of what we
are here to do.
There are two ways that process falls apart. I have chaired a
committee. I am on my third minister and I have a terrific
working relationship with the minister which is very solid and I
feel we are able to do some good work, but that is not always the
case.
1645
As the member from our side who preceded me pointed out, if the
minister does not choose to work with the committee, the process
falls apart and is invalidated. It is a flaw in way the standing
orders are structured to hold ministers and departments
accountable to the committees structured for that purpose.
Committees first came into existence as part of the
accountability structure. Members representing constituencies
from all over the country sat on budget committees and reviewed
the expenditures of departments because only the House of Commons
could grant spending authority. We went through the expenditures
line by line very carefully. We questioned them and held the
departments and ministers to account.
That still goes on in provincial houses. Ministers sit before
those committees hour after hour after hour, day after day, until
answers are arrived at. Here, as was pointed out, ministers come
to the committees, make their hour or hour and a half
presentations, and that is the end of it. As a result committees
largely spend no time on the estimates because they are a waste
of time.
One thing that frustrates me enormously is the attitude of the
House toward new technologies. They are being taken up all over
the world. We see all sorts of computers in all offices now. All
sorts of technology are being used as productivity enhancements.
They are used to automate routine tasks so people can focus their
time and energies on those tasks where their expertise is most
valuable. Yet in the House we refuse to adopt those same
technologies.
How many times have members walked out of the House after
spending three hours voting and asked “what was that for”? In
five minutes I could register my opinion on bills my constituents
are interested in, so why am I wasting my time on activities that
could be better done in a more efficient way, which would leave
me free to do the things I theoretically have the skills to do? I
could meet with my constituents, coalesce opinion, bring that
opinion here, debate with members from the other side of the
House and debate theoretically and hopefully toward some sort of
improved conclusion on a solution to some issue that confronts
the country. That is what we are theoretically here to do.
If we could get away from the attitude that somehow technology
is an evil that should not be brought into the House and embrace
it, we may find that it frees us to spend more of our time doing
the things that we would all prefer to do.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will
speak to a couple of issues regarding the standing orders. The
first is debates in the House and the second is Private Members'
Business.
Shortly after I came here I made a very disappointing discovery.
I suspected it to be true right from the beginning. It was
confirmed on a number of occasions and is a sad situation. For
example, I arrived here one Monday morning and it was announced
on the board that there would be a debate that day on whether or
not we should send troops to Bosnia. I remember that specific
debate a few years back, the first time around.
The debate was put forward. Some people were speaking
passionately for sending troops to Bosnia while others were
speaking passionately against it. The debate was going back and
forth, across and all around. It carried on until Tuesday night
when the House took a vote.
We went through the process of a full two day debate. We went
through the process of a 15 minute or 20 minute standing vote. I
noticed in that vote that all government members supported the
idea of sending troops to Bosnia, which is fine if that is the
way they felt. Then we voted on this side of the House. The sad
part of the whole thing was that the troops were already on their
way on Thursday, before the debate even started.
Let us stop and think about that for a minute. We were here for
two days. What did it cost—was it a million or $2 million
dollars—to run this place, to be here debating an issue that was
already decided?
That to me was straight contempt of parliament.
1650
In other words I have learned in the short four years I have
been here that decisions are not made in the House as they ought
to be made. They are made by the front row, the odd few. Chief
bureaucrats could possibly be involved with a certain minister.
Then they emerge from behind their closed doors and say what they
will do with a particular issue, whether they will vote yes or
no. It does not matter what kind of a debate takes place.
Nothing will change their minds because they are members of the
Liberal Party, are the government and will vote the way they are
told. That is sad.
Then we get the courage and the conviction of some of them, one
of them being the member from York South—Weston. He is now an
independent member because he campaigned against an issue. During
his campaign he strongly indicated to his constituents that when
he got to the House of Commons he would push hard for what they
all said they believed in, scrapping the GST.
When the budget came out that year and did not do as he had
promised his constituencies, his convictions were so strong he
had to vote against the bill. Consequently he got fired. Now he
sits as an independent on this side of the House. That is a
disgrace. It is an absolute shame.
I wonder if the people of Canada who vote for these old line
parties realize that they are operating and living under a
dictatorship of a few who make all of the decisions on our
behalf. Regardless of all the compassion we put into our
debates, regardless of how hard we fight for an issue that we
know our Canadian constituents want, it makes no difference; the
decision is made by the mighty few.
The Conservatives of the Brian Mulroney and Michael Wilson era
did the same thing. I cannot think of an issue that was more
obvious Canadians did not want than the GST. The message was
loud and clear by all constituents from all ridings in all parts
of the country. However, when it came time to vote the mighty
few said “You will vote for this. If you do not you will be
fired”.
Consequently we now have a member sitting in the Liberal
government, the member of Edmonton Southeast. He voted against
the government of the day because his constituents did not want
it. I applaud him for having taken that decision. I do not know
if he made the wise decision by moving to the Liberal Party
because it is no different. It does the same thing. One day he
will have to vote against the wishes of his people because his
government will not let him vote otherwise. That is a shame.
Those kinds of things go on in the House far too often.
Decisions are made daily by a few. We are here debating and it
makes no difference. Consequently when the wishes of the
Canadian people are not adhered to, we become about as popular as
snake's tail in a wagon track. That is the opinion we will get
from the people. How much lower can we get?
We are sent here by the people of Canada to represent them, to
send their voice forward, hoping that it will have an impact.
These people are our bosses. They are the ones who have the
right to fire us, not the group sitting on that side of the House
or any party. No people in Canada gave that authority to any
party. They hired us through an election and they will get rid
of us. Right now the only way they can do that is in the next
election, and most of the time they will do that.
Let us look at what happened to the Mulroney government with the
GST. No one will ever convince me that the reason the
Conservatives went from the largest majority to a meagre two was
nothing more than the pressure of voting for something the people
did not want, the infamous GST.
1655
I do not know what it would take to get rid of that kind of
procedure, but it would be nice to tell members they have the
freedom to vote in the House according to how the people want to
be represented.
I heard a member on the other side talk about getting feedback
from his constituents and coming here to represents their views.
However it does not make any difference in that party because
they have to vote according to the minister in charge of the
particular bill and no ifs, ands or buts about it.
We live in a democratic country. Is that a democratic process?
In a pig's eye. That has to change. I do not know what it takes
to do it, but a free vote would be nice. We could legislate
that. Maybe recall would even be better so the people of Canada
decide whether a member belongs here rather than a government
politician. That is not what they are here for.
Enough said about that. I want to move to Private Members'
Business. A committee is struck to determine whether or not a
private member's bill is votable. Even members of the government
caucus have called a committee which makes a decision on whether
or not something is votable a kangaroo court.
I will give an example. I presented a bill a couple of years
ago that would simply give the police the authority to arrest
upon sight, without a warrant, when people on parole were
breaking the conditions of their parole. The committee in all
its wisdom after debating it decided it was not votable.
A few months later one of my colleagues put forward the same
bill with exactly the same contents. Guess what? That one was
votable. I had spent a lot of time and money putting together a
proposal that was denied, and one of my colleagues spent a whole
lot of time and money putting together the same proposal that was
accepted. I guess it is what mood they are in. I have no idea
what helps them make their decisions, but that is wrong.
They set out the criteria for a private member's bill to be
votable. If it meets the criteria that should be all it takes,
but no. I have a hunch somebody over there is saying “don't
make that one votable”. They are taking their orders from
somebody else. We do not even need that committee. If it meets
the criteria let us put it forward.
In conclusion, I admire the work of individual MPs on all sides
of the House who have strived hard to bring forward a piece of
legislation that makes things good for the safety of Canadians,
for their health and for their welfare. They are thinking of the
people. It is too bad their leaders are not doing the same.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to rise to debate the standing orders of
the House.
I believe I am the first rookie member of the class of the 1997
election to speak to this debate. I am glad I have the
opportunity to do so. One of the reasons I stood for election to
this venerable institution was precisely because of my passionate
concern about the state of democracy in Canada.
I would characterize the state of democracy in Canada as a
crisis. Democracy in Canada, as democracy is conventionally
understood, is imperilled not by any great spectre of tyranny or
state totalitarianism but rather by the slow, creeping
incremental gathering of power and authority by the executive and
judicial branches of government at the expense of the legislative
branch, the democratic branch, and particularly that branch of
government as manifest in the House of Commons.
1700
The history of parliament, the history of the development of
this institution, reaches back over a millennium. The privileges
which we here exercise, the right to speak on behalf of our
constituents, on behalf of the subjects of the Queen, on behalf
of the citizens of our country, are duties and privileges which
people have shed blood to secure. Battles have been fought, wars
have been waged and men and women have died in order to secure
the liberties which this institution represents.
That conflict which has carried over a period of centuries was
really a conflict between the authority of the executive branch
of government and the democratic privileges and liberties of
common people as represented in their democratic assembly.
As a first time member of this place, let me make it absolutely
clear that I have enormous, inexpressible respect for the
traditions this place represents. I am a traditionalist. I for
instance am a strong supporter of our constitutional monarchy.
However, I support our constitutional monarchy, our institutions
and our traditions as embodied in this parliament not for the
sake of supporting tradition but because they embody something
good. They embody a tradition of ordered liberty and democracy.
This unfortunately is a tradition which is imperilled by the
fact that this legislature, a legislature which was created to
provide a meaningful check and balance against the authority of
the executive branch of government, effectively no longer does
so.
As a member from the government said during his remarks,
parliament essentially has two functions, that of a legislative
body and the accountability function to hold the executive, the
governor in council, the cabinet or the government accountable.
I think on both those mandates of this place we no longer
exercise the powers of an effective legislature.
I submit that the standing orders of this House have in a sense
removed any meaningful role from this place and from members of
Parliament as real legislators, people who can exercise the
authority granted to us by our constituents within our
constitutional framework to do the business of democracy here.
It has become a truism in this country to refer to our form of
government as one of electing five year, temporary dictatorships.
That is not just the words of partisans in the heat of debate,
that is a sentiment expressed by many eminent political
scientists, jurists and members of this place both now and in the
past few decades.
What they see is essentially two devices of the standing orders
of this place. The executive branch, the cabinet, the
frontbenches, has managed to force members of parliament,
essentially on the government side, to surrender any authority
which they bring to this place from their constituents. The
customs of this House do this by imposing a kind of party
discipline unseen anywhere else in the democratic world, a party
discipline predicated on the notion that if the government loses
a vote on a question on a motion or a bill the government will
somehow fall.
Therefore, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition said in debate
this morning on this matter, we have created an impossible
situation where government backbenchers are forced by their
whips, their ministers, the Prime Minister and their government
to vote with the government on every single conceivable matter
except those occasionally designated to be free votes.
1705
As we all know very well, there is never such a thing as a free
vote for members of the government. There is always a party line
with the government. Notes are always taken by the whip's office
about how members vote. If they hope as a backbench rookie to
become a parliamentary secretary or, heaven forbid, a minister,
if they hope to get a fruitful position on a committee in which
they have interest, then they must toe the party line. It need
not be that way.
The other device used to impose this kind of outrageous party
discipline is the failure of these standing orders in chapter 11
from sections 86 to 99 to permit private members to conduct
legislative business here as legislators.
In a completely arbitrary system 30 bills and motions are drawn
out of hundreds that are submitted for consideration. If they
are lucky they get an hour of debate. If they are particularly
lucky this star chamber of the private members' business
committee will select five items to become votable.
So what happens is that very valuable legislative initiatives
which are not on the agenda of the government and of the cabinet
are almost from the outset given no chance of seeing the light of
day. For instance, I have on the order paper a simple private
member's bill which would recognize a period of two minutes of
silence on Remembrance Day to commemorate our war dead. It is a
motion supported by the Royal Canadian Legion and is a motion
which I cannot imagine any member of this place in good
conscience opposing.
If we amended the standing orders of this place to allow all
private members' business to become votable, this motion I am
sure would pass with unanimous or near unanimous support in the
matter of a few minutes. I do not think it would require an
enormous expenditure of the time and resources of this place to
pass such a motion. All it takes is the will of the government
to amend these standing orders to allow business like that, the
business of democratically elected legislators to come before
this legislature. That is all that it requires.
Indeed other jurisdictions have the flexibility to allow such
business to come before their legislatures. The mother
parliament in Westminster passed just such a motion because its
private members are indeed legislators who can bring issues
forward for consideration to be voted on.
The Queen's Park provincial legislature in Ontario passed a
similar motion because its standing orders allow the same kind of
flexibility.
We should take a close, long, hard look at our sister
parliaments, at Westminster, at the Parliament of New Zealand, at
the Parliament of Australia, at the the congressional system of
the United States, and there we will see democratically elected
representatives operating as representatives, operating as
legislators, operating in the best interests of their
constituents and not as voting flack for the executive branch of
government.
I call on my colleagues opposite to put up or to shut up. We
brought forward a concurrence motion in the fall which would have
allowed them to make every private members' motion a votable
motion. I am sure we will provide them with another opportunity
to support that kind of fundamental reform so they can actually
begin to represent their constituents.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased that we are having this debate on the standing orders,
the rules around which the House of Commons organizes itself.
The standing orders are one of the invisible building blocks
upon which our society is built and too often we take those
building blocks for granted.
The federal government's highly successful national
infrastructure program sparked many discussions about the true
nature of infrastructure in our communities. Some believe that
the only real infrastructure is roads and sewers. Others said
that theatres, arenas and municipal buildings are equally
important.
This type of discussion is more important than it might appear
at first since it encourages us to think about the truly
important foundations of our communities.
1710
“Infra” of infrastructure simply means under. Therefore the
term infrastructure means the underpinnings or foundations. If we
go to the great abandoned cities of past civilizations like
Pompeii in Italy or Machu Picchu in Peru we find that their
physical infrastructure, roads, sewers, theatres, arenas, public
buildings and houses, is still very much in evidence. Yet these
are clearly no longer communities. They died as communities
while their physical infrastructures, their physical foundations,
were still in place. They ceased to exist because their real
foundations, the critical underpinnings or infrastructures that
made them communities, failed.
The fact is the real foundations of any community are the
invisible systems around which people organize themselves,
including their laws, customs, methods of education and beliefs.
It is systems such as these that allow people to build and
maintain the physical structures of their communities.
Here in the House of Commons we work in the midst of
extraordinary physical infrastructure, a wonderful chamber in a
wonderful building. Yet one day this chamber will be empty, and I
am not speaking of the long term. I mean in a year or two.
This House is going to be moved into the cafeteria of another
building while this room is renovated. When that day comes the
work of the House of Commons will continue as effectively as it
does here in this wonderful place. One of the key reasons for
this is the standing orders, arguably the most important facet of
the invisible infrastructure on which our parliament is built.
With the standing orders intact we could move the House of
Commons into a field or a tent and it would work. Without the
standing orders we could not function in the most lavish or
efficient architectural setting.
Parliamentary procedure is the set of rules governing the
activities of a legislative assembly. In the Parliament of
Canada some of these rules are provisions in the Constitution and
acts of parliament. For example, the quorum in the House of
Commons, 20 members, is set in section 48 of the Constitution
Act, 1867.
Most of the rules are listed in the standing orders of the House
of Commons, the subject of this debate. Far from being a series
of unchanging rules, parliamentary procedure, particularly as set
out in our standing orders, is constantly evolving to adapt the
capacity of parliament to deal with constantly changing
environments.
The set of rules we know as the standing orders has evolved over
many centuries, particularly of course since 1867. Over the
years this body of rules has had to be durable enough to survive
the stresses of successive parliaments while being flexible
enough to fit a great variety of parliamentary situations.
As the government House leader pointed out earlier in this
debate, the 35th and 36th parliaments provide excellent examples
of the strengths and flexibility of our standing orders. In 1993
one of the largest ever groups of new MPs arrived on Parliament
Hill. They came from very diverse backgrounds. Some had
previous elected experience at the municipal and provincial
levels but many found themselves in a parliamentary forum for the
first time. That is what democracy is all about.
These new members depended on the standing orders as they found
them to get started with the nation's business. As the
parliament unfolded, like parliamentarians before them, the new
members guided by a minority of experienced members made their
own adjustments to the standing orders as if they were putting
their own stamp on them.
Amendments made in the 35th parliament are contained in a motion
by the then government House leader, now Deputy Prime Minister,
on February 2, 1994. Those changes included a change to Standing
Order 73 so that a bill could be referred to committee before
second reading. This allows for a form of prestudy of
legislation. Another was a provision that allows a committee to
propose and bring in a bill rather than simply dealing with
legislation referred to it by the House of Commons. Both these
changes were designed to strengthen the role of individual MPs.
There were also a change in the business of supply to improve
the consideration of the estimates and a new standing order
empowering the Standing Committee on Finance to conduct prebudget
studies each fall.
1715
One of the purposes of these and other changes was to strengthen
the role of individual MPs. The 1997 election produced a
parliament with five official parties, most with a strong
regional focus. This was a great challenge for the standing
orders which were largely developed in two party or three party
parliaments. The government House leader mentioned this in his
speech earlier today. He pointed out what a great test the
increase in the number of parties was of the strength and
flexibility of the standing orders.
The number of MPs on each committee had to be changed to give
full representation to the smaller parties. As this change
created an increase in the size of each committee, it virtually
required a decrease in the number of standing committees so that
MPs and parties could cope with the increased workload.
The appearance of five parties required great change in the
procedure of question period so that large and small opposition
parties received their fair share of questions and supplementary
questions. The five parties required changes in the operation of
debates in the House, in the order and length of speeches and so
on.
In general, all parties seem to agree that the changes made have
been very effective. This parliament is working well for the
people of Canada. Once again the House of Commons has adapted to
a new national political pattern.
The trick with all adaptations of the standing orders is that
they be effective for the particular parliamentary situation of
the day without undermining the intrinsic long term strength of
the standing orders, a foundation of our parliamentary system.
Standing Order 51(1) requires that a full scale public debate,
like this debate, involving all MPs be held at a certain stage of
each parliament. This is one of the checks built into the
standing orders to ensure they cannot be harmed through neglect.
This rule is a good example of the thought which has gone into
our standing orders over the years. It encourages busy MPs to
put their minds for one day to this important topic.
Over the generations each change in the standing orders has
required the support of a majority of MPs. In this parliament
the active co-operation of five parties was needed. While
naturally there have been and still are disagreements among the
parties and members about particular aspects of the standing
orders, a feature of this parliament has been the active
co-operation between the parties where the interests of the House
of Commons are involved. Credit should go to the current House
leaders of all parties. Most people would agree that particular
credit should go to the Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons.
Rules of procedure are only as good as the members of parliament
and their leaders who use and amend them. The intrinsic strength
of our standing orders is a reflection of the efforts of
generations of parliamentarians in Canada and of generations of
officers of the House of Commons who have watched over the
standing orders like parents nurturing a child.
I am particularly pleased that the government House leader
indicated that report No. 13 of the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs proposing changes to the operation of
private members' business will be acted upon soon. These changes
will further strengthen the role of individual members of
parliament which has been a continuing theme of the 35th and 36th
parliaments. As chair of that committee I thank the standing
committee and the subcommittee on private members' business for
their fine work.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I take the
opportunity to speak to this motion very seriously. I begin by
recognizing some of the things my colleagues said earlier this
afternoon, things which I think are very appropriate,
particularly those by the member for Calgary Southeast.
I liken this House and this parliament to a situation I
encountered not long ago in my riding. I was visiting a fellow
in Smithers, British Columbia looking at his pasture and his
horses. There was a beautiful horse running through the field.
I told the fellow it was a beautiful horse. It was running free
and the wind was blowing through its mane. It was obvious that
it had a lot of spirit.
He said there was a problem with that horse. He said he had to
have it gelded so that it does not produce any offspring.
1720
I look at this parliament. It has all the appearances of a fine
institution but in fact it is like that horse. It is neutered.
This parliament is neutered. MPs have no opportunity to really
influence or affect what goes on in this House of Commons. We
are, except for the executive branch, an impotent institution.
It has been said before and it is an often quoted parable by
Lord Aitken that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts
absolutely. It is easy to say that. Most of us probably agree
that that is the case at least to a certain point. Let me give a
graphic example of this truism in action.
What did members of the government on the other side, Liberal
members, say in opposition in the 33rd and the 34th parliaments
when the subject of private members' business came up? They
fought and they argued and they said that private members'
business ought to be votable, that when private members,
backbenchers, take the time, the trouble and the initiative to
come up with legislation they want to bring into the House that
at the very least it should be votable. What did the members
opposite say when they were in opposition in the 33rd and 34th
parliaments when it came to the authority of committees?
What a joke it is being on a committee in this parliament. It
is an absolute embarrassment to me as an MP. I sit on a committee
as an opposition member. I go there with my ideas. I try to
represent not only my party but my ideas and put the best that I
can forward in that committee. Other members do that as well,
including members of the Liberal Party. The committee attempts to
decide for itself what it ought to do and ought not to do, what
recommendations it should make to the minister and what
recommendations ought to go forward, for example what changes
ought to be made to legislation when we are dealing with
legislation.
The parliamentary secretary to the minister sits on the
committee and guess what. At the end of the day in that
committee which is dominated by Liberals, and in the previous
parliaments when the Tories were in power it would have been
dominated by Tories, the Liberals do what the parliamentary
secretary instructs them to do. It is an absolute sham. It is
an absolute waste of taxpayers' money. It is an absolute waste
of my time as a member of parliament. When I go to the committee
I am wasting my time.
Why is it so difficult for the House leaders to get their
respective members to show up for committee meetings? I will tell
you why. It is because the people who show up are not doing
anything useful and they know it. Most of the people in this
room, whether they are on the government benches or in other
opposition parties, I happen to believe have something to
contribute, even if I do not agree with their particular
philosophy. But we are not able to contribute. We are closed
off.
Our parliament is neutered in a hundred different ways. It is
designed that way and is kept that way to make sure that people
like me, opposition members or Liberal backbenchers, cannot
affect or influence the outcome of the government's decisions.
The only way I have any opportunity to influence what goes on
here is to hope that in question period I will catch a minister
off guard or catch a minister on a bad day and end up getting a
newsclip that night on CTV or CBC or maybe in the Globe and
Mail. That is going to be my one opportunity as a member in
this House to achieve something. Other than that I have no
opportunity. I have no avenues.
The prime minister and the cabinet do not want to hear from me.
I am the last person they want to hear from. The committee
system is just a way to keep us busy. It is a way to keep us
tied up so that we are not actually doing something which might
interfere with the operations of government, so that we are not
actually doing something which might get in the way of the plans
and the intentions of the various cabinet ministers. It is an
absolute sham.
Canadians may not know every rule. They may not know everything
that this House of Commons does. They may not know everything
about the committee structure. They may not know everything about
private members' business.
Many of us had to learn a lot of that after we were elected. I
submit to this House that Canadians by and large know that their
parliament is a neutered and ineffective organization. It is
incapable of operating properly under the present rules. That is
why the issue of procedure is so important. It is one way of
getting at the root cause and one way of making change.
1725
I further submit that there must be a real intention to open up
the doors and allow power to be shared in this House. If the
intent on the part of the executive is to maintain control over
power, then we are not going to achieve any forward progress on
this matter. We can talk about rules, we can talk about
procedures and we can talk about all the wonderful niceties but
it is not going anywhere. Again it is just a waste of our time.
If the House will bear with me for a minute, I would like to
quote some of the things that members who are now cabinet
ministers had to say while in opposition. This is what the
Liberals said on time allocation when in opposition.
The member for Winnipeg South, who is now a cabinet minister,
said while in opposition that using closure “displays the utter
disdain with which this government treats the Canadian people”.
The member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell said “I am shocked.
This is just terrible. This time we are talking about a major
piece of legislation. Shame on those Tories across the way”.
The member for Kingston and the Islands said “What we have here
is an absolute scandal in terms of the government's unwillingness
to listen to the representatives of the people in this House.
Never before have we had a government so reluctant to engage in
public discussion on the bills brought before this House”.
I have another quote by the member for Kingston and the Islands.
While in opposition and talking about the use of closure and time
allocation he said “I suggest that the government's approach to
legislating is frankly a disgrace. It cuts back the time the
House is available to sit and then it applies closure to cut off
debate”. That is a quote from the member for Kingston and the
Islands. He is still a member of the House but now he is on the
government side and guess what? His opinion has changed. It is
now fine to use time allocation.
That is what Lord Aitken meant when he said that power corrupts
and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Once the Liberal Party
became government and got its hands on the lever of power its
principles changed. I do not believe it is the people. I
believe it is the whole philosophy behind the government in this
country going right back to 1867. It has to change. The people
of this country are demanding that it change.
We can talk about changing the rules and procedures which is
fine and well, but until we develop a real will to change the
system we will not have MPs satisfied with the jobs they are
doing in this House. We will not have a real sharing of power.
We will not have legitimate debates that mean anything in this
House that will actually change the course of legislation.
In the end what we will have is democratic dictatorships where
we elect a new dictator once every four or five years. Frankly,
I do not think going into the 21st century that Canadians are
going to find that very acceptable.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 5.30 p.m.,
it is my duty to inform the House that the time for the
proceedings on the motion has expired.
The House will now proceed to the taking of several deferred
recorded divisions.
Call in the members.
1750
And the bells having rung:
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
consent to proceed with the taking of the recorded divisions in
the following order: the amendment of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot to
third reading of Bill C-28, the motion for third reading of Bill
C-28, the motion for second reading of Bill C-37, the motion for
second reading of Bill C-208, and the motion for second reading
of Bill C-223.
The Speaker: Is there agreement that we proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1997
The House resumed from April 2 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-28, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Income Tax
Application Rules, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Canada
Pension Plan, the Children's Special Allowances Act, the
Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, the Cultural Property
Export and Import Act, the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff, the
Employment Insurance Act, the Excise Tax Act, the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the Income Tax
Conventions Interpretation Act, the Old Age Security Act, the Tax
Court of Canada Act, the Tax Rebate Discounting Act, the
Unemployment Insurance Act, the Western Grain Transition Payments
Act and certain acts related to the Income Tax Act, be read the
third time and passed; and of the amendment.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Thursday, April 2,
1998, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
recorded division on the amendment to the motion at third reading
stage of Bill C-28.
[Translation]
The vote is on the amendment.
1800
[English]
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Anders
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Cummins
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Debien
| Desrochers
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Hanger
| Hardy
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
|
Konrad
| Laliberte
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lill
| Loubier
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
| Meredith
|
Muise
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Pankiw
| Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Power
| Price
| Proctor
|
Ramsay
| Riis
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vautour
| Vellacott
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 107
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Cannis
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Copps
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lee
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood
– 134
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bigras
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Caccia
| Calder
| Canuel
|
Caplan
| Cullen
| de Savoye
| Finestone
|
Fontana
| Fournier
| Girard - Bujold
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Keyes
| Lalonde
| Lavigne
|
Lefebvre
| Lincoln
| Mercier
| Phinney
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment defeated. The next
question is on the main motion.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the main
motion in reverse.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Cannis
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Copps
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lee
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood
– 134
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Anders
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Cummins
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Debien
| Desrochers
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Hanger
| Hardy
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
|
Konrad
| Laliberte
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lill
| Loubier
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
| Meredith
|
Muise
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Pankiw
| Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Power
| Price
| Proctor
|
Ramsay
| Riis
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vautour
| Vellacott
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 107
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bigras
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Caccia
| Calder
| Canuel
|
Caplan
| Cullen
| de Savoye
| Finestone
|
Fontana
| Fournier
| Girard - Bujold
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Keyes
| Lalonde
| Lavigne
|
Lefebvre
| Lincoln
| Mercier
| Phinney
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
JUDGES ACT
The House resumed from April 2 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-37, an act to amend the Judges Act and to make
consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Thursday, April 2,
the next recorded division is on the motion at the second stage
of Bill C-37.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find unanimous
consent to apply the results of the vote on the previous motion
to the vote on the motion now before the House, with Liberal
members voting yea.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present will vote no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois members
will vote against the motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP
present vote no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive
Conservative Party will vote in favour of the motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, those poor, impoverished
judges deserve a raise. I will vote in favour.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Cannis
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Copps
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lee
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Massé
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Nunziata
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Power
| Pratt
| Price
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Wayne
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 150
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Anders
| Asselin
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Blaikie
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Cadman
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Cummins
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Debien
| Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
|
Hardy
| Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Konrad
| Laliberte
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| Mancini
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Meredith
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Proctor
| Ramsay
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vautour
|
Vellacott
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 91
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bigras
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Caccia
| Calder
| Canuel
|
Caplan
| Cullen
| de Savoye
| Finestone
|
Fontana
| Fournier
| Girard - Bujold
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Keyes
| Lalonde
| Lavigne
|
Lefebvre
| Lincoln
| Mercier
| Phinney
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
The House resumed from April 2 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-208, an act to amend the Access to Information Act, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Thursday, April 2,
the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded
divisions on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-208
under private members' business.
1805
As is the practice, the division will be taken row by row,
starting with the mover and then proceeding with those in favour
of the motion sitting on the same side as the mover. Then those
in favour of the motion sitting on the other side of the House
will be called. Those opposed to the motion will be called in the
same order. All those at my right in favour of the motion will
please stand.
1810
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Alcock
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Beaumier
| Bellehumeur
|
Bennett
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Cadman
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Cohen
| Crête
| Cummins
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Debien
| Desrochers
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Epp
| Finlay
| Forseth
|
Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Graham
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
|
Hanger
| Hardy
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jordan
| Karygiannis
|
Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Knutson
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lee
| Lill
|
Longfield
| Loubier
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Ménard
| Meredith
| Minna
| Muise
|
Murray
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pankiw
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Penson
| Peric
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Power
| Price
|
Proctor
| Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Shepherd
| Solberg
|
Solomon
| Steckle
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Ur
| Vautour
| Vellacott
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 143
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assadourian
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Blondin - Andrew
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Byrne
| Cannis
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Folco
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Godfrey
| Harb
| Harvard
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Karetak - Lindell
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Marchi
| Marleau
|
Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mitchell
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| Pagtakhan
|
Patry
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Vanclief
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 83
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bigras
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Caccia
| Calder
| Canuel
|
Caplan
| Cullen
| de Savoye
| Finestone
|
Fontana
| Fournier
| Girard - Bujold
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Keyes
| Lalonde
| Lavigne
|
Lefebvre
| Lincoln
| Mercier
| Phinney
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
* * *
1815
INCOME TAX ACT
The House resumed from March 31 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-223, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of
interest on mortgage loans), be read the second time and referred
to a committee.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading
stage of Bill C-223 under Private Members' Business.
We will follow the same procedure as we did before, with the
mover of the motion voting first and then we will take those in
favour of the motion in the first row to my left.
1820
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Anders
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Cummins
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Debien
| Desrochers
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Hanger
| Hardy
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hoeppner
| Iftody
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Konrad
| Laliberte
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lill
| Loubier
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
| Meredith
|
Muise
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Pankiw
| Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Power
| Price
| Proctor
|
Ramsay
| Reed
| Riis
| Ritz
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vautour
|
Vellacott
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 108
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Cannis
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Graham
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lee
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Marchi
| Marleau
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood
– 125
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bigras
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Caccia
| Calder
| Canuel
|
Caplan
| Cullen
| de Savoye
| Finestone
|
Fontana
| Fournier
| Girard - Bujold
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Keyes
| Lalonde
| Lavigne
|
Lefebvre
| Lincoln
| Mercier
| Phinney
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
* * *
ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
The House resumed from March 13 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-216, an act to amend the Access to Information Act, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
1825
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
discussions have taken place between all parties and the member
for Nanaimo—Alberni concerning the taking of the division on
Bill C-216, scheduled for today at the conclusion of Private
Members' Business. I believe you would find consent for the
following:
That, at the conclusion of today's debate on Bill C-216, all
questions necessary to dispose of the said motion for second
reading shall be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested
and deferred until Tuesday, April 28, 1998, at the expiry of the
time provided for Government Orders.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
[Translation]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
discussions have also taken place with the member for
Acadie—Bathurst concerning the recorded division on Motion M-85
scheduled for Wednesday, April 22, 1998 at the expiry of the
time provided for Private Members' Business, and I believe that
you will find consent for the following motion:
That, at the
conclusion of tomorrow's debate on M-85, all questions
necessary to dispose of the said motion shall be deemed put, a
recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday,
April 28, 1998, at the expiry of the time provided for Government
Orders.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The House has heard the
motion. Is is the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
[English]
ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-216,
an act to amend the Access to Information Act, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak today to Bill C-216, an
act to amend the Access to Information Act.
In 1981 when the bill which led to our existing Access to
Information Act was passed, it was clear the legislators of the
day had a strong desire to create a new era of government
openness and accountability. Today there is no question that
government is open, transparent and accountable to Canadians,
thanks to the Access to Information Act.
While the legislators of 1981 saw fit to exclude a number of
crown corporations, since making their information accessible
would possibly harm the public interests, these excluded
institutions nevertheless have managed to become open,
transparent and accountable themselves through means other than
the Access to Information Act. Our Access to Information Act
deserves credit for creating a culture of openness which
permeates the public sector regardless of whether this or that
public corporation is subject to access laws.
All branches of government are aware of how highly valued
openness and accountability have become. Their daily operations
are guided by that awareness. Given the kind of public sector we
have today, the proposed amendment looks like an excessive,
unnecessary and possibly even hazardous venture.
Let us discuss Canada Post for the next few minutes, especially
since the member opposite thinks it makes such a compelling
argument for revising the act.
What do Canadians need to know about Canada Post? Do they need
to know, for example, how federal assets are managed? Of course
they do. However they already receive that information from
sources such as the corporation's annual report and the corporate
plan summary. They also receive this information when corporate
officials are questioned by members of parliament from both sides
of the House at their regular appearances before parliamentary
committees.
The members who took part in the February 17 meeting of the
natural resources and government operations committee can attest
to the frankness of the discussion when the minister responsible
for Canada Post and the president of Canada Post answered
questions on a broad range of subjects.
Do they need to know whether Canada Post cross-subsidizes? Yes,
but Canadians already have that answer after several independent
audits have investigated the allegation. Most important,
Canadians can count on getting an annual answer to that question
not by virtue of new federal legislation but rather by virtue of
Canada Post's decision to begin reporting its financial results
on a segmented basis, product line by product line, beginning
with its 1996-97 annual report.
1830
Do they need to know if Canada Post is open about the handling
of their complaints or concerns? Absolutely and certainly. It
was for that very reason that the first Canada Post ombudsman was
named last August. Thanks to this impartial public advocate
Canadians will now have new recourse if they feel their
complaints have not been adequately dealt with.
If the ombudsman's investigations find that further recourse is
possible the individual will get a fair treatment, and rightly
so, which he or she would deserve. If the opposite is found then
the individual will be able to resist and rest assured that
Canada Post did its utmost to accommodate them. I fail to see
what the member's sweeping amendment would add to that process.
Frankly, I find it surprising that a party which has always
proclaimed itself as wanting less rather than more should embark
on a campaign now to create bureaucrat obstacles to the
successful management of crown corporations. It is all the more
surprising given the Reform Party's platform which advocates the
privatization of Canada Post. Clearly, Reform thinks Canada Post
should become less and not more of a concern to Canadians. So
which is it? We have become used to hearing contradictions from
the other side of the House and we have yet another example
before us today on this matter.
When he spoke of Bill C-216 during the earlier debate my hon.
colleague from Mississauga South warned us of the unintended
consequences of the bill. I agree with him that we have to be
very, very careful of there not being such consequences. Let me
remind the member, as well as all members who may be enticed by
the bill, that where Canada Post and other crown corporations are
concerned Bill C-216 is a solution in search of a problem. We
all know that a certain road to a certain place is paved with
good intentions, but I would caution all members in the House
against travelling down that road.
By enacting this sweeping amendment to the Access to Information
Act I believe big business would profit long before ordinary
Canadians. In Canada Post's case the corporation would be placed
at an obvious disadvantage while its competitors would be able to
collect the information which would allow them to devise
tailor-made competitive strategics against it.
Under the disclosure environment the member is proposing these
competitors would be under no obligation and certainly no
encouragement to release the same information about themselves.
With this kind of inequality in the marketplace the demise of
Canada Post would not be very far behind.
I wonder what favour the member thinks he would be doing
Canadians by removing a key competitor in the area of message and
parcel conveyance. I wonder how the member could explain to
Canadians how less competition is a good thing, especially when
no Canada Post competitor provides service from coast to coast to
coast.
Canadians have a committed public corporation in Canada Post, a
corporation dedicated to providing all Canadians with basic
service whether they live in Tofino or Port Alberni. The
member's bill does nothing but threaten the very foundation of
that commitment.
What about the expense of managing the flood of requests that
would confront any crown corporation operating in a competitive
environment should the bill become law? Did the hon. member
think about that when drafting his proposals? Is it true that
Canadians have a vested interest in crown corporations since the
government is the sole shareholder? That is true.
The time and expense of processing access to information
requests and defending the application of exemptions to corporate
records cannot be justified.
[Translation]
To amend a piece of legislation you need better reasons than to
say that some crown corporations must comply with the Access to
Information Act while others are exempt. Before considering such
a drastic measure, the public interest would have to be in
jeopardy.
I do not see any proof of that with regard to Canada Post and
other crown corporations exempt from the Access to Information
Act. I have heard no compelling argument to apply the act to
corporations that are already open and transparent.
1835
[English]
For these reasons I cannot support a bill that would cause more
harm than good to these institutions and the Canadians they
serve. I would ask that all members do likewise.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Madam Speaker, I rise to
speak today to Bill C-216, an act to amend the Access to
Information Act. The amendment aims at changing the definition
of government institutions in the Access to Information Act to
include any department or ministry of the Government of Canada,
any body or office listed or any crown corporation as defined in
the Administration Act.
I support the spirit of the bill if the spirit is indeed to
provide Canadians with greater access and knowledge about the
operations of government. As a New Democrat I support greater
access to information and greater accountability of government
for spending decisions. I hope that everyone in the House feels
the same.
However, I would like to see an amendment to the bill which
would exclude the CBC from its jurisdiction. The reasons which
make this exclusion necessary are obvious. If the CBC were to be
subject to the Access to Information Act it would no longer be
able to operate as a public broadcaster at arm's length from the
government. This would undermine the legitimacy and credibility
of the CBC which is mandated by parliament to provide a public
broadcasting system pursuant to the Broadcasting Act.
If Bill C-216 defines the CBC as a government institution then
any information the CBC has in its possession would be accessible
to everyone. This could seriously hurt journalistic credibility
and it would seriously hurt the public's access to important
information which we depend on our public broadcaster to provide.
Let me make a case in point. Last month the CBC did an
excellent series of radio documentaries on the growing influence
of the Hells Angels in Canadian society. This program would not
have seen the light of day if dozens of individuals had not been
guaranteed anonymity. Their safety, their lives and the lives of
their families depended on the anonymity provided by the
corporation.
Current affairs and news programming depend on an intricate
system of secure information, guaranteeing sources, building up
contacts and guaranteeing confidentiality. All of these
processes would be made impossible if the CBC became open to
scrutiny under the Access to Information Act.
Under the bill in its present form, the CBC would no longer be
able to protect its sources. All past, present and future
records under all CBC departments would be subject to access
applications. A public broadcaster cannot operate in this
fashion.
This is not to say that the operations of the CBC should remain
outside of public scrutiny. The CBC is fully accountable in
terms of providing information to parliament and to the Canadian
public. There are ways of holding the CBC accountable which do
not undermine the very mandate with which it has been charged.
If adopted in its present form, Bill C-216 would substantially
impede the CBC's journalistic and programming capabilities. I
will therefore not be able to support it.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is my turn to
speak on this subject and, like the other Bloc MPs, I must say I
am in favour of this bill because it is aimed at providing MPs
and the general public with greater access to information.
This bill has only one clause, which extends it to all crown
corporations, since a number of these are currently excluded,
such as the CBC, to which my colleague has referred, the
Canadian Wheat Board and Canada Post. It is intended to avoid
any ambiguity.
1840
For example, a schedule to the present act calls for the 20
departments currently in existence within the federal government
to be listed specifically, along with 109 government
organizations or agencies. In order to be really sure that some
crown corporations are not left out, there is also the Financial
Administration Act, which applies to all crown agencies
reporting to the federal government.
It seems to me that this is a good idea. First of all, the
present legislation has some things in it which reassure me.
The desire is to extend it to all crown corporations, but it
must be kept in mind that protection of personal information
comes under another act. We know that act prevents the release
of any kind of personal information, particularly in the case to
which my colleague referred.
The purpose is to protect any information concerning private
citizens.
As far as businesses are concerned, as soon as there is a
question of commercial relations, of competition, there are also
provisions to protect companies, even the three crown
corporations currently under discussion, which would now be
subject to the act. The others are already covered and are
protected in the event of business competition. I have trouble
understanding the reservations some colleagues may have with
this, as it is clear in the Privacy Act and the Access to
Information Act that they are protected.
Another reason we are in favour of this bill is that a committee
was struck to include all parties in the House, the Standing
Committee on Justice. It began to study the whole matter in
March 1987, at which time it was already recommending extension
of the Access to Information Act to all crown corporations.
So, this goes back a long way. And all parties were represented.
The CBC in particular argued in its brief to the committee that
the corporation felt it was being targeted by the Access to
Information Act and claimed to be restricted with respect to a
number of programs it planned to broadcast. Arguments similar to
those I mentioned earlier were put forward. The disclosure of
any form of personal information was prohibited under the law.
This meant that the CBC would be protected.
However, while in favour of extending the bill to all crown
corporations, I have a number of concerns. As a member of
Parliament, I asked several of my colleagues from different
parties how long it takes to obtain information under the
current access to information legislation. It depends on the
subject of course.
Those who managed to obtain information under this act in less
than three weeks or 20 days were few and far between. Some said
it could take as long as three months. That is quite a long
time.
Often, while not refusing to provide the information requested,
the access to information commission will ask for further
details, thus delaying the process even further. I do not think
it is in the public interest to allow this to go on any longer.
However, the bill put forward by our colleague from the Reform
Party does not go that far. It simply seeks to apply the bill to
a few more corporations.
Let me give you another example. Given the time it takes the
access to information commission to provide information—it can
take up to three months, as I said—some government service
policies were established.
For instance, it is the policy of the former Federal Office of
Regional Development for Quebec, or FORD-Q, now known as the
Economic Development for Quebec Regions Agency, to wait three
months before providing information like the name of companies
benefiting from a government program. That is a very long time.
1845
In many cases, the grant or loan is awarded. Even in the present
situation this gives very little opportunity, for instance to an
opposition MP or even the media, to acquire information, given
the turnaround time. Since it takes so long, people are often
going to give up trying to find out, and just let it go.
In my capacity as the member for Lévis, in the fall of 1996 I
was involved with a subsidy for the building of a vessel for the
Department of National Defence. The Lévis shipyard had made a
tender but was not selected, it seems, as the top bidder.
I tried to analyze their tender. I can tell you that this was
back in August 1996 and at that time, because it was related to
defence, we managed to get some of the information, but 85% of
what I would have been interested in was deleted. They said
that these parts revealed defence equipment specifications, or
contained data that could be harmful to the competitive nature
of a manufacturer.
At the present time, the system we have is far from perfectly
accessible. On the contrary, because of the delays, the
mechanisms, the exclusions set out in so many legal provisions,
it is difficult to obtain all the information requested.
I would like to take advantage of the fact that there has just
been a vote to state that it is most unacceptable for anyone in
this House to want to vote against Bill C-208. It was finally
adopted with the support of the majority, but this was a bill
that called for penalties for falsifying or concealing official
documents. I am somewhat concerned to see that some people
would not want to see information as freely available as the
public would like it to be. I am astonished that the NDP, a
party I respect greatly for its defence of social causes in
general, for its defence of citizens, would object to the
public's having easier access to information.
[English]
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise today in
the House and speak in favour of Bill C-216 which has been
introduced by my colleague from Nanaimo—Alberni. Bill C-216
would make all crown corporations subject to the Access to
Information Act.
As it now stands, some crown corporations are subject to the act
while others are not. For instance while the ports of Halifax
and Montreal are exempt from access to information, other ports
are not. Canada Post, the CBC, the Export Development Corporation
and the Canada Lands Company are also shielded from access to
information requests.
What Bill C-216 does is bring some measure of public
accountability to these crown corporations. While they receive
taxpayers' dollars, taxpayers have no right to delve into
particular aspects of the operation of those corporations. Surely
everyone can recognize the unfairness of the present situation.
During the 1993 campaign the Liberals promised openness and
transparency in government. However, five years later they have
still kept this veil of secrecy over particular crown
corporations. The Liberal cabinet has consistently argued that
some organizations cannot be open to access to information
because it would place them at a competitive disadvantage. They
argue that their competitors could access sensitive information
about their operations. This is simply not the case.
As was pointed out in December when Bill C-216 was in its first
hour of debate, section 18 of the Access to Information Act
allows the withholding of financial, commercial, scientific or
technical information. Anything the corporation deems to be
sensitive or of substantial value does not have to be disclosed.
1850
Section 18(b) of the act specifically states that what does not
have to be revealed is “information the disclosure of which
could reasonably be expected to prejudice the competitive
position of a government institution”. I cannot see how this
could be any clearer. I also cannot see how cabinet expects us
to swallow its story about placing crown corporations at a
competitive disadvantage.
Bill C-216 is about accountability and the public's right to
know how their dollars are being spent. When Canada sold Candu
reactors to China the financing was handled through the Export
Development Corporation. The Export Development Corporation is a
lending institution backed by taxpayers' dollars. Essentially we
lent taxpayer money to China so that it could use it to buy
Canadian reactors.
This unusual way of structuring foreign purchases of Canadian
products raised concerns among many taxpayers. However, getting
to the bottom of this deal and answering the legitimate concerns
of taxpayers is impossible since the EDC is not subject to the
Access to Information Act.
I have heard similar concerns in the west as it applies to the
Canadian Wheat Board. While Bill C-4 will remove crown
corporation status from the wheat board, the bill has yet to pass
the Senate and so the board to this day remains a crown
corporation and thereby is exempt from access to information
requests.
Farmers cannot get any information relating to grain sales,
sales contracts or administrative and general expenses. They
cannot get any information as to why the board has been unable to
collect some $7 billion in overdue payments from particular
countries.
Canada Post has also come under fire because of its exemption
from the Access to Information Act. Competitors have complained
that the Canadian post office uses its mail monopoly to
cross-subsidize its courier company Purolator. Canada Post
denies that this is happening but it also refuses to completely
open its books to public scrutiny. Canada Post is able to
cross-subsidize and then deny it in the face of competitors'
complaints.
The Radwanski report released in October 1996 did a complete
mandate review of Canada Post. The report recommended that
Canada Post be opened up to public scrutiny. Recommendation No.
30 of the Radwanski report reads “that Canada Post Corporation
be made subject to the freedom of information act and to annual
audit by the auditor general”. As with many recommendations in
that report, the Liberals simply ignored it.
I was pleased to note that during the first hour of debate on
the bill, the bill received support from most parties in the
House. Liberal backbenchers supported it, the Bloc Quebecois
spoke in favour of it and the Conservatives offered support in
principle. It is encouraging to see that parties in the House can
support good legislation coming through private members'
business.
The situation reminds me of a similar circumstance involving a
bill from the member for Sarnia—Lambton. The member introduced
a bill that would ban negative option marketing. It had the
support of the House but like C-216 it was denounced by cabinet.
That is a strong statement in itself with respect to how
government runs, its structure and the influence of individual
MPs. That is a debate for another day.
I am just simply pleased that the majority of parties in this
House can see the need for Bill C-216 and are prepared to support
it.
John Grace, the information commissioner, said of Bill C-216
“It will make citizens better able to judge the performance of
their governments and more informed voters. The guarantee of
public access to government documents is indispensable in the
long run for any democratic society”.
In a democracy there can never be enough public scrutiny, never
enough accountability. Bill C-216 provides more public scrutiny
and more accountability. It can only serve to strengthen our
democratic system and our institutions.
I am looking forward to the vote on this bill. I urge all
members of the House to vote in favour of this very important
piece of legislation.
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this bill.
It is interesting that today as chair of the House of Commons
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights I had the pleasure
of receiving along with my colleagues, Mr. John Grace, the access
to information commissioner. He will be leaving government
service after nine years in this position. I know all of my
colleagues on the committee and I am sure in parliament join me
in wishing him well and thanking him for his many years of
service. His service has been exemplary.
1855
The Access to Information Act provides certain basic rights to
Canadians. I am proud of the fact that Canada has been
considered a world leader in this field since the act was
proclaimed in July 1993.
Citizens have an unprecedented right of access to federal
government records. Valuable concomitant privacy protection is
afforded by the companion legislation, the Privacy Act.
Government departments and agencies annually respond to between
12,000 and 13,000 requests under the Access to Information Act
and to approximately 40,000 requests under the Privacy Act.
Canada now has about 15 years of experience with and scrutiny of
the Access to Information Act. I welcome this opportunity to
discuss means by which this legislation can be improved.
This private members' bill proposes to subject all federal crown
corporations to the Access to Information Act and would
accomplish this by changing the definition of government
institution in section 3 of the present act. The present
definition refers to “any department or ministry of state of the
Government of Canada listed in schedule I or any body or office
listed in schedule I”. Bill C-216, which we are debating today,
adds to the definition “any crown corporation as defined in the
Financial Administration Act”. The passage of this bill would
summarily bring more than 20 additional federal institutions and
agencies under access legislation.
I am convinced that the intent of this bill is laudable in that
its objective is to enhance the accountability of government
organizations. I also subscribe, as I know do all of my
colleagues in the House, to more openness in government and to
the opportunity for us as citizens to have more information. But
I believe a negative impact on the commercial interests of crown
corporations will result from this bill if it passes. This
negative impact would largely outweigh any possible support in my
mind.
We must remember that crown corporations have been created as
the result of a deliberate choice of the Parliament of Canada to
deliver particular programs and to deliver particular services by
means of organizations other than the private sector or
traditional departments and agencies of government. These
corporations have a responsibility to serve the public interest
but to do so within a commercial environment. This means that to
the greatest extent possible they must be permitted to operate on
a level playing field with their competitors, free from
administrative burdens associated with other government
bureaucracies.
In our previous debates on this matter, several issues have been
raised. We have considered various exemptions within the current
legislation that might provide adequate protection for the
business interests of crown corporations. Section 18 has been
cited by the proponents of this private members' bill as a
possible means of protection, and I use the term possible
advisedly.
I would suggest though that section 18 provides only a
discretionary exemption. It allows federal institutions to
withhold information, the release of which would be injurious to
the commercial interests of those organizations and more
importantly to the interests of Canada.
There appears though to be no agreement as to whether the act in
its current form or even as amended by this bill offers the
necessary protection to the commercial interests of various crown
corporations. We therefore have to turn to the obvious questions.
Are we prepared to jeopardize the financial viability of these
organizations by subjecting them to this legislation without
first consulting to determine what unique factors exist within
their market environments? Further, are we prepared to risk
injury to the public interests that crown corporations serve by
not first ensuring that we have adopted the appropriate
protective mechanisms for their operations? I am not certain we
should be taking risks like these unnecessarily.
I wish to address the issue of the administrative burden and the
concept of the level playing field.
The Access to Information Act imposes a costly administrative
burden on institutions. It is one thing for a government
department to assume these burdens. It is quite another thing
for a venture that is supposed to be commercially viable to do
so.
According to recent statistics it costs on average more than
$1,000 to complete a request submitted under the current
legislation. These same statistics show that federal departments
and agencies recoup less than 1% of the cost of providing
information to applicants.
1900
In the commercial world this is not good business. In the
context of overhead it automatically places crown corporations at
a competitive disadvantage with their private sector
counterparts.
When I refer to the level playing field, I am referring to the
fact that providing a right of access to information held by
crown corporations could make them vulnerable to unscrupulous
competitors. Some could view this right as an opportunity to
submit unreasonable and voluminous requests, as has been the
experience of some government agencies, particularly in the
provincial sphere. I am thinking now with respect to access to
information requests.
Even if the corporation is ultimately able to protect its
sensitive information, the processing activities associated with
responding to a barrage of requests could be crippling.
Processing charges for applicants, which are stipulated within
the access to information regulations, are minimal. There are
many private sector companies with very deep pockets. They could
sustain a very long and costly campaign without fear of
retribution.
The same problem would not happen with a private commercial
venture. There is no Access to Information Act that would allow
someone to harass them or to go after them for a prolonged period
of time with voluminous requests.
In summary, I want to emphasize four points concerning crown
corporations and the potential impact of Bill C-216.
First, crown corporations were created to serve the public
interests in a commercial rather than in a bureaucratic or
heavily regulated environment.
Second, at this time the provisions of the Access to Information
Act as presently drafted would not guarantee adequate protection
for the commercial interests of crown corporations if this
amendment were to pass.
Third, subjecting corporations to access legislation could
impose an undue and unfair administrative burden on their
operations.
Finally, failing to consult crown corporations to determine
their market environments in advance of scheduling them under
this act would expose them, in my view, to unnecessary
competitive risks.
We all appreciate the intent of Bill C-216. Although I favour
more openness in government, I cannot accept this bill. I
believe it is too simplistic a solution for a complicated
problem.
I want to thank the hon. member for bringing this bill forward
and giving us the opportunity to debate this issue. It is timely
that he did so today because, by coincidence, the justice
committee had an opportunity to meet with the commissioner. This
bill, while it may be a good start, is too simplistic a solution.
I think it was H.L. Mencken who said that for every complicated
problem there is a simplistic solution and it usually does not
work.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Madam Speaker,
first, let me say that we will support Bill C-216, since it is a
step in the right direction. I was very surprised by the
comments of the government member who just spoke, putting a
price on democracy. There is indeed a price to be paid for
democracy. However, it is not an expenditure, but an investment.
It is very surprising to see that Bill C-216 would not be
supported for reasons of money. The government invests hundreds
of millions in democracy, and it should fulfil that financial
commitment to the end.
I am extremely surprised that this bill will not be supported
for financial reasons. I am surprised and very disappointed.
The other argument raised by the government is that the act may
not be able to include all crown corporations. If so, why is the
government not prepared to review the whole legislation? We must
first include everyone, put everyone in the same boat. Everyone
must be covered by the same act, the Access to Information Act.
If sections 18, 19 and 20 are incomplete, then let us work on
them.
We cannot oppose Bill C-216. It is simply not possible. The
moment there is a link with the federal government—whether
monetary or historical—it means there once was a financial link
and we must be able to conduct some audits.
Several sections of the Access to Information Act are complete,
including those that protect individuals, competitiveness, trade
secrets, and so on.
1905
I think we can be very open, but the government should stop
saying it is against Bill C-216 for whatever reason, such as the
cost, the fact that sections of the act would have to be changed
or that crown corporations have not been consulted. Yet they
know there are access-to-information changes in the works.
We could simply look at the whole picture, but I am convinced
that we must support Bill C-216 before us.
What is also surprising about the Access to Information Act, to
broaden the debate a bit, is that it is actually difficult to
obtain information.
The purpose of Bill C-216 is to increase the number of crown
corporations in respect of which a request for information may
be made. The fact remains that eventually the legislation will
have to be amended, because information is very difficult to
obtain.
The workings of justice in Canada are a little strange: one is
innocent until proven guilty. Under the Access to Information
Act, corporations interpret the act and rely on a particular
section of it not to provide the information requested.
Therefore, to prove a point, one must turn to the courts. The
effect of this is to slow down the access-to-information process,
meaning that the ordinary citizen who requests information
stands a good chance of spending many years and incredible
amounts of money to obtain a snippet of information.
At some point, the House is going to have to take a proper look
at this, with a view to amending the Access to Information Act
and making it complete.
Naturally, with the globalization of markets, we must admittedly
be careful, but Bill C-216 must under no circumstances jeopardize
crown corporations.
However, what Bill C-216 is proposing is that Canadian taxpayers'
money not be jeopardized. There must therefore be an audit
system for going after information. We must ensure that the
auditor can go after information without harming the
competitiveness and profitability of corporations. So much the
better if they are profitable, we all agree. However, let us
hope for a little more leeway to go after information and pass
it on to people.
In the House, members' expenses are a matter of public record.
We pay attention to how we spend, because we know that the
information in our budgets can be made public.
You tend to be a little more careful.
This reaction is natural. A crown corporation which is not
currently subject to the act might change the way it operates if
it is included in the act. The $1,000 which was suggested does
not mean you cannot get your money back.
I was mayor in a municipality, we were bound by the Access to
Information Act and we complied with it. The act might be
expensive for crown corporations, but private corporations also
have publishing expenses related to their annual financial
statements, shareholders meetings, and so on. There is no reason
to get excited about that.
In conclusion, the Progressive Conservative Party will support
Bill C-216. But again, we must go further. The context has
changed a lot since the act was first introduced.
Again, globalization should prompt Parliament to consider
amendments to certain sections to better protect crown
corporations, of course, but also the population as a whole.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Pursuant to the order made
earlier this day, the House is deemed to have divided on the
motion and a recorded division is deemed to have been requested
and deferred until Tuesday, April 28, 1988, at the expiry of the
time provided for Government Orders.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
PRISONS
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it appears that there is a growing movement both nationally and
internationally to have jails and/or correctional facilities
privatized. We see this happening more and more.
I note, for example, that New Brunswick, Ontario and Nova Scotia
are experimenting with jails planned, constructed and operated by
private interests. Meanwhile I also note that the United States,
Britain, Australia and New Zealand have more than 130 proposed or
completed correctional facilities with varying degrees of private
involvement.
1910
Some advocates who favour privatization argue that privatization
can result in significant cost savings, fewer problems with
inmates and better rehabilitation and education programs.
Opponents, on the other hand, contend that privatization benefits a
handful of large companies at the expense of long term public
safety. They argue that the private sector has an incentive to
keep prisons full to gain maximum profit, reducing the incentive
to reform offenders, seek alternatives to jail or support crime
prevention programs.
There have been some studies done in this area and it is
interesting to note that some evaluations indicate that private
prisons can yield savings of between 5% and 30% largely through
smaller payroll costs. However, other studies, including a 1996
report by the United States general accounting office, found
conflicting evidence on what to expect from privatization in the
way of costs and quality of service.
All this means that privatization is a contentious issue. It
clearly needs to be weighed out carefully before proceeding. The
pros and cons must be carefully considered prior to any move to
privatize prisons and/or correctional facilities.
My question to the solicitor general is quite simple. Is
privatization worth trying or are prisons best left in the hands
of the public sector?
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I congratulate the
member for Waterloo—Wellington. I have been parliamentary
secretary for a little over two years and I have never had to
replace the minister in the late show as often as I have in the
past session. Both times have been because of the member's
interest and I know he is very tenacious and I compliment him on
this.
The member has made a very clear case and a lot of the concerns
he has expressed I share and I know the minister shares. I want
to reassure the member for Waterloo—Wellington that the ministry
of the solicitor general is in no way considering privatizing
correctional services. We have to date almost 12% of certain
aspects of corrections being privatized. I do not think the hon.
member would argue that maybe laundry facilities or fire
protection equipment, services of that nature, might be
privatized.
The examples he has cited, especially in the United States, of
privatizing certain facilities have certainly not demonstrated
that they are successful in actually reducing costs. I agree
with him that we have to be very prudent.
There is one other point that has not been addressed. I would be
very concerned if we are going to move and transfer the power to
actually punish citizens in the hands of the private sector. That
to me is a very serious concern, more than the actual cost
factor.
I want to reassure the hon. member that there is no interest on
behalf of the solicitor general to privatize correctional
services facilities. If we were to do such a thing, I am sure
there would be a full debate and an inquiry into the pros and
cons of it. That would have to be done.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The motion to adjourn
the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.12 p.m.)