CONTENTS
Monday, February 7, 1994
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 969
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 979
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 981
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 986
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 988
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 989
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 989
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 989
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 989
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 989
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 989
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 989
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 989
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 989
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 990
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 991
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 991
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 992
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 992
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 993
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 994
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 994
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 994
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 994
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 995
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 995
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 995
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 996
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 996
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 999
Bill C-211. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 1001
Consideration resumed of motion 1002
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 1007
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 1020
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 1025
957
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, February 7, 1994
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada) moved:
That the Standing Orders of the House of Commons in force on January 28,
1994, be amended as follows:
PART A.
I. That Standing Order 73 be amended
1. By deleting sections (1) and (2) thereof and substituting the following
therefor:
``(1) Immediately after the reading of the Order of the Day for the second reading
of any public bill, a Minister of the Crown may propose a motion that the said bill be
forthwith referred to a standing, special or legislative committee. The Speaker shall
immediately propose the question to the House and proceedings thereon shall be
subject to the following conditions:
(a) the Speaker shall recognize for debate a Member from the party forming the
Government, followed by a Member from the party forming the official
Opposition, followed by a Member from each officially recognized party in the
House, in order of the number of Members in that party, provided that, if no
Member from the party whose turn has been reached rises, a Member of the next
party in the rotation or a Member who is not a member of an officially
recognized party may be recognized;
(b) the motion shall not be subject to any amendment;
(c) no Member may speak more than once nor longer than ten minutes;
(d) after not more than 180 minutes of debate, the Speaker shall interrupt the
debate and the question shall be put and decided without further debate or
amendment.
(2) Every public bill, except for bills referred to a committee before being read a
second time pursuant to section (1) of this Standing Order, shall be read twice and
referred to a committee before any amendment may be made thereto.
(3) Unless otherwise ordered and except for bills referred to a committee before
being read a second time pursuant to section (1) of this Standing Order, in giving a
bill second reading, the same shall be referred to a standing, special or legislative
committee.''
2. By renumbering sections (3) and (4) thereof as sections (4) and (5)
respectively.
II. That section (1) of Standing Order 74 be amended by deleting the word
``When'' and by substituting therefor the words ``Unless otherwise provided by
Standing or Special Order, when'', in paragraph (
a), by deleting the words ``or
second speaker'' and substituting therefor the words ``, second or third speaker''
and in paragraph (
b), by deleting the word ``two'' and substituting therefor the word
``three''.
III. That the Standing Orders be amended:
1. By inserting, immediately before Standing Order 76, the following:
``At Second Reading
76. (1) The report stage of any bill reported by any standing, special or
legislative committee before the bill has been read a second time shall not be
taken into consideration prior to the third sitting day following the presentation
of the said report, unless otherwise ordered by the House.
(2) If, not later than the second sitting day prior to the consideration of the report
stage of a bill that has not yet been read a second time, written notice is given of
any motion to amend, delete, insert or restore any clause in a bill, it shall be
printed on a Notice Paper. When the same amendment is put on notice by more
than one member, that notice shall be printed once, under the name of each
member who has submitted it.
(3) When a recommendation of the Governor General is required in relation to
any amendment of which notice has been given pursuant to section (2) of this
Standing Order, notice shall be given of the said Recommendation no later than
the sitting day before the day on which the report stage is to commence and such
notice shall be printed on the Notice Paper along with the amendment to which it
pertains.
(4) An amendment, in relation to form only in a government bill, may be
proposed by a Minister of the Crown without notice, but debate thereon may not
be extended to the provisions of the clause or clauses to be amended.
NOTE: The purpose of this section is to facilitate the incorporation into a bill of
amendments of a strictly consequential nature flowing from the acceptance of
other amendments. No waiver of notice would be permitted in relation to any
amendment which would change the intent of the bill, no matter how slightly,
beyond the effect of the initial amendment.
(5) The Speaker shall have the power to select or combine amendments or clauses
to be proposed at the report stage and may, if he or she thinks fit, call upon any
Member who has given notice of an amendment to give such explanation of the
subject of the amendment as may enable the Speaker to form a judgement upon
it. If an amendment has been selected that has been submitted by more than one
member, the Speaker, after consultation, shall designate which member shall
propose it.
NOTE: The Speaker will not normally select for consideration any motion previously
ruled out of order in committee, unless the reason for its being ruled out of order was
that it required a recommendation of the Governor General, in which case the
amendment may be selected only if such Recommendation has been placed on notice
pursuant to section (2) of this Standing Order. The Speaker will normally only select
motions that were not or could not be presented in committee. A motion, previously
defeated in committee, will only be selected if the Speaker judges it to be of such
exceptional significance as to warrant a further consideration at the report stage. The
Speaker will not normally select for separate debate a repetitive series of motions
which are interrelated and, in making the selection, shall consider whether individual
Members will be able to express their concerns during the debate on another motion.
958
For greater certainty, the purpose of this Standing Order is, primarily, to provide
Members who were not members of the committee with an opportunity to have the
House consider specific amendments they wish to propose. It is not meant to be a
reconsideration of the committee stage.
(6) When the Order of the Day for the consideration of the report stage is called,
any amendment proposed pursuant to this Standing Order shall be open to
debate and amendment.
(7) When debate is permitted, no Member shall speak more than once or longer
than ten minutes during proceedings on any amendment at that stage.
(8) When a recorded division has been demanded on any amendment proposed
during the report stage of a bill, the Speaker may defer the calling in of the
Members for the purpose of recording the ``yeas'' and ``nays'' until more or all
subsequent amendments to the bill have been considered. A recorded division or
divisions may be so deferred from sitting to sitting.
NOTE: In cases when there are an unusually great number of amendments for
consideration at the report stage, the Speaker may, after consultation with the
representatives of the parties, direct that deferred divisions be held before all
amendments have been taken into consideration.
(9) When proceedings at the report stage on any bill that has not been read a
second time have been concluded, a motion ``That the bill, as amended, be
concurred in and be read a second time'' or ``That the bill be concurred in and
read a second time'' shall be put and forthwith disposed of, without amendment
or debate.
(10) The report stage of a bill pursuant to this Standing Order shall be deemed to
be an integral part of the second reading stage of the bill. When a bill has been
concurred in and read a second time in accordance with the procedures set forth
in this Standing Order, it shall be set down for a third reading and passage at the
next sitting of the House.
After Second Reading''.
2. By renumbering Standing Order 76 as Standing Order 76.1 and by
amending the said Standing Order:
(
a) in section (1) thereof, by inserting immediately after the word ``committee'',
the words ``after the bill has been read a second time'';
(b) in section (2) thereof, by inserting immediately after the word ``stage'', the
words ``of a bill that has been read a second time'' and by adding, at the end, the
words, ``When the same amendment is put on notice by more than one Member, that
notice shall be printed once, under the name of each Member who has submitted it.'';
(c) in section (3) thereof, by inserting immediately after the word ``bill'', the
words ``that has been read a second time'';
(d) in section (5) thereof, by adding, immediately after the words ``upon it'', the
words, ``If an amendment has been selected that has been submitted by more than
one Member, the Speaker, after consultation, shall designate which Member shall
propose it.'';
(e) in section (6) thereof, by deleting the words ``section (2) of'';
(f) by deleting section (8) thereof and by substituting the following therefor:
``(8) When a recorded division has been demanded on any amendment proposed
during the report stage of a bill, the Speaker may defer the calling in of the
Members for the purpose of recording the ``yeas'' and ``nays'' until more or all
subsequent amendments to the bill have been considered. A recorded division or
divisions may be so deferred from sitting to sitting.
NOTE: In cases when there are an unusually great number of amendments for
consideration at the report stage, the Speaker may, after consultation with the
representatives of the parties, direct that deferred divisions be held before all
amendments have been taken into consideration.''
(
g) in section (9) thereof, by inserting immediately after the words ``any bill'',
the words ``that has been read a second time'';
(h) in section (10) thereof, by inserting immediately after the word ``bill'', the
words ``that has been read a second time''; and
(i) in section (11) thereof, by inserting immediately after the words ``When a
bill'', the words ``that has been read a second time''.
IV. That Standing Order 113 be amended:
1. By deleting section (1) thereof, and by substituting the following therefor:
``(1) Without anticipating the decision of the House, within five sitting days after
the commencement of debate on a motion to appoint a legislative committee or
to refer a bill thereto, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
shall meet to prepare, and shall report not later than the following Thursday, a list
of members of such a legislative committee, which shall consist of not more than
fifteen Members. Such a committee shall be organized only in the event that the
House adopts the motion for appointment or referral. Upon presentation of such
a report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, the same
shall be deemed adopted.''
2. In section (3) thereof, by deleting all of the words after the word ``meet'' and by
substituting therefor the words:
``within two sitting days of the naming of the Chairman and the adoption of the
motion appointing or referring the bill to the committee of which the membership
has been reported.''
PART B.
That Standing Order 68 be amended by adding, immediately after section (3),
the following:
``(4)(
a) A motion by a Minister of the Crown to appoint or instruct a standing,
special or legislative committee to prepare and bring in a bill, pursuant to section (1)
of this Standing Order, shall be considered under Government Orders. During
debate on any such motion no Member shall be permitted to speak more than once or
for more than ten minutes. After not more than ninety minutes debate on any such
motion, the Speaker shall interrupt debate and put all questions necessary to dispose
of the motion without further debate or amendment. A motion by a Minister of the
Crown to concur in the report of a committee pursuant to this section or to section
(4)(b) of this Standing Order shall also be taken up under Government Orders and
shall, for the purposes of Standing Order 78, be considered to be a stage of a public
bill.
(b) A motion by a Private Member to appoint or instruct a standing, special or
legislative committee to prepare and bring in a bill, pursuant to section (1) of this
Standing Order, shall be considered as a motion under Private Members' Business
and shall be subject to the procedures in that regard set down in Standing Orders 86
to 99, inclusive. A motion by a member other than a Minister of the Crown to concur
in the report of a committee pursuant to this section or to section (4)(a) of this
Standing Order shall also be taken up as a motion under Private Members' Business
pursuant to the aforementioned Standing Orders in that regard.
(5) A committee appointed or instructed to prepare and bring in a bill shall, in its
report, recommend the principles, scope and general provisions of the said bill and
may, if it deems it appropriate, but not necessarily, include recommendations
regarding legislative wording.
(6) The adoption of a motion to concur in a report made pursuant to section (5) of
this Standing Order shall be an order to bring in a bill based thereon.
(7)(a) When a Minister of the Crown, in proposing a motion for first reading of a
bill, has stated that the bill is in response to an order made pursuant to section (6) of
this Standing Order, notwithstanding any Standing Order, the bill shall not be set
down for consideration at the second reading stage before the third sitting day after
having been read a first time. The second reading and any subsequent stages of such
a bill shall be considered under Government Orders. When a motion for second
reading of such a bill is proposed, notwithstanding any Standing Order, the Speaker
shall immediately put all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading stage
of the bill without debate or amendment.
(b) When a member other than a Minister of the Crown, in proposing a motion for
first reading of a bill, has stated that the bill is in response to an order made pursuant
to section (6) of this Standing Order, and if the bill has been selected pursuant to
Standing Order 92, when a motion for second reading of such a bill has been
proposed, notwithstanding any Standing Order, the Speaker shall immediately put
all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without
debate or amendment.
(8) A Minister of the Crown may propose a motion for first reading of a bill based
on an order made pursuant to section (6) of this Standing Order, whether that order
was the result of a motion by Minister or of a private member, and notwithstanding
the provisions of section (4)(b) of this Standing Order, any such bill shall thereafter
be considered under Government Orders.''
PART C.
That Standing Order 81 be amended by adding at the end of section (8)(a) the
words ``In any calendar year, no more than one fifth of all the allotted days shall
fall on a Wednesday and no more than one fifth thereof shall fall on a Friday.'' and
by inserting immediately after section (6) the following:
``(7) When Main Estimates are referred to a standing committee the committee
shall also be empowered to consider and report upon the expenditure plans and
priorities in future fiscal years of the departments and agencies whose Main
Estimates are before it.
(8) Any report made in accordance with section (7) of this Standing Order may be
made up to and including the last normal sitting day in June, as set forth in Standing
Order 28(2), and shall be deemed to be subject to the provisions of section (9) of this
Standing Order.''
and by renumbering the subsequent sections accordingly.
959
PART D.
That the Standing Orders be amended by inserting immediately after the title
``Budget Debate'' and before Standing Order 84, the following:
``83.1 Commencing on the first sitting day in September of each year, the
Standing Committee on Finance shall be authorized to consider and make reports
upon proposals regarding the budgetary policy of the government. Any report or
reports thereon may be made no later than the tenth sitting day before the last normal
sitting day in December, as set forth in Standing Order 28(2).''
PART E.
That Standing Order 83(4) be amended by deleting the period and adding the
following:
``or to propose an amendment or amendments to a bill then before the House,
provided that such amendment or amendments are otherwise admissible.''
PART F.
I.That Standing Order 24 be amended by deleting sections (2) and (3) and
substituting the following therefor:
``(2) At 6:30 o'clock p.m. on any sitting day except Friday and at 2:30 o'clock
p.m. on Fridays, the Speaker shall adjourn the House until the next sitting day.''
II. That Standing Order 30(4)(a) be amended by deleting the words ``the
mid-day interruption'' and by substituting therefor, the words ``oral questions''.
III. That Standing Order 30(6) be amended by deleting the words ``Private
Members' Business-from 5:00 to 6:00 o'clock p.m.'' and the words ``Private
Members' Business-from 7:00 to 8:00 o'clock p.m.'' and substituting therefor the
words `` Private Members' Business-from 5:30 to 6:30 o'clock p.m.'' and by
deleting the words ``Private Members' Business-from 3:00 to 4:00 o'clock p.m.''
and substituting therefor the words ``Private Members' Business-from 1:30 to
2:30 o'clock p.m.''
IV. That Standing Order 30 be amended by deleting section (7) thereof and by
substituting the following therefor:
``(7) If the beginning of Private Members' Hour is delayed for any reason, or if
the Hour is interrupted for any reason, a period of time corresponding to the time
of the delay or interruption shall be added to the end of the Hour, provided that if
the delay or interruption continues past thirty minutes after the time at which the
Hour would have ordinarily ended, Private Members' Hour for that day and the
business scheduled for consideration at that time, or any remaining portion
thereof, shall be added to the business of the House on a day to be fixed, after
consultation, by the Speaker, who shall attempt to designate that day within the
next ten sitting days, but who, in any case shall not permit the intervention of
more than one adjournment period provided for in Standing Order 28(2).''
V. That Standing Order 33(2) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
``(2) A period of time corresponding to the time taken for the proceedings
pursuant to section (1) of this Standing Order shall be added to the time provided
for government business in the afternoon of the day on which the said
proceedings took place. Private Members Business, where applicable, and the
ordinary time of daily adjournment shall be delayed accordingly,
notwithstanding Standing Orders 24, 30 and 38 or any Order made pursuant to
Standing Order 27.''
VI. That Standing Order 38(1) be amended by deleting the words ``6:00'' and
substituting therefor the words ``6:30''.
VII. That Standing Order 41(1) be amended by deleting all of the words before
the word ``unless'' and by substituting the words ``Whenever the business
before the House is interrupted pursuant to Standing Order or Special Order,''.
and
That this Order shall come into effect on the Monday following its adoption.
That Standing Order 51 be suspended for the present Session.
That the Clerk be authorized to make necessary editorial and consequential
alterations to the Standing Orders.
That the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs examine
procedures regarding members statements, special debates, the taking of
divisions of the House by electronic means, the conduct of Private Members'
Business, especially with regard to Private Bills and to Senate Public Bills, any
anomalies or technical inconsistencies in the Standing Orders, the reform of
question period, measures to achieve more direct participation by citizens,
including citizens' initiative, the right of constituents to recall their M.P.,
binding referenda, free votes in the House of Commons, debates on petitions
and fixed election dates.
(1105 )
He said: Mr. Speaker, the motion to change the rules of the
House, which I am proposing today, is intended to implement a
number of commitments that my party made in the recent
election campaign and in the throne speech in order to revive
and revitalize the House of Commons.
[Translation]
In the speech from the throne, the government committed
itself to ``enhance the credibility of Parliament''. The changes
they propose to make to the Standing Orders of the House of
Commons ``will give the hon. members the opportunity to be
more actively involved in the development of government
policies and legislation''.
[English]
As I have said in quoting the throne speech, what we want to
do is renew and revitalize the House of Commons. Of course
changing the rules of the House does not alone bring about its
revitalization. It is the extent to which the new procedures are
used that will make the difference.
Today we are providing a framework for renewal. It will be up
to all members, both government and opposition, to make these
procedures effective.
It is to state the obvious to say that Canadians have in recent
years, and I think especially over the last nine years, grown
increasingly dissatisfied with the way the House of Commons
has functioned. They have been unimpressed both with the
process that the House has used to do its business and with much
of the results. The changes to the standing orders, the rules of the
House, proposed today make a beginning on improving the
process. Our success in improving the process will, in my view,
have a constructive influence on improving the product.
Our Parliament is an institution founded on developments
many centuries ago. It is one that has evolved over the years to
meet the changing expectations of society. We believe that the
Canadian system of parliamentary government is fundamentally
sound but that the recent practices of the House of Commons
have become inadequate to meet the expectations of the
Canadian people.
Canadians expect responsive as well as responsible
government. Many Canadians have in recent years come to feel
that the House of Commons has failed them in this regard. They
also expect more transparency in government decision making.
In this regard as well, Canadians have been dissatisfied with
parliamentary proceedings. Also, our electors want us to
conduct their business in an orderly and civil fashion. They have
not been overly impressed with the record of the House in recent
years on this front either.
960
However, the new government has been making a real effort to
have the House operate with a more constructive tone and with a
better sense of decorum. The opposition parties, I am happy to
say, have been making a similar effort and the results have been
a matter of favourable comment by many outside the House.
Members will note that the proposals in this motion do not
represent radical departures from some of the ways in which the
House has operated. They in fact reinforce the fundamentals of
our system. By this I mean they seek to restore a more active role
to our members of Parliament and to provide a better balance
between them and the government. The proposals are the end
product not just of the Liberal platform, but of intensive study in
recent years both inside and outside the House.
There has been a growing consensus both inside and outside
the House that proposals such as the ones we find in the motion
before us are essential to the recognition by Canadians of the
House of Commons as the central institution of our federal
government. We do not apologize for what appears to be a
national consensus. We are pleased to be able to act on this
national consensus and this is what we are doing today.
I want to mention some of those who have contributed to the
development of this consensus.
(1110 )
A year ago there was an important report prepared by the
present minister of government services and the hon. members
for Saint-Léonard, for Kingston and the Islands, and for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. This report deserves our
recognition.
Several months later the standing committee on House
management made its very useful 81st report which represented
work not only by the members I have just named but also by such
members as the member for Winnipeg Transcona and former
members, such as the hon. Jim Edwards.
There have also been many studies by academic and private
sector organizations. There has been work over the years by the
Parliamentary Centre for Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade
under the leadership of Peter Dobell. The House has benefited as
well from commentary on procedural matters by journalists
such as Hugh Winsor, Doug Fisher and, yes, Bob Fife.
In the immediate past weeks we also benefited from
constructive discussions with the Official Opposition, with the
Reform Party and with other members. I would like to thank
particularly the hon. members Roberval and
Kindersley-Lloydminster, the House leaders for the Bloc and
the Reform Party, for making a number of constructive
suggestions which we have been happy to incorporate into this
motion.
I believe this kind of collaboration and consensus building is
what the Canadian people desire of their elected representatives.
I am confident all members who want to build a more vital and
more relevant House of Commons will be able to support these
proposals.
The House actually got a head start in its proposals last week
when it unanimously approved a restructuring of the committee
system. At that time the standing committees were realigned to
match the new structure of the government to make it absolutely
clear which committee would deal with which of the
departments and agencies. One important feature of the reforms
adopted last week was the confirmation that the standing
committees and not the legislative committees would be the
usual and customary route for the consideration of the
committee stage of bills.
The motion before us today follows and adds to the changes
made last week. I would like to now turn to its specific
provisions.
The main object of today's motion is to put in place more of
the parliamentary framework that will permit members to do
what was promised by my party in the election campaign and in
the throne speech. This promise was to enable members of
Parliament to play a greater role in the legislative process before
being limited in their scope of action by the approval in
principle of a bill that is implied by second reading.
Second, our proposal will give members an opportunity to
have more input in the preparation of annual departmental
spending plans. This will be a considerable enhancement of
their role in the present process whereby they merely review the
estimates for the current fiscal year. Since these estimates bear
the constitutionally required recommendations of the Governor
General, they are procedurally difficult to alter.
Third, our motion would enable members to be directly
involved in the consideration of proposals for the annual budget
and in consultations about it before being confronted with
formal tax measures to which the government must be
constitutionally committed.
It is our proposal that these tasks be undertaken through the
work of members in the standing committees of the House
holding hearings, listening to witnesses and arriving openly at
decisions and recommendations.
In a country as vast and complex as Canada every government
decision represents a compromise. Every decision on
legislation, on expenditure and on taxation affects different
groups and regions in our country in different ways. No decision
can be reached without consulting a wide range of Canadians,
without considering the views of provinces and municipalities
and without extensive consultations within the government
itself,
961
that is among departments of the federal government. As a result
virtually every government decision represents myriad
compromises.
(1115 )
The difficulty that the present practices cause for our
democratic society is that most of these consultations and
compromises occur before legislation or financial proposals are
made public in Parliament.
There is little transparency in this pre-parliamentary process
which gives natural rise to suspicions, justified or not, about its
fairness and balance.
The impact of this approach on Parliament is as a consequence
often negative. Interested groups unhappy with the result of the
process may simply seek champions of their opposition in the
House and often find them in one or more of the opposition
parties as well as in individual members on the government side.
Also ministers and their officials, having already been
involved in extensive consultation and compromise, are very
often highly reluctant to agree to substantial alterations of the
bill in the House. As a result, what could be a constructive and
potentially more unifying parliamentary process may well
become confrontational and lead to more division instead of
some reasonable degree of consensus?
It is true that in a regionally, socially and economically
diverse country such as Canada, arrival at consensus on national
policy is not easy. When attempts at reaching such compromise
appear to be restricted to private and even secret processes,
however, it is at the expense of the valuable educational and
enlightening effects of more public involvement. All this
merely exacerbates mistrust and suspicions and makes the
arrival at some reasonable degree of national consensus unlikely
or certainly more difficult.
Canadians have the sophistication and the generosity to cope
with the forging of at least some of these difficult compromises
more in public than has been the case before now. There may be
some who doubt this but I am convinced that most Canadians are
capable of understanding each other's needs and positions and
are willing to sanction the kinds of compromises between
regional, social and economic groups that are necessary to
govern so diverse a nation as Canada.
What is more, it is important that a modern democratic
government, more often than at present, more openly involve its
citizens in this kind of decision making. The government must
give more trust to its citizens and their elected representatives if
citizens are to trust their government. Therefore we are
proposing two new avenues, two new routes, for the House to
deal with legislation in addition to the one already in existence.
The first new avenue, the first new route, would see the
government introduce a bill for first reading but after a short
debate of up to three hours and a vote, if necessary, the bill
would be referred to a committee, usually a standing committee,
before rather than after second reading and approval in
principle.
The committee would be able to hold extensive hearings and
would be able to make amendments to the bill unrestricted by
the present limitations considered to be imposed by approval in
principle at second reading. Committees would be in a position
to make extensive revisions to the legislation. Amendments of a
similarly broad nature could be proposed at the report stage after
the bill was sent back to the House and this would be prior to the
completion of the second reading stage.
When the report stage is concluded, under this new procedure
a motion for second reading would be disposed of without
further debate and the bill would be set down for consideration
at the third reading stage at a future sitting.
The third reading stage as well as the earlier report stage
would continue to provide broad opportunities for all MPs who
wish to engage in debate of a more general nature on the bill in
question.
The second new avenue or route would see a committee, on
motion by a minister or by a private member, if it is a matter
during private members' hour, charged with the responsibility
of preparing a bill. Such a committee, likely a standing
committee, could hold wide ranging hearings on what ought to
be included in the legislation and would report to the House on
the principles, provisions and scope of the proposed bill.
(1120 )
That report could include some of the drafting. Concurrence
in the report would be an order of the House to bring in such a
bill. The bill, having already been subject to extensive debate in
principle during consideration of the motion to concur, would
have to be given second reading expeditiously and referred to
committee for detailed study of its legislative language.
Subsequent consideration by the House would take place under
already existing legislative procedures.
One of the features of this route would be that the
government, if impressed with a private member's initiative,
can move it for consideration as compared with the slow and
difficult procedure usually applied to private members' bills.
As I have said, in addition to these two new routes the present
legislative process will also be retained, the process of sending a
bill to committee, only after the vote on second reading.
The House and its committees will need to develop the
techniques and the expertise required to make the new
procedures effective. We propose to make a relatively limited
number of government bills subject to the new procedures in the
962
beginning. I foresee the two new routes becoming more and
more the procedures to be preferred by the government.
The great advantage of these new procedures, these new
routes, would be that members would be able to do what they
and those who elected them have always expected, and that is to
do more to develop legislation.
There is, however, an important additional potential benefit to
be gained. The broad role of standing committees with regard to
a bill dealt with in either of these two new processes could
substantially reduce the quasi-proprietary attitude of ministers
and their officials toward their legislation. By the time such a
bill is ready for second or third reading, it could be as much the
committee's bill as it is that of the sponsoring minister. It has
been suggested that a vote on second or third reading of such a
bill could as a consequence of this be more difficult to describe
as, standing by itself, a confidence issue. Members on all sides
of the House could find themselves freed more often of
constitutional implications in voting and would be able to depart
from party positions without concerns about defeating the
government.
In other words, the suggestion has been made to me that these
two new legislative routes could be one way of increasing the
number of so-called free votes.
The new procedures also can help avoid situations that all
governments face from time to time. They result from a bill's
being developed within departments without sufficiently broad
and open public consultation. As a consequence, things could be
overlooked and the governments as a result are embarrassed, to
say the least, when the bill must be dramatically changed or even
withdrawn in the face of a strong expression of negative public
opinion after that bill has been introduced.
I would like now to turn to our proposals regarding greater
involvement of members of the House in financial procedures.
Under present rules the House does not deal with government
expenditure until the estimates, the spending programs for the
current fiscal year as recommended by the crown, have been put
before it.
The estimates are complex and difficult to analyze and are, for
constitutional reasons, difficult to change. In addition, their
consideration is subject to a rigorous timetable. Main estimates
are referred to standing committees late in February and their
study must be completed in committee by the end of May of the
same year. As a result, the examination of estimates has become
rather cursory and there has been no focus for parliamentary
debate on government spending before its spending priorities
are actually set.
We propose, therefore, that concurrently with consideration
of the main estimates for the current fiscal year, each standing
committee must also consider the future expenditure priorities
for the subsequent fiscal year of the departments and agencies
for which it is responsible.
The committees would be required to report their findings and
recommendations by the end of June in order to fit into the
government's administrative timetable for preparing the next
year's estimates, a process that occurs in the autumn of each
year.
(1125 )
The House would thus have the opportunity to provide the
government and the public with its views on expenditure
priorities before the estimates for the next fiscal year are
prepared rather than being put in the difficult position of having
to deal with what amounts to almost a fait accompli when the
estimates are finally tabled.
Turning to another matter, the annual budget presentation by
the Minister of Finance usually takes place around the end of
February of each year. We are proposing in this motion,
therefore, that the Standing Committee on Finance be required
to undertake an annual public consultation on what should be in
the next budget and in so doing to conduct extensive public
hearings. This consultation would have to take place in the fall
of each year between September and December so as to fit into
the real timetable for budget preparation by the Department of
Finance.
Having the consultation take place in this time period would
make the involvement of parliamentarians meaningful and
relevant. This would provide a forum for both parliamentarians
and the public to air their views on these important matters well
before the budget is locked in in order for it to be presented
around the end of February.
This would also enable the Minister of Finance to test
proposals and ideas with the public less hindered by the often
misunderstood and often exaggerated concept of budget
secrecy.
The idea is that while the minister would still take care to
avoid giving unfair commercial advantage through advance
notice of what the budget would actually contain, he or she
would have the benefit of public and parliamentary comment
before, rather than after, preparing the budget. Also this would
be done because the study has to take place in the finance
committee in the fall of each year before a budget is expected to
be presented the following February. This would have to take
place at a point close to when decisions are being made within
the government on the contents of the budget.
I should add that the public could well benefit from a better
understanding of the options, and by analysis of the committee
proceedings hopefully would be more confident that the budge
once published reflects its needs.
963
In addition to providing the framework for implementing our
platform commitments and what was said in the throne speech,
the motion seeks to regularize the hours of sitting of the House.
Over the years evening sittings in my view have proven to be
unproductive for legislation and not helpful to the health and
family life of members and the staff of the House.
Evening sittings will still occur when the House is debating
general policy matters that attract an unusually high level of
participation, as we have seen in the last few weeks, or holding
special debates on matters of urgency. However, we consider it
desirable that the House not usually sit during the evenings in
order to give members more time for committees, for work in
their offices and perhaps, most important, time for some normal
home life for those whose families come to be in Ottawa.
We wish as well to accommodate members' travel on
weekends to their constituencies by reverting to an earlier
adjournment time on Fridays. We would make up the time lost
by sitting until 6.30 p.m. rather than 6 p.m. during the week and
by doing away with the break between 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. on
Tuesdays and Thursdays.
We are also proposing a measure that would protect the right
of private members to have their proposals debated for the full
allotted of time as well a measure that would recognize in the
rules the need for the House to make certain amendments from
time to time to tax bills that are already before the House.
There are a number of other areas of parliamentary procedure
that have been subject to comment from both within and outside
the House including what has been mentioned in the House
management committee's 81st report of which I spoke earlier.
These include such matters as the conduct of Question Period,
special debates and Private Members' Business. I do not believe
that these should be the subject of an initiative by the
government at the beginning of new Parliament, especially one
in which more than two-thirds of the members are new to the
House. In addition there is the question of electronic voting, a
subject that has engendered a lot of discussion in recent years.
(1130)
These subjects as well as a number of other issues such as
recall, referenda, citizens' initiatives, are among those that
should be addressed in a parliamentary study. As a result we are
proposing that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs put them on its agenda for early consideration.
Also the government has decided that as a part of its effort to
enhance the relevance of the House of Commons, ministers
must, whenever possible, make announcements regarding
policy first here in the House and before meeting the press rather
than after.
This enables members to hear first about such decisions in the
House of Commons. This also facilitates formal responses by
the opposition parties. We saw a good example of how this
approach can work with a statement by the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration just last week.
It is also the government's intention to continue the
innovation seen in the last few weeks in which the government,
on its own initiative, sets aside a significant portion of its own
House time for general debates on policy issues of current and
immediate significance.
I believe this enhances the role of members since their voices
will be heard here in the House of Commons more often before
decisions are made rather than afterward.
I want to turn to a subject that is not mentioned in the motion
itself, but I anticipate that some of the debate on the motion will
concern this subject. It is the subject of so-called free votes. I
want to spend a few minutes discussing this important topic.
The subject does not appear in the motion because in our view
it is not a matter that can be dealt with effectively by the rules
themselves. In fact it is not a matter dealt with now by the rules,
the standing orders of the House. Instead I have concluded it is a
matter to be dealt with by each party and each party's members
themselves.
A government may choose to declare a vote a free vote but it
cannot oblige the other parties in the House to accept such a
declaration. For example, in the last Parliament the House had
before it a bill on abortion which government backbenchers and
the Official Opposition regarded as a free vote but which the
then third party declared to be as far as it was concerned a party
vote, that is one of party policy from which dissent by its
members was not acceptable to it.
We should also bear in mind that this question is as much one
of self-discipline as it is of party discipline.
Most members of this House sought election on the basis that
they were supporters of a particular party, its leader and its
program. This is certainly the case for the Liberals who
campaigned on a more fully detailed and developed platform
than is usually the case. Electors likely expect their members to
represent them in a manner that is consistent with the basis on
which their members sought election.
A more complex consideration here is that the question of free
votes is not only a matter of internal parliamentary procedure.
We are dealing here with the Constitution. To be sure it is the
largely unwritten part of our constitution but it is a vital part,
crucial to the whole concept of parliamentary democracy.
It is a fundamental constitutional principle that the
government in order to hold office must command the
confidence of the House of Commons. Confidence means that
the House does not only agree that the Prime Minister and the
cabinet ought to remain in office, but in order to permit them to
do so the that House is prepared to support their fundamental
policies. This is a basic element of the unwritten part of the
Constitution, that part which stems from the preamble to the
Constitution Act which states that Canada is to have a
constitution ``similar in
964
principle to that of the United Kingdom''. In other words, we are
the heirs to hundreds of years of constitutional practice and are
at the same time both liberated and bound by that legacy.
(1135)
For more than 300 years it has been a constitutional principle
in the United Kingdom, and later in Canada, that ministers in
order to hold office must have the support of the House of
Commons in the sense that they are assured of a majority on
their central policies. They must demonstrate on an ongoing
basis the ability to persuade the House to grant the crown the
funds necessary to carry on the government, to raise the
necessary moneys through taxes and to enact the laws the
ministry considers essential for good government.
Under our constitution the House may express its satisfaction
with ministers who hold office by passing motions expressing
confidence or defeating motions of censure from time to time.
But if that same House were at the same time to deny regularly to
the ministers the funds needed to administer the government or
the taxes to pay its bills or the legislation the ministers believe
essential, those ministers would be shown to be unable to
govern.
As a result, they would have to leave office or seek the
election of a new House. The confidence of the House and the
government is not simply something that is periodically voted
upon. It is something that is also gained or lost on a cumulative
basis.
Not long ago the Prime Minister was asked in the House to
commit the government to a process whereby it could, after any
defeat on any bill or motion other than an explicit no confidence
motion, bring before the House a motion reaffirming the
confidence of the House and the ministry and if sustained in that
motion to carry on.
This process, if sparingly used, is a legitimate one. It was
employed in the House once 25 years ago. This happened when a
government, having carried a tax bill successfully through all
earlier stages, was not sufficiently prudent and held the final
vote at what proved to be the wrong time. Having been defeated
on the third reading of that bill, the government later brought in
a motion that specifically declared that situation not to have
been an intentional declaration by the House of no confidence in
the government. The House accepted the motion and the
government carried on.
It is not however a device that is, if resorted to on a regular
basis, at all compatible with Canadian and British constitutional
theory or practice. A government, I submit, in order to remain in
office must be able to count upon Parliament to support the
essentials that the programs that it places before it and upon
which its members were elected. Both the Constitution and the
electorate expect the government to do something more than to
simply cling to office. A government is expected to pursue the
program on which it was elected.
This is not to say that the government must be on the winning
side of every vote in the House in order to stay in office. Far
from it. The Sir John A. Macdonald government between 1867
and 1872 absorbed many defeats both on legislation and on
supply. The Trudeau government between 1972 and 1974 also
carried on despite defeat, including some on supply.
The cumulative effect of votes in both of those parliaments
however was supportive of these governments. By and large
they got their legislative programs and their central fiscal
policies adopted.
The question of confidence is far from straightforward. This
was demonstrated during the debate on the Address in Reply to
the Speech from the Throne in January 1973 when then Prime
Minister Trudeau presented an exposition of the confidence
convention and said:
Some things for us will be questions of confidence. Some things would mean
the demise of the government. If, for instance, there should be a clear vote of no
confidence in the government, if the government should be defeated on
fundamentals, on basic principles-we shall go to the people-But I hasten to add
that other questions, if they go against us, will not be interpreted by the
government as a defeat of the government.
(1140 )
He was then followed by the then leader of the New
Democratic Party, the late David Lewis, who summed up in his
view what was Mr. Trudeau's position on confidence as being:
We will let you know whether it was confidence after.
Mr. Lewis begged to differ. He said:
I want to tell him that, as far as we are concerned, it will be parliament that
will make that decision.
Constitutional experts tell us the fact is that both Mr. Trudeau
and the late Mr. Lewis were correct. A government can always
assert that the results of any vote in the House demonstrates that
it enjoys the confidence of the House. However, in the final
analysis it has to prove this claim on an ongoing basis by
continuing to win crucial votes here in the House. This shows
how complex the question really is.
Our Constitution differs from that of the United States. There
the executive and legislature are rigorously separated. In
Canada the executive and legislature are not rigorously
separated as is the case in the United States. Our Constitution
does not permit the executive and the legislative body to
function almost independently, often working in opposite
directions.
965
This is not to say that our Constitution is based upon the
subservience of the legislature to the executive. Indeed in
principle at least the reverse is true. It is the central thrust of our
proposed procedural reform, the reforms we are discussing
today, to reinforce the role of members of this House without
sacrificing the mutually interlinked, the symbiotic relationship
between executive and legislature that is the hallmark of a
parliamentary democracy.
While this issue is as I have said more complex than some
would have us believe, I do not wish in describing these
complexities to leave the House with the impression that the
government is reluctant to depart from the recent practice of
treating virtually every vote in the House as a matter of
confidence. In fact it is definitely not the intention of the
government to treat every vote as a matter of confidence. There
will certainly be more occasions than in the past when this
government will not regard issues before the House as matters of
confidence, whether these be on amendments, on bills or on
other motions.
I think I should return to the motion before us and to say in
conclusion that I want to repeat that this motion is intended to
provide an important new framework for both immediate and
ongoing parliamentary reform. However, it will still be up to
members on both sides of the House to make it work.
I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that it is the government's
intention, it is the intention of members supporting the
government, to make these changes work. I believe this motion
will carry out the government's commitment in the throne
speech to enhance the credibility of Parliament by giving
members of Parliament a greater opportunity to contribute to the
development of public policy and legislation.
I urge this House to adopt this motion as a substantial
contribution to achieving these important objectives which are
aimed at restoring the confidence of Canadians in the House of
Commons as the central institution of our federal government
and of our parliamentary democracy.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, in the speech
from the throne, the government committed itself to enhancing
the credibility of Parliament. It also announced that changes
would be proposed to the standing orders of the House of
Commons to give members of Parliament a greater opportunity
to contribute to the development of public policy and
legislation.
Today, the government introduced its proposals for
parliamentary reform. The Official Opposition does not object
to the proposed changes to the Standing Orders of the House of
Commons. However we do have some reservations.
(1145)
Certain aspects of the proposed reform violate the
fundamental principles of our parliamentary system. In other
areas, we feel it does not go far enough, and we seriously doubt
that the few changes being proposed will be able to restore
Parliament's image and enhance the role of its members in the
eyes of the public.
We realize that updating the rules in the Standing Orders is
not a task to be taken lightly. Parliamentary procedure is
extremely complex. It is based on principles that are meant to
protect the inherent values of a democratic society like ours.
Any attempt at reform must be done with great care, to avoid
undermining the fundamental principles of our parliamentary
democracy. As Charles Franks, founding president of the
Canadian Study of Parliament Group pointed out, parliamentary
reform is not a straightforward technique to make Parliament
more effective and efficient, although it is often presented in
those terms. This kind of reform is about the interests that
legislators must serve in Canada and how various points of view
may or may not affect choices and results.
However, we know that thorough reform is possible, witness
the sweeping reforms of 1968 and 1985. It is enough to observe
the following rule: any changes in the Standing Orders must
conform to the fundamental principles of the Canadian
parliamentary system.
Before taking a closer look at the government's proposals,
perhaps I may briefly recall, for the benefit of this House, the
underlying principles.
The Canadian parliamentary system is derived from the
British system. In fact, according to the preamble to the
Constitution Act, 1867, the Canadian Constitution is based on
the same principles as those applied in the United Kingdom.
Historically, the British parliamentary system has consisted
in a set of techniques for co-operation between the government,
called the King's Council, and the elected assembly or House of
Commons. To encourage co-operation between the two powers,
the British created various means of contact as well as certain
controls and constraints.
Normally, these parliamentary techniques should have
disappeared when the supremacy of Parliament, represented by
the House of Commons, became the sole legitimate basis for the
exercise of political power in Great Britain and Canada.
However the need to reconcile parliamentary supremacy and
effective government led to maintaining the parliamentary
mechanisms that we know today.
Briefly, the British parliamentary system is based on
maintaining a balance between the government's right to govern
and the right of the House of Commons to control the
government's activities, according to the principles of
parliamentary supremacy.
966
To maintain this very necessary balance, the British
parliamentary system requires a flexible sharing of legislative
and executive powers by Parliament and the government, while
stressing co-operation.
The government enjoys the confidence of members of
Parliament who belong to the party that has the majority of the
seats in the House of Commons. This allows the government to
dictate the business of the House. Although the House of
Commons conducts its business as it sees fit, it is more or less
subject to the government's will. This mechanism allows the
government to govern.
However, members of the House of Commons enjoy
guarantees by which they are free to criticize the nature of
government activity. These guarantees arise from the Standing
Orders of the House and certain conventions. The preservation
of the rights of the opposition is one of the basic unwritten rules.
The contemporary role of the House of Commons is therefore
to monitor the government's actions. The main function of its
members is to publicly and freely challenge and criticize the
government and the measures it tables in the House. Any
infringement of the member's role diminishes the usefulness of
the House of Commons as a democratic institution.
(1150)
As a result of the last election, the 54 members of the official
Opposition were given the mandate to defend the interests of
their constituents in the House of Commons pursuant to
Parliamentary rules and traditions. They intend to assume the
traditional role entrusted them under the Canadian
parliamentary tradition to monitor the government's actions.
However, Quebec voters did not give them the mandate to
reform federal institutions such as the House of Commons.
Granted, the government has presented us with a proposed
reform of the Standing Orders of the House, and it is its
prerogative to do so. We have decided to co-operative to fully
assume our parliamentary role and carry out our mandate. But
our duties are not limited to approving the government's
proposed amendments to the Standing Orders. We must also
offer constructive criticism of the proposed reform. The Official
Opposition intends to underline not only the positive aspects but
also the shortcomings and oversights in the government
proposals. The objective of this approach is to reassert the value
of the members' work while respecting the underlying
principles of the Canadian parliamentary system.
As representatives of Quebec voters, we cannot let the House
lose some of the tools it has to monitor the government's
actions. We would prefer to see an increase in the number of
such tools. In fact, the Opposition watches over the transparency
and openness of the House of Commons proceedings, in order to
preserve the democratic values of our society.
In this regard, we are a little surprised by two amendments to
the Standing Orders put forward by the government: the referral
of a bill to a committee after the first reading and the delegation
to a committee of the responsibility to draft a bill. Of course, the
government asserts that noble goals are behind these proposals.
Unfortunately, they will result in suppressing debate in the
House on the principle of government bills.
The first amendment enables a minister to propose a motion to
refer a bill to a committee right after the first reading subject to a
short 180 minute debate during which no amendment would be
allowed. Once the motion had been passed, the bill would then
be referred to a committee controlled by the government
majority for review.
The report stage would then be followed by second reading
without amendment or debate. The report stage would become
part of the second reading stage. The bill would then be
reviewed at the third reading stage pursuant to the current
Standing Orders.
Of course, Opposition members would have the opportunity
to address in the House the principle of the bill during the initial
debate on the referral motion. However, the debate would then
be shorter than the usual second reading debate. Moreover, the
members would lose the opportunity to propose the
postponement of second reading or to put forward a reasoned
amendment. The proposal to amend Standing Orders 73 and 76
and to add Standing Order 76(1) would limit debate in the House
on the principle of the bill.
Comment 659 in the sixth edition of Beauchesne reads as
follows:
The second reading is the most important stage through which the bill is
required to pass; for its whole principle is then at issue and is affirmed or denied
by a vote of the House.
The debate and vote on the principle of a bill is the Opposition
members' main mechanism to control government bills. It
enables them to criticize in the House the principle of a bill
before the clause by clause review in committee.
It would be difficult to question the principle of a bill in
committee at the report stage while trying to amend it clause by
clause. As a result of this amendment, the debate on principle
would be diluted by that on the amendments to each clause of the
bill. We will debate technicalities without having discussed
clearly and openly the opportunity of the bill. That is why the
opposition has reservations about this amendment. In our
opinion, it affects the fundamental right of members of
Parliament to have an input in the legislative activities of
government, a right which is at the very root of the Canadian
parliamentary system.
967
(1155)
We doubt that such an amendment will renew the credibility
of this House in the eyes of Canadians. We could have had
something more substantial to reassert the value of Parliament.
We feel uneasy about another amendment and for the same
reason: the one allowing a minister to put a motion to instruct a
committee to prepare and bring in a draft government bill. In its
report, the committee would recommend the principles, scope
and provisions of the draft bill.
Concurrence in this report by the House would constitute an
order of the House for the government to bring in a bill based on
the report, but not necessarily the one recommended by the
committee. The government bill would then be introduced for
first reading. The third sitting day after having been read a first
time, the bill would be set down for consideration at the second
reading stage, and immediately voted upon without debate or
amendment.
In effect, this amendment to Standing Order 68 prevents
members from debating in the House the principle of
government bills. Certainly members are involved in the
preparation of the draft, but their input is more theoretical than
anything else, as far as we are concerned. In fact, the decision
rests with the majority of the members of the committee who
come from the government party.
The principle of the bill adopted in committee essentially
reflects the wishes of the government. It cannot be argued
therefore that opposition members participate fully to the
preparation of the bill. They do participate in the debate on the
committee report and can propose amendments. By then
however, the bill tabled by the government has turned into an
entirely new governmental bill that can be different from the
draft bill tabled by the committee.
This can hardly be seen as the same bill. In fact, we are
dealing with an entirely new bill, the principle of which has
never been considered. This amendment denies the members the
right to debate in this House the relevancy of the new
government bill. Also, the involvement of opposition members
in the preparation of the bill is used to claim later that they were
in agreement. It is basically infringing upon the right of
opposition members to examine the legislative activity of
government by forcing them to conduct a fundamental part of
their work as parliamentarians in committee, without debating
the principle of the bill.
Again, the opposition doubts that this is the sort of
amendment that will enhance the work performed by the
opposition members. It undermines a major aspect of the
Canadian parliamentary system, in that the members are to
monitor the legislative activities of government through an open
debate in the House of Commons on the principle of
governmental bills. For that reason, it would be dangerous for
the Official Opposition to say that this amendment will help
remedy the negative perception the public may have of the
House of Commons.
In spite of these reservations, the Official Opposition
recognizes that some of the changes proposed by the
government are indeed interesting. Two amendments are timid
steps in the right direction. First, the amendment to Standing
Order 81, empowers standing committees to consider
government expenditures for future years.
(1200)
Second, adding Standing Order 83(1) authorizes the Finance
committee to make reports on budgetary policies before the
tabling of the budget.
These proposals, however, are not enough. The government
forgot to include some measures which would have enhanced, in
a concrete manner, the status of the work done by MPs, thereby
improving the credibility of Parliament as a whole. By
proposing that the House of Commons examine
order-in-council appointments before such appointments take
effect, the government would have taken a giant step toward
transparency.
It would have been in everyone's interests, including the
Prime Minister, the opposition parties, the members of
Parliament and the candidates to those positions, to submit to
the House, as part of this parliamentary reform, a procedure
allowing the members and the public to participate in the
appointment process. In so doing, the government would have
concretely enhanced the status of the work done by MPs and
would have given back some credibility to Parliament.
Yet, during the election campaign, the Liberals promised to
restore integrity within the federal government administration.
On page 92 of their famous election program, the Liberals
accused the Conservatives of choosing political friends when
making key appointments within the government, adding that
they would put an end to this reprehensible practice. The
Liberals committed themselves to making appointments on the
basis of competence.
Why then did they not propose, as part of this parliamentary
reform, a review process which would take place prior to
confirming order in council appointments? We wonder.
Giving MPs the power to approve order in council
appointments before their coming into effect would have been
an excellent way of solving the problem exposed by the Liberal
Party in its election program. Indeed, to allow the House of
Commons to review order in council appointments of
parliamentary officials, judges, ambassadors, high
commissioners, top civil servants, chairpersons and directors of
Crown corporations, as well as of those appointed to various
regulating agencies, organizations and tribunals, would
certainly have
968
been an excellent way of removing the negative perception the
general public has of some of our political institutions.
The idea is not a new one. Such a review process already
exists in another great democracy, namely the United States of
America. The reform proposed today does not take into account
the urgency of implementing such a review process, by the
House of Commons, regarding appointments made by the
government. Yet, it is essential that the public view these
appointments as not being merely a form of patronage.
The government is saying to Canadians: If you want more
transparency, you will have to wait! Indeed, the government
failed to propose an important measure which could have
improved the public perception of our parliamentary
democracy.
Unfortunately, the opposition also notes another important
oversight, namely the absence of a mechanism to hold special
debates on issues deemed important by the members of the
opposition. Such a measure would have enabled the government
to enhance even more the status of the work done by MPs. Past
experience reveals that emergency debates in the House are a
rather rare occurrence. These debates are held at the discretion
of the government. The conditions regulating the holding of
such debates are very strict and thus prevent debates on issues
deemed important by the public. Many Canadians feel that the
work done by the House lacks relevance to the main current
issues. The holding of special debates would provide MPs with
an opportunity to have in-depth discussions on current issues.
In its 81st report tabled in 1993, the Standing Committee on
House Management recommended the adoption of a procedure
to hold special debates on specific issues. The goal was to ensure
that members of the opposition would be able to raise questions
of particular interest to them. The government did not deem
appropriate to include a procedure for special debates in its
parliamentary reform, even though this would have had the
effect of giving more credibility to the work of the House and to
the parliamentary role of the MPs.
(1205)
In the same vein, I would like to mention a final major
oversight of the government. The government did not include a
proposal to create a special question-and-answer period on
particular topics or departments. This oversight is even more
glaring in that the 81st report of the Standing Committee on
House Management recommended establishing such a question
period and having one every week. According to the committee,
this special question-and-answer period could deal with
regional or sectoral problems that do not receive due attention
from the opposition, for lack of time. It would also provide an
opportunity to question ministers more systematically than is
possible now.
The government thus dropped a fundamental
recommendation of the management committee to make the
work of Parliament reflect the people's everyday concerns. This
oversight will not bring the institution of the House of Commons
closer to the people.
In conclusion, the reform proposed by the government is
light-years away from a real, specific upgrading of the work of
members of Parliament. On the contrary, the government is
proposing changes to the Standing Orders which, although
positive in some respects, seem in their application to contradict
to some extent the foundation of the parliamentary system in
which we now operate.
We deplore the fact that the government did not consider
statements made by one of its own members when he criticized
the Conservative government's reform plan in 1991. On April 9,
1991, the Liberal member for Kingston and the Islands said, as
reported on page 19189 of Hansard:
We believe that this country functions best when it has a strong and effective
opposition.
Later he added:
-the importance of an opposition in Parliament to inform the people and to
express their grievances in Parliament is deep rooted in the British
parliamentary tradition. Over the years, governments have sought to curtail the
rights of oppositions to present grievances and to argue their case.
The official opposition agrees with the opinion expressed by
the hon. member. Indeed, the present official opposition takes
the same view of the parliamentary system because it
summarizes the present situation. The government, by
abolishing debate in the House on the principle of a bill, seems
to be ignoring the right of opposition parties to express their
grievances and to argue their case. Moreover, it is not proposing
supplementary mechanisms that would allow free criticism of
government action.
It is a pity that the Liberal Party in power has a different
opinion than it held when it was in opposition. The government
has not been concerned with the fine principles it defended when
it was in opposition. Perhaps the Liberal Party in power and the
Liberal Party in opposition say two different things. Events bear
that statement out, at any rate.
With its incomplete reform, the government will not achieve
its objective of restoring the credibility of Parliament and of the
present system. The official opposition knew that we could not
count on the federal government to solve an image problem with
the House of Commons. Obviously, the government is showing
real timidity in submitting specific measures to end what I
969
would dare say is the widespread disillusionment that people
feel towards politicians.
Nevertheless, the official opposition is aware of the most
important role which it must play in this House. It has always
shown that it intends to defend the interests of its constituents,
in accordance with parliamentary rules and traditions. For these
reasons, it will not impede the proposed reform.
Yes, the opposition has reservations. It shares its
disappointment with all citizens. But to show its good faith and
its sense of fair play, it recognizes the proposed reform. It could
have fiercely opposed some of the amendments presented today,
but it prefers to give its consent so that the positive aspects of
the reform can have unanimous support in this House.
In closing, I say to the government that forewarned is
forearmed. The official opposition intends to continue to
promote the openness demanded by voters. It will vigorously
defend the values inherent in the Canadian parliamentary
system so that it can defend the interests of Quebecers in this
House, in accordance with its mandate.
This does not exclude the possibility that in future it might
fight a subsequent reform which could interfere with its work in
Parliament and its defense of its constituents' interests. Our
society's democratic values depend on this.
(1210 )
[English]
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On
behalf of the Reform caucus co-ordinator I would like to notify
the Chair that pursuant to Standing Order 43(2) we will be
dividing our time.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, today is a very
great day and one we should mark high on the marquee as being
very important for the House, for Parliament and for the people
of Canada.
First I want to thank the government on behalf of the Reform
Party for putting such a broad agenda before us. Its willingness
to look at changes to the committee structure and then
presenting those changes will bring about certain expediencies
and as well make those committees more effective. The second
matter we appreciate very much is that the agenda to be set
before the Standing Committee on Procedures and House
Affairs will be broad enough to look at a number of items we
think are very important to the process and the way we act as
parliamentarians.
We must recognize as parliamentarians that the attitude of the
public has changed and that we must adapt to the changed
attitude and expectations. The public we have spent millions of
dollars on for years and years ought to be able to be more
involved in the process. I believe we have arrived at a point at
which it said to us: ``We have arrived; we want to be involved so
you as legislators make sure you have a process by which we can
intervene and present our points of view and direct government
during a session of Parliament, specifically during this 35th
Parliament''.
All of us have heard that this is not just a Canadian
phenomenon. It is a phenomenon of the United States. Over the
weekend some members of Parliament had the opportunity of
hearing a presentation on Congress reform so that Congress
would be able to hear what the public wanted. The fellow who
presented it talked about the attitude of Americans and how they
wanted to be involved. It is very consistent with what we are
hearing. It was a good message.
Japan, Europe and other parts of the world have gone through
the same populous phenomenon, the same people involvement
phenomenon. We must pay attention to it as it is significant.
This attitude came into focus during the debate on the
referendum. At that time the old traditional approach, the
elitism, or the hierarchal approach to politics was defeated by a
broad base of populism. People on the no side had very few
dollars to spend. People on the yes side had millions of dollars
and they spent it through a variety of mediums trying to
convince the population that they should vote yes on the
referendum. The people said no, that they would decide and they
did.
We have to recognize other characteristics in the process.
They should be a lesson and an influence on what we determine
after we have hearings and the committee comes back with its
report. Voters want more input and more say in the decisions we
make not only at election time but between elections. They want
equality of input. Everyone no matter their social standard or
what economic position they are in-the poor, the middle
income, the rich-wants to have something to say about the
process and we must open the doors for them.
(1215 )
Something very important to me which I have seen happen in
our political system is that certain vested interest groups and
certain people within our society are able to succeed because of
who they knew and who they were able to influence in
government. People are saying to us that is not the current rule
and is not the way it should be. It should be taken out of the
political process. It should now be what one knows, what one's
attitude is and what one can place into debate to determine the
actions of government. It should be this way not only in the
House but also within the rooms of the public service and of the
ministers with whatever actions the minister takes in his or her
public responsibilities. That is a very impressive major change
to me as a parliamentarian.
What challenge is offered? How do we respond to our leaders
who now are the electors? The electors are finally getting
through to us and saying something. How do we respond? First
we must respond by adding opportunity to the process. In the
agenda before the standing committee are some very important
matters: citizens' initiatives, referendums and direct
representa-
970
tion to the standing committees so that the members of
Parliament can be more involved and more aware of attitudes.
Some people say we are going to a referendum on everything.
That is not the intent of a referendum nor do people want that
type of government. They do not want daily referenda. They
want to know that if they want utilize referenda it is there so they
can get involved. It is very important that we add it to our
process.
The second matter they want to challenge us with, and this
may be said of myself being around for some time or some of the
members of government who have been around Parliament for a
period of time, is that we must be prepared to change our
thinking. As a new member of the House we should also take
that advice.
Today I would like to call on the Prime Minister and the
government House leader, who made a very eloquent and
elaborate presentation today, to think in a more open manner.
We must reconsider some of the traditional approaches on how
we act and how we behave. It is often easy to say we tried that
before and it does not work, we should not have that on our
agenda. I have gone through the process a number of times.
About 10 years ago I had a certain experience in my legislative
responsibility. At that time it may have been out of step, but
today it is more acceptable. Some of these public processes are
just good examples of that.
For example, I would like the government to reconsider its
thinking regarding free votes. In the early stages we do not have
to have a free vote on everything. Possibly there is an area where
we can test the free vote without the confidence convention.
Maybe there are some areas where new programs of expenditure
will be initiated by government. It could be in the budget
process. The Prime Minister, by announcement, could say this
item is open to a free vote; the convention is not there. That
would be acceptable to the House. It could possibly be done on
some of the bills that reference expenditures where it is a new
policy, one that has not gone through the electoral process.
As I listened to the House leader's remarks today I felt that
was part of his concern, that if the political party has made a
commitment out on the hustings it should follow it through. I
would, in a sense, agree with that. It has been given a mandate to
follow through so it should. The House of Commons may have a
limited amount of authority, but there should be some areas
where we can test this concept without just rejecting it in whole.
I call on the House leader to think about it. I also call on the
committee of House affairs to examine it further.
I have one minute left and would like to cover two other
topics. I support the changes in the committee structure as it
concerns my involvement with the finance committee. It is
excellent the government is giving us more opportunity and
flexibility to be able to determine the direction of government. I
appreciate that very much as an opposition member.
(1220)
The proof is certainly going to be in the follow through. The
note that I wanted to highlight in this last minute of my remarks
is that historically-I read some of the reports of committee
work-the concern was that ministers and senior government
officials did not listen to the committees after they did some
good work. I know the initial attitude of the government is to
change that and try to listen to the committee.
Another suggestion I want to make for the committee today in
my brief remarks is that we look at using the technology of the
day and the available electronic equipment to do away with
some of what I call the paper pile up and waste I find on
Parliament Hill.
Two weeks ago I set outside my office a huge pile of paper. I
said: ``What a waste''. I looked through it and there were many
things that were not relevant to my responsibilities. There must
be some way we can even have Hansard electronically available
without sending that major document to our office every day. I
would like to add that to the committee's agenda for it to look at.
There would be cost savings, more efficiency and an update of
the process.
In conclusion elitism is out. Populism is in. If we make these
major changes during the 35th Parliament, I will be able to say
we have achieved significant relief for the people of Canada.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, I listened with
interest to the comments of my hon. colleague from Lethbridge.
I tend to agree with almost everything he said. I echo his
comments on the proposals enunciated today by the government
House leader. They are a major step forward.
I listened with particular interest when he referred to his
previous life and that there were times when perhaps
government policy was influenced more by who people knew
within the government than from a democratically driven
change. We can probably say that similar observations have
been made about Ottawa, that perhaps public policy has been
driven in the past by lobbyists and others from the outside as
opposed to the public generally.
One aspect of the reforms proposed today that concern me is
the ability of any of these reforms to deal with initiatives before
us at the moment. That is the matter of cigarette smuggling.
People have said this is an item that ought to receive serious
input from provincial ministers of health because of the
implication it has for health.
971
If this is not caving in to pressure from the cigarette
manufacturers it is certainly caving in to pressure from people
participating in illegal activities. Does my hon. friend from
Lethbridge think any of the proposed changes introduced today
would help us if they were in place today to deal with some of
the critical issues confronting us surrounding this whole matter
of cigarette smuggling?
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Often one of the reasons that one
has very brash reactions from the general public is that it does
not seem to be able to vent that feeling somewhere.
This matter concerns both federal and provincial taxation. It
could be open to a citizen's initiative. Potentially we could even
have a referendum on it but it takes a bit of time to do that type of
thing. I know we are sort of in the hot box and have to make a
decision on this one right away. That often will occur. If we had
the procedure in place then we could make a rational adjustment
to use it. I would like to see that very much.
We are having a public discussion with regard to cigarette
smuggling. I believe the public has an answer to it somewhere.
The government will look at it from a certain perspective but I
am not sure it would reflect public opinion at the present time.
In a quick answer to the question, opening the public process
would bring about a more satisfactory answer than one we would
make here believing what the public servants have fed us.
(1225 )
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House to join in
the debate on the motion put by the government House leader
dealing with changes to the standing orders, the rules of the
House of Commons.
I would like to begin by congratulating the government and its
House leader for bringing in these changes at this time. To me
they represent the beginning of the reform of this place that my
party, the Reform Party of Canada, has been advocating for
some time now.
We in the Reform Party are fundamentally committed to
changing the way business is conducted in Parliament so the
people of Canada and the members of Parliament who represent
them can gain some influence over the policy making process.
In our party platform, devised long before the call of the last
election, we made it clear we did not believe this place was
functioning in a way that best served the people. We proposed in
our platform changes which we believe would give members
some influence over the policy making process of government.
Ours was not a plan released in the heat of an election campaign.
Our plan for reform goes much further than what has been
proposed today.
We believe the government is reacting positively to our
pressure by bringing in these changes to the standing orders. We
in the Reform Party will watch the government carefully to see
if it is really committed to fundamental reform or if it is simply
putting limited reforms in the window for Canadians to look at
without any real intention of making them work. However these
changes represent a good first step, but it is only a first step.
The changes introduced in relation to bills proceeding to
committee prior to second reading and enabling the government
to request or ask a committee to draft a bill are really not
necessary. If the government wants to do these things it simply
has to do them and could do them under the present rules. These
changes present an orderly procedure by which bills can be sent
to committee after first reading and the government can request
a committee to bring in a bill. These procedures allow for
limited debate so that the government is assured of
accomplishing its objectives without giving up valuable House
time.
In relation to the proposal to send bills to committee prior to
second reading we know that the subsequent debate on second
reading will really become debate on amendments. As well
when a bill comes back to the House from the committee which
has been asked to draft it, again debate at second reading will not
take place.
Debating time which could have been used by the opposition
to set out deficiencies will be lost, but as we believe in the
greater good of getting on with reform we support these two
initiatives.
I hope the government will take advantage of these changes. If
it does then we might see the beginnings of real input into the
legislative process by both backbench MPs on the government
side and by opposition members as well. If the government does
not use these new rules then the people of Canada will deal with
it appropriately four years hence.
By virtue of changes proposed to Standing Order 81 the
mandate of standing committees will be broadened to allow
them to comment on departmental spending plans when the
committee is dealing with the department's main estimates. This
is good as far as it goes, but in reality it will do little to affect the
spending patterns of government departments and help bring
government spending under control. More changes are
necessary and I will be addressing this issue later today.
Also changing a standing order to allow the finance
committee to hold pre-budget consultations and report prior to a
particular day in December every year sends a welcome signal
that at least members of the House will be consulted. Hopefully
the report which will be forthcoming yearly from this committee
will be taken into consideration by the Minister of Finance and
the Prime Minister.
972
The last proposal in this motion is to refer a number of
procedural matters for examination to the Standing Committee
on Procedure and House Affairs. I am concerned that the date for
reporting on these matters has been lost. We in the Reform Party
will be vigilant in ensuring that these matters are reported back
to the House at the earliest possible time.
I note that in response to suggestions made by my party this
list has been broadened to include elements of direct democracy
and I thank the government. The matters contained on this list
are important. I look forward to the discussions of this
committee.
(1230)
The list is still incomplete. How can we have meaningful
reform or even a study of reform without including in this list
the structure and functioning of the standing committee system?
In my initial address to the House I dealt with freer votes and
the relaxing of the confidence convention. I also stated that
there is a feeling among Canadians that government-and by
this I mean government in its broadest connotation, the party in
power, the opposition and the bureaucracy-is not serving the
needs of Canadians; that is government serves its own needs
first and the public's needs second, if at all.
With all due respect to the hon. minister of the government, a
point of clarification is we refer to freer votes and relaxation of
the confidence convention. This does not refer to the
government's saying today or on this issue it will have free
votes. Legally and constitutionally all members of the House are
guaranteed the right of independence.
Again may I stress this is an attitudinal change. We are all
campaigned on party policy, on definite issues which we were
elected to support by the Canadians who elected us. However,
that does not suggest that each member of the House should be
prevented from truly representing their constituents on specific
matters which reflect the very serious interests of that area of
Canada. We must not operate from fear. If the government loses
a vote on a certain initiative, that could have a good positive
result. Perhaps it was bad legislation.
I cannot agree with former Conservative House leader, Doug
Lewis, who expressed that government is entitled to its bad
legislation. Why? When we have the opportunity to correct this
waste of valuable debate time in the House and this waste of
taxpayers' dollars let us address it.
In my initial address to the House I dealt with freer votes and
relaxing the confidence convention. That is why I argued for an
attitudinal change in this House that would result in a relaxation
and redefinition of the confidence convention, which would
result in freer votes. Through such changes members could
begin to play a vital role in making and influencing in public
policy.
I believe my remarks in relation to the confidence convention
and freer votes are equally valid in the context of reform of the
standing committee system.
The changes proposed to the rules today, bills to committee
prior to second reading and the government's asking committees
to bring in bills, are good ones. If they are used and the results of
the committee deliberations are not ignored by the government,
this will make committee work more rewarding for the
members.
I urge the government to go further than this in relation to
committees. Let us in the committee on procedure and House
affairs examine the report of the House of Commons liaison
committee tabled last spring, which addressed committee
reform in detail. Let us together devise methods to limit the
power of the whips in this Chamber so that substitutions on
committee are not made in order to ensure the outcome of a vote
which is crucial to the government. Let us look at various
structures so that the House, through the committee system, can
once again make meaningful comments on government
spending.
This House, through changes to the rules brought in over time,
has effectively lost control over government spending. This
must not be allowed to continue. Ways must be found so that
members can gain some control over public expenditures. These
changes are worth the time it will take for the House and its
committees, especially the procedure and House affairs
committee, to study.
Reform goes much farther than what has been presented
today. It is a beginning. I congratulate the government for taking
the initiative and implementing some of the changes which
members of the House, both today and in the past, have strongly
recommended.
I also want to recognize the contribution made by the Reform
Party toward these changes. Although in our opinion these
changes do not go far enough, we do recognize the good intent of
the government just as we recognize that the Reform members
and the Reform Party have prodded the government into action.
If the Conservative Party were sitting in our seats in opposition
today it is highly unlikely we would be witnessing these
changes.
I look forward to being a part of the procedure in the House
affairs committee and contributing to its discussions.
(1235)
[Translation]
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State
(Parliamentary Affairs)): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak
to the House on the issue of parliamentary reform. This is a
subject which is very important to me, not only as a member of
the government team but also as the member for Beauséjour.
973
[English]
In the last three general elections the people of Beauséjour
have elected me as their member of Parliament in the House of
Commons. They have given me a mandate to defend their
interests in the House. I am very proud to represent the people of
Beauséjour. I can assure the House and the people from
Beauséjour that I will make every effort to represent them well.
[Translation]
However, when I was elected for the first time in 1984, it took
me some time to realize how complex and inflexible the
machinery of government is. It is not always easy to find one's
way among procedural rules, the Standing Orders of the House,
party discipline and the expectations of those who have put their
trust in you.
You know, as I do, that the voters are disillusioned with
political institutions. They are disheartened by what they read in
the newspapers and see on television every day.
Last fall people from coast to coast delivered a very clear
message by electing more than 200 new members to this House.
The people want to see some changes. They are dissatisfied
because they were not always consulted, because their opinions
were not always taken into consideration, and because important
decisions were often made behind closed doors.
Data compiled from a survey conducted in 1992 for the Royal
Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing confirms
what our constituents have long been thinking. Seventy per cent
of respondents said they felt the government did not care at all
about what people like themselves were thinking. This is very
unfortunate.
No fewer than 82 per cent of Canadians, that is more than four
in five, also responded that most candidates in federal elections
made promises without any intention whatsoever of keeping
them. This too is very unfortunate.
Finally, 32 per cent of respondents said that most elected
officials simply did their best under difficult circumstances.
This is a little more reassuring. And, it is precisely to address
these difficult circumstances that we are proposing changes to
our Standing Orders.
All those who have red the red book released during the last
election campaign-and many have-know that parliamentary
reform is very important to the party which now forms the
government.
We made a commitment to electors to adopt a series of
measures to restore their confidence in political institutions. It
is no coincidence, therefore, that one of the first initiatives put
forward concerns the standing orders of this House.
This decision reflects not only our eagerness to take concrete
action, but also our willingness to initiate a constructive
dialogue with all members of this House on this issue.
The changes that we are proposing would allow MPs to play a
greater role and restore the confidence of Canadians in the
integrity of their Parliament and in its ability to intervene in
matters which it deems important.
Thus, we are proposing that certain government bills be
referred to committee immediately following first reading. The
committee could then consider them, amend them if it wishes
and report back to the House. The House would then proceed at
the same time to the debate on second reading and at the report
stage.
The procedure for third and final reading would remain the
same.
(1240)
As we all know, the current legislative process is almost over
by the time a bill reaches first reading stage. Too often, members
get the feeling that the legislation before them is set in stone, as
we say.
Therefore, we want to change the process so that a bill would
be referred to a committee right after being read the first time.
That way, each and every element of a bill will undergo a
complete and open examination. We will have a more
transparent decision making process, as was requested by our
constituents. Quick referral to a committee would give hon.
members more influence over the substance of the bills.
In order to increase their influence, we could ask committees
to study some issues before a bill is drafted.
Committee members would then have a say in the legislative
strategy, suggesting guidelines or parameters for the upcoming
bill.
We want the government to be more open when time comes to
prepare the budget. In the past, consultations regarding the
budget were kept secret. Nothing could come out before the
budget was tabled in the House.
We want the Standing Committee on Finance to study the
fiscal policy put forward by the government. We want to
establish a very open consultation process for the budget.
Through his efforts these last few months, the Minister of
Finance has shown the way we want to go on this issue.
[English]
Our wish is to listen to what people have to say so that we may
respond not only to their needs but also to their expectations.
The changes we are proposing will make it possible for the
Standing Committee on Finance to hold consultations next fall
before the presentation of the 1995 budget.
The process of establishing a budget will be much more open
and a lot less secretive.
974
[Translation]
Before the government unveils its fiscal priorities, as many
people as possible should have an opportunity to express their
views. Again, to avoid putting members before a fait accompli,
we are suggesting that, after detailed study of the Estimates, the
committees be given three additional weeks to prepare a report
on future priorities for a department, for example. Therefore,
when members of the Standing Committee on Finance would
undertake their consultation process in the fall, they would
already have a number of suggestions to take into consideration.
The measures I just mentioned would help members to play a
more important role and to feel they really have some influence
on bills referred to the House and passed.
Not one of us was elected to simply say yea or nay on bills we
have not worked on. Thousands of people trusted us to make
changes; we cannot disappoint them.
The measures before us today also involve changes to the
sitting hours of the House. By eliminating the evening session
on Wednesdays and adjourning earlier on Fridays, hon.
members will be able to spend more time on committees and in
their ridings.
Finally I would like to add that these measures mark only the
beginning of parliamentary reform. During the weeks and the
months to come, we want to sit down with representatives of the
Opposition parties to come up with some more changes.
(1245)
These changes will affect question period and statements by
members. There are other points that we would like the
parliamentary reform committee to study before submitting to
the House a report with recommendations. What we would like
is to pursue the dialogue on parliamentary reform with all
elected members in the House.
We must innovate, we must take a fresh look at our tasks as
parliamentarians and we must find solutions which will help
restore the integrity of the government. We will thus restore the
confidence of the Canadian people in their institutions.
[English]
It is our duty to offer to Canadians a parliament to which they
can relate and to give them an institution of which they can be
proud.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for an interesting and
very well intended speech.
I am pleased to hear of the possibility that committee
members could receive the bill beforehand. This would
certainly be beneficial for everyone and I thank him for saying
that.
I would also like to mention what the hon. member just said
about the times changing. This is a very good move. In view of
the fact that 1994 is the year of the family I hope we take this
into consideration. MPs are just as important as everybody else
and so are their families.
[Translation]
Mr. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, the government leader in the
house mentioned the fact that members do have families and that
we should take into consideration their family roles. It is for that
very reason that we want to make changes in the sitting
schedule. For members whose families are in the Ottawa area, it
will mean more time at home, and those whose families stayed
home will have more time to spend in their ridings. It also means
that we will be able to serve our constituents much better.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, when the government leader introduced his
parliamentary reform agenda this morning, he said that there
were much dissatisfaction in the population about the work the
hon. members were performing in this House. On that I agree.
There are several criticisms regarding our work and while
some are justified, others do not withstand a critical analysis.
Nevertheless, some changes have to be made. It is on this basis
that the leader in the House spoke of renewal.
However, before we proceed with what he calls the
parliamentary renewal, we have to make sure it is based on the
foundations of the British parliamentary system. When I say
that, I mean that we have to consider collective
sovereignty-that is the sovereignty of the people who elect us
to this House and therefore send here members of different
parties.
Therefore, we have to reconcile collective sovereignty and
government efficiency, that is the capacity for the government
to act in a normal, unhurried and also consistent way. We do not
want to go through, for instance, the unfortunate bell incident
we experienced a few years ago. I know that the same incident
could still happen in the Senate, but we must live with that.
When we talk about the foundations of the British
parliamentary system, we talk about a balance between the role
of the government, which is to govern, and the role of the House
of Commons, which is to monitor the action, activities and
proposals of the government.
(1250)
Needless to say this must be done openly and the Official
Opposition definitely supports that wish, that will for a greater
openness of all the mechanisms and operations of this House.
But it is not enough to talk about openness, we must also talk
about the principles behind any bill because, in the end, we must
judge the proposals we receive. Who better than Beauchesne can
define for us the importance of the discussion on the principles
behind any bill. Beauchesne says: ``The second reading is the
975
most important stage through which the bill is required to pass;
for its whole principle is then at issue and is affirmed or denied
by a vote of the House''.
We may question this reform plan because the debate and the
vote on the principle of a bill are the best way the opposition
members have of controlling government bills. The debate and
vote on principle allow them to question the very
appropriateness of presenting such a bill before it is examined
and debated clause by clause.
The proposals in this reform bring a few questions to mind.
Will members really have the opportunity to criticize a bill
before it is passed? I do not question the government's
intentions on this issue, I am simply saying that, if we accept
what is proposed, we will still be far from our objective. Maybe
we will reach it, but only experience will tell us if such is the
case or if we have missed our goal altogether. The possible
consequences of these modifications lead me to believe it will
be hard for members to debate, in the House, the suitability of
government bills.
We will have 180 minutes to determine if it is relevant to send
a bill to committee; but then we will be discussing the
appropriateness of sending the bill to committee and not the bill
itself. Let us not kid ourselves, everyone knows that we can talk
about something even if we do not have the right to do so, that
we can do indirectly whatever is forbidden directly. Therefore,
that 180-minute period will in fact be devoted to discussing the
principle of the bill. If we do not agree with the principle, we
will question whether or not it should be referred to committee.
But we would have to use a round-about way to debate what is
most fundamental.
Moreover, since members will have the opportunity, in
committee, to get involved in the actual drafting of a bill, clause
by clause, they will certainly be more involved in general, but
here again, the government will have to exercise a lot of caution.
Some members, although opposed to the very principle of a bill,
may still try to improve it. They should not be told afterwards:
``You proposed an amendment which was adopted, and now you
are voting against it''. They still want to be able to vote against a
bill, even if they have drafted, asked for the adoption of or voted
in favour of an amendment to a given clause, in order to limit the
subject matter of a bill they intend to fight. That should be made
perfectly clear so that opposition members are not used to
rubber stamp a bill they disagree with.
I do think that the government will have a huge responsibility
in that matter. Democracy should not be held hostage by cunning
manoeuvring. As I said before, only time will tell how good this
reform really is. It does have some positive aspects such as the
review of estimates by the standing committees. It will allow
members to review the estimates of each department and to table
reports regarding the government's future expenditures. We
totally support such an initiative; as a matter of fact, we of the
Official Opposition, have been demanding a debate in the House
for the past three weeks, to review each department's budget,
item by item, envelope by envelope. Therefore, you can be sure
that we support this committee. Still, it falls short of the
fundamental request we have been making since the start of this
Parliament.
(1255)
A second positive point certainly is the idea of pre-budget
consultations by the Standing Committee on Finance. This
committee will consider and report on proposals regarding the
budgetary policy of the government. I think this is an important
step, one that should have preceded the tabling of the current
budget. I think that, before all those consulting firms that have
organized conferences across Canada, the primary stakeholders
are the members of this House. We were not consulted, but this
change will remedy this shortcoming.
Speaking of shortcomings, I believe that there are a few more.
I am referring for instance to pre-screening for
order-in-council appointments. On page 92 of their platform,
the Liberals accused the Conservatives of making a practice of
choosing political friends. Well, there is nothing in here to stop
such a practice. As the Minister of Canadian Heritage said, and
the appointment of the president of the CBC reflects that reality,
the red book is a thing of the past and we must look to the future.
We can see that it is indeed a thing of the past, because the
proposal made, as I said, on page 92 of the Liberal red book is
nowhere to be found in here.
There is also the issue of special debates. It was also raised.
The Liberals had raised it at the time they were in the opposition.
There should be a procedure to allow special debates to be held
in a timely manner. Many people wonder why the members of
the House are debating some obscure matter with little
connection with current events sometimes, while major events
can happen in our society that seem to go unnoticed in this
House. The fact of the matter is that special debates would allow
the House of Commons to be attuned to reality. Yet there is
nothing with regard to that in the proposal before us.
We must see why such a proposal was made, and I refer to my
colleague from Kingston and the Islands who said in 1991: ``We
believe that our country works well with a strong and efficient
opposition''. Now can we conclude that this reform will really
enable the opposition to be strong and to function effectively?
This reform in itself does not necessarily enhance the role of
members of Parliament. I repeat, experience will show whether
the fundamental principles which I think are endangered by this
reform are respected or not. I hope that the government will have
the wisdom to assess whether the reform will achieve its
objectives or not. If the reform does not have the intended effect,
976
the government should come back with something else and not
stubbornly keep the reform as it is.
I do not think that we should consider this reform to be
permanent; rather, it is subject to improvement at any time. We
are trying to use new mechanisms. Experience and practice will
show whether it has met the objectives.
I will close with some suggestions that are not found in this
reform. First, I am thinking of this mechanism for an inquiry
which exists in Quebec City whereby the leader of the official
opposition can question the premier on a specific issue for an
hour, with the Speaker of the House present, to get to the bottom
of an important subject, which cannot be done in the daily
question period. This exchange between the premier and the
leader of the opposition helps the people form a better idea of
the issues involved in a debate, which can only be healthy in a
democracy. This exists and goes on in Quebec City, not every
week but occasionally, and we could do it here.
A second suggestion concerns the ban on reading our
speeches in this House; that is why no lectern is provided.
(1300)
Everyone knows that members read their speeches to all
intents and purposes. They have notes and they read them. In
reality, it is rather hypocritical. The Solicitor General, who is
the Leader of the Government in the House, read his entire
speech on the proposed reforms, whereas this is prohibited, Mr.
Speaker. Of course you did not stop him, because everyone does
it. Only the budget speech can be read, because the Minister of
Finance cannot be expected to recall all of the figures. I would
point out that once the budget is adopted, very often he cannot
recall the figures.
The point is that in reality, things are quite different. One
thing must be recognized: members are not supposed to read
their speeches because they should speak spontaneously, from
the heart. Well, I have nothing against members reading their
speeches. Everyone does, so why not recognize this fact. It
would be a lot simpler than having to carry around books on
which to prop up our speeches. It would be much simpler if
members had a lectern.
My third suggestion is this: except for emergencies, votes
should be held on Tuesdays and Wednesdays because some
members are in their ridings on Mondays and Fridays. We divide
our caucus in two because we must also work in our ridings. A
number of members from more remote ridings must leave on
Thursday after oral question period.
We must recognize this fact. I do not see how concentrating
the votes on Tuesdays and Wednesdays impedes democracy. On
the contrary, it would help to create a better balance between
House and riding work and the parties already agreed to this so
far, that is up to week three.
One final suggestion. I realize that it is against the rules for
you to have a list of speakers. Yet, I gave my list to you at the
beginning of the debate, as did the others. Again, the rules do not
correspond to reality. Everyone knows that the Speaker has a list
of those members who will be asking questions during oral
question period. No one says that this is prohibited. Yet, we
exchange lists and submit them to you every day so that you can
refer to them during statements under Standing Order 31.
In my opinion, the time has come to dispense with this
pretence. It would be much easier if we knew exactly who was
planning to speak. Each party could submit its list and you could
work with that. Then everyone would know who was planning to
speak and when. Why not recognize what actually happens?
Why not let people know when their members will speak,
instead of pretending that I do not give you a list? By the way, in
one hour I will be submitting my list for oral question period, as
I do every day.
These are just a few suggestions which would help us do away
with old habits that no longer correspond to reality.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to the
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons): Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for
Laurier-Sainte-Marie. His comments were highly
constructive and his suggestions are much appreciated.
I do not agree with his suggestion that votes should take place
only on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. It is a problem in this House
because we only sit 130 days a year, roughly, under the new
system introduced by the former government. Every three or
four weeks the House adjourns for one or two weeks. At Easter,
for instance, there is a two-week recess. It is at such times that
members should be travelling to their constituencies, not now
when the House is sitting. In my opinion, when the House is in
session, the members should be here.
There is enough time to work in the constituencies on
weekends and during the weeks when the House is not sitting.
That is why I do not agree with him that we should not hold votes
on Thursdays. Those are simply my thoughts on his speech.
I think that he may have misunderstood the government's
intention in putting this proposal before the House today
because we did propose a change to the second reading of bills as
he suggested. We will only have a very short three-hour debate
on the motion to refer the bill to a standing committee after the
first reading.
977
(1305)
He indicated that the House would lose the right to hold a
debate on the principle of a bill at second reading, that is true.
But, at the same time, the committee to which the bill is referred
will have a lot of opportunities to review the bill.
As a member of the Bloc Quebecois, he did not have the
opportunity to do committee work in the last Parliament. If he
had been a member of a committee, he would have realized that
many proposed amendments are inadmissible as the principle of
the bill has already been voted on by the House itself.
The committee members cannot change this principle. What
is this principle? This argument is always debated by the
committees, and an amendment which proposes a major change
to a bill is deemed to have altered the principle of the bill; thus,
the amendment becomes inadmissible. It is a problem.
The new procedure will eliminate this problem and the hon.
members will have to opportunity to put forward many
amendments that were previously inadmissible. So I hope that
when he sees this new procedure put into practice, he will
support our proposal. This procedure will eliminate, with other
opportunities, the second reading debate in the House. I hope
that he will see our proposal in this light because I think it helps
to understand our meaning. I hope that this explanation will help
him.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I am not judging the
government's intentions. My judgment was based on what will
happen in practice.
First of all, in committee, there are no more than two or three
members from opposition parties, which limits considerably
their ability to speak. Second, a debate in committee is not as
public and general as a debate in this House, where all
Canadians can find out, through newspapers and television,
what the members said about a particular issue.
With regard to votes on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, I will tell
you that a member's work in his riding is not only on weekends.
Very often, we have to go back to our ridings during the week.
Moreover, in the past, votes were held mostly on Mondays and
very rarely on Tuesdays or Wednesdays. If we are to vote on a
particular day, why not choose a day when more members are
present. This would allow us to strike a better balance between
our work in our ridings and our work here in Ottawa.
We were told in the past that it was impossible to defer a vote
for more than 48 hours. That is what has always been done. I
think there is a very simple solution: to defer votes for 72 hours.
It is just 24 hours more and that is exactly what was done when
the Prime Minister was scheduled to give a speech in Toronto
last Monday. The government thought that 72 hours instead of
48 made a lot of sense. It allowed the Prime Minister to be here
for the vote. I think that what was done for the Prime Minister
could very well be done for other members of the House.
(1310 )
[English]
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find a disposition
on this side of the House to limit speeches to 10 minutes with the
usual 5-minute questions and comments thereafter.
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe): Mr. Speaker, as I
rise on this occasion to make my maiden speech, I wish to extend
my congratulations and best wishes as you face your new and
most difficult task.
There is no greater honour for me than standing before this
House as the newly elected member for
Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe. The riding, as the name
suggests, is made up of municipalities of four counties in
southwestern Ontario. In total there are 31 towns, townships and
villages with four upper tier county councils.
The riding's boundaries are the historic and picturesque town
of Elora, Nichol township to the south, the rural and agricultural
communities of Clifford and Minto township to the west. The
largest and most urban area is the town of Orangeville to the east
and the beautiful port communities of Collingwood and
Thornbury on Georgian Bay to the north. This vast and diverse
riding is representative of the uniqueness and diversity of its
citizens residing within its borders.
Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe is home to 112,000
people, and I wish to extend my sincere thanks for the trust and
opportunity they have provided in allowing me to represent
them.
I would also be remiss if I did not take this time and
opportunity to thank my wife and family for their dedication and
support and understanding as I embark on my new parliamentary
career.
The topic of debate today in the House is parliamentary
reform. It is probably safe to assume the reason two-thirds of us
are here and new to the House is that many defeated incumbents
paid little heed to the demands from the public about this very
important issue.
If the House would allow me some licence to address the
concerns voiced to me during the election campaign, I will
proceed. One of the most visible and contentious areas which
requires change is the pensions for members of Parliament.
During the election there was a clear message that we must
return to an understanding we are the representatives of the
people and as true representatives we must understand and
appreciate the values of those we represent, values of equity,
fairness and service.
978
There is no member in the House who has not already felt the
burdens of this office. It has been three brief months since our
election and less than a month since the opening of the 35th
Parliament. I ask the members present to consider the amount of
time spent in Ottawa, the time spent in transit and the time spent
in our ridings. Many members of the House have young children
and spouses they dearly miss. Some members have left behind
successful businesses to devote their energies to public service.
These are great sacrifices but sacrifices we chose to make of
our own free will. Despite the enormous burdens of this office
there must be a limit to the compensation for this job.
To return to my earlier point, we are here to represent the
values of our constituents. There is a rage in the land about the
current pension system. It violates the sense of equity of people
as there is nothing to compare it with in the private sector.
People are angry that after voicing their protests they have not
been heard. It is unfair, they say, that politicians can write their
own cheques and pay them with taxpayers' money.
During the election the Liberal Party presented its platform in
a document some of us may be familiar with entitled ``Creating
Opportunity'' or the red book. More recently in the speech from
the throne the government reaffirmed its support for the
independent review currently under way.
(1315 )
It is important that we remove the public irritants that have
undermined politicians in the public eye. This Parliament must
signal the end to double dipping. We cannot have people
receiving both pay and pensions from the federal government.
The taxpayer is willing to pay but the taxpayer is not willing to
pay twice.
The age at which pensions are received must be reviewed. No
one in the private sector receives full pensions immediately
after vacating a position. The question put to us during the
election and now before the members of the House is why should
we.
What is the appropriate age? I do not have all the answers but
if we are to represent and reflect the realities of our constituents,
should we not be governed by the same rules of economy as
them? Should we receive full pensions after retirement without
an age restriction? I think October 25 told us no.
The size of pension is another component. Our pensions must
be based on value qualified by reasoned assessment, not greed.
The review under way must look at our duties and skills and
other factors also should be assessed objectively. From this we
should arrive at a figure more in tune with the feeling of
Canadians.
The government House leader has now placed before the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs a number
of items to be reviewed. I believe this to be a great step forward.
Among some of the items to be discussed are procedures
regarding members' statements, special debates, the taking of
division by electronic means, the conduct of private members'
business especially with regard to private bills and Senate
public bills, any anomalies or technical inconsistencies in the
standing orders, the reform of Question Period, measures to
achieve more direct participation by citizens including citizen
initiatives, the right of constituents to recall their MP, binding
referenda, free votes in the House of Commons, debates on
petitions and fixed election dates.
I applaud the government House leader on this initiative. I
look forward to participating in the debate and review of these
proposals.
We have seen recently that private members can make
valuable contributions to the presentation of different ideas
before the House, for example the great acceptance from
members from all sides and the success of the debates on
Canada's peacekeeping role and cruise missile testing.
These debates raised the level of decorum and intellectual
exchange of ideas. This type of reasoned debate is what makes
this House such a great institution. It is unfortunate that these
exchanges do not receive the level of public interest as the often
rowdy and point scoring mentality we have seen in some
question periods.
In the remainder of my allotted time I wish to address one
final issue. The lobbying industry has expanded rapidly over the
past years. The integrity of government is questioned when
there is a perception that the public agenda is set by lobbyists
who have excessive resources to exercise their influence away
from public view.
I believe there is only one collective body we must listen to
and that is the Canadian people. In order to ensure that the
voices of the silent majority are heard over the voices of the few
we must strongly address the issues of conflict of interest,
influence peddling and selling access. There must be openness
and consultation with all Canadians, not just with the lobbyists
arriving at decisions. It is this point I applaud the actions of the
Minister of Finance in his pre-budget consultations. These
consultations allowed the minister to hear advice from bankers,
economists and social agency advocates. What is more
important is that we were able to hear what was said in the open,
in full public view, not just whispers behind closed doors.
(1320)
In conclusion, I feel the points raised here today are a starting
point and not in any way a cure all for the changes required in the
operation of the House. I want to go back for a moment and
restate that we must represent not only the people of our ridings
979
but their values. If we are indeed bold enough to bring this
process of change, we will have succeeded in creating a
government with priorities based on equity, fairness and service
to the people of Canada.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on his speech. I concur
with just about everything.
However, in agreeing with the member on the atrocity of the
pensions and in fact in MPs collecting pensions prior to 60 or 65
years of age, while agreeing with the member-and it is hard for
anyone in Canada to disagree-I have to point out right now that
there are former members of the House who lost in the last
election who are collecting pensions way before they are 60.
I constantly hear that Canadians are very angry about this. I
heard it again all weekend from my constituents at our annual
general meeting and at my constituency opening.
Does the government have any plans or some kind of process
in place, something that we can address this with, to prevent
right now those who are receiving this pension prematurely?
Mr. Calder: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member of the Reform
Party for that question.
As I stated in my speech these are all things that are under
review at the present time. No, I cannot say we are going to stop
this immediately. It is a review that is going to be done, not only
by the Liberal Party but by the Reform Party, the Bloc Party and
any independent members as I understand the process. By that
we are reflecting the view of all Canadians.
Yes, I heard the same thing during the election and I referred
to it in my speech. I know this is an issue that will be settled in
the near future.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, I found the
hon. member's speech very interesting, particularly in respect
of the special interest groups and lobbies that we are all faced
with from time to time.
It is very easy to react immediately and say that we should
pass some sort of legislation to stop this, but I would just like to
make the member aware of a process that some of us use in the
Reform Party, that is having a special interest log book in the
riding.
I would like to ask the member if perhaps he could take this
approach as well. In my riding, whenever I tell special interest
groups or write to tell them that I am making an entry into my
special interest log book, the reaction is amazing. They become
upset that they are going to be put in front of the people of my
riding for scrutiny. It works very well for me. I wonder if the
hon. member might consider that as an alternative to legislation
that he can use immediately.
Mr. Calder: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that
excellent idea. It is something that we will probably take and
incorporate in the way that we run our constituency offices and
our Ottawa offices here.
It just goes to prove what I stated in my speech. If the House
becomes more and more open we will be getting ideas from all
sides. It is just the fact that the government's ideas are not
always the best. They will become a heck of a lot better if we
listen to the opposition at the same time and try to incorporate
all ideas.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): Mr. Speaker,
the intervention by the government House leader reminds us
again of Jeremy Bentham's point that constitutional laws are not
made by any one actor alone. It is made by the constitutional
company. In the case of the reforms proposed for this institution,
Parliament, the reforms or the changes will be made by
government initiatives and by the contributions from the
opposition and the other parties in the House.
(1325)
The debates have been constructive on issues where we have
had open debates as in peacekeeping and the cruise missile
testing. I think it signals good opportunities for the House to get
the constitutional structures of Parliament moving again.
We do so in the light of two great principles of
constitutionalism of our time, the alternance which is very
apparent from government by executive to government by
assembly. My colleagues in the Official Opposition will know
that this has been true of French constitutional history since the
French revolution. The alternance between the strong executive
power and strong assembly power is I think one of the
phenomena of our times, a check against an executive deemed to
be too strong, a reinventing, a recreation or a creation anew as in
the present Russia of power by assembly.
The other is the principle of participatory democracy. One of
the implications for that is a requestioning of old truths such as
those uttered by Edmund Burke and often quoted in the House. It
is perhaps important to remember that Edmund Burke was not
the product of a democratic system of election. His career in
Parliament was facilitated, made possible, by being named to
pocket boroughs or rotten boroughs and so the comments on
responsibilities to his electors was meant for a handful of people
and not the great mass of people that we are facing today.
The constitutional company here very clearly includes the
Speaker. This unprecedented process of election saw some of
the candidates for the Speakership by invitation address the
Official Opposition, the Reform Party and then the Liberal Party
in which advances were made in the comprehension of the
Speaker's role, that the Speaker has the opportunity not merely
980
by conduct but by judicious coaxing to speed Parliament on its
way to renewal.
I looked at the role of the committee on management which is
now the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I
looked at the description of its agenda, its mandate, and I see not
a committee. I see a supercommittee, a committee on
committees. I would have to say I congratulate the Official
Opposition and the Reform Party for sending along very strong
and thoughtful representatives to that committee, but I can see a
capacity to change the whole system if they fulfil their mandate:
initiative, right of recall, binding referenda, free votes, fixed
election dates. That is a challenge and as a member of that
committee I find it very exciting.
I know the Official Opposition will pardon me if I quote from
Danton's address to the French revolutionary convention avoir
de l'audacité, toujours l'audacité, encore une fois l'audacité.
Constitutional boldness. Let us get the message and get working
upon it.
Finally the House leader, because the initiatives are the
government's and this was a very thoughtful address, if I may
say so, steeped in parliamentary traditions, had never regarded
himself as a prisoner of old rules, the dead hand control of old
history. We use precedents to shape the future. We use them
creatively.
I was reminded of this when there was discussion of the
prerogative powers, the issue of the dissolution power, the issue
of what happens if Parliament is defeated in the House. I was
consulted in 1968 when in a surprise vote, a snap vote in the
House, launched by an ingenious New Democratic Party leader,
the government was defeated and the issue was must they resign.
Much the same issue came up when Mr. Clark was defeated in
the House in 1979 and seemingly assumed that he must resign
immediately.
In fact, there was some suggestion the Governor General of
the day might have tried to persuade Mr. Clark to take a bit more
time before he rushed to what turned out to be his
self-destruction.
(1330 )
It is a fact that the British House of Commons, from the 1920s
onward, never regarded a House defeat as automatically
compelling the resignation of a government or a dissolution.
The precedents have to be examined creatively and in some
senses we should perhaps recognize in Canada that we apply
British precedents much less imaginatively and creatively than
the British. Beware in imitating that we become more
conservative than the people from whom we are borrowing.
Let me in that spirit come back to the issue of constitutional
change, Parliament as a dynamic institution. We saw this in the
debate over peacekeeping and cruise missiles. I would suggest
that one of the issues that it brings up, particularly in relation to
cruise missiles, is that prime ministers should be protected when
somebody phones them up at five o'clock in the morning and
says: ``The fate of civilization hangs on your decision, you must
join me in my adventure''.
It is quite possible the fate of civilization does not hang on
that decision. The man calling may have indigestion. In a
situation like that it may be helpful to say that on issues
involving foreign affairs one would like to consult Parliament.
One could simply say: ``George, go back to sleep again and call
me at some other time''.
I would like see a repetition of these debates on foreign
policy, perhaps also a tabling of agreements, treaties and even
executive agreements, as we saw on the cruise missile which
now seem to be entered into without parliamentary consultation,
unless as with FTA and NAFTA we follow the American
procedure of submitting them as Congress did with special
reasons to both Houses of Parliament, the fast track procedure.
One of the ideas might be to have all foreign policy acts tabled
in the House before the formal act of ratification by Order in
Council. I offer this simply as a suggestion that the range of
possibilities is very great.
I listened with great interest to the comments of the Official
Opposition on the tabling of Order in Council appointments. I
would suggest, though, the issue is not tabula rasa. In an earlier
capacity I gave frequent testimony, simply because the
parliamentary committees were frequent, on issues of changes
to Parliament. One of the things suggested was that a reformed
elected Senate might be given a power of review and if
necessary a power of rejection of these appointments.
There is a lot of good learning there. I am sure the suggestion
made by the opposition that these matters be submitted to
Parliament will come up for consideration. Let us have the
consideration on a basis of the very valuable work that has been
done and it may have a better chance of being adopted in
Parliament.
The thing that is most impressive is the expansion of the role
of committees, the giving to third parties, which means in this
case the Reform Party, the possibility of initiating amendments
in committees, the giving of the possibility to private members.
The work of this Parliament is so much done in the
committees. Never forget that under the parliamentary system
the committees have the power to compel testimony. They have
the power to punish recalcitrant witnesses. The only thing really
immune is the confidential advice within cabinet and possibly
advice by officials to cabinet ministers. Everything else is
within the parliamentary domain.
I hope there will be an end to these travelling circuses that we
saw on the constitution. It is not participatory democracy when
we get selected invited witnesses to appear. Parliament should
be doing that. The real strength of this Parliament is in its
committees. They are all party committees. I draw great hope
from the comments by the House leader on this particular issue.
981
He believes in reviving the committee structure. It will mean
more participation, a recognition that legislation is a dialectical
process. Government and opposition contribute to it. It is better
done in the informal give and take and compromise in
committees than in the House in which our formalized debate
tends to ratify decisions already arrived at.
(1335 )
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to be rising in the House today to join in the debate on
the motion before us.
The Reform Party grew from a desire of a founding group of
people who, among other things, wanted to bring real
accountability to the government. This government motion is
another step toward that goal.
There should be opportunity for input by the people who
elected us. I congratulate the government for its new approach
of direct consultation. There should be the opportunity for freer
votes and I congratulate the government for its promise to move
forward on this proposal and introduce freer votes to the House.
There should be more opportunity for individual MPs to have
an influence on legislation before the House at the committee
stages of a bill. I congratulate the government for taking the
initiative in this respect. I give credit to the government for
taking these steps and introducing these changes and for talking
about other steps and changes.
The Reform Party also deserves credit for the part that it has
played in getting to this point. We helped create the political
situation conducive to change and along with it, I hope, a
willingness to turn the talk about turning change into reality.
It is very important that the parliamentary reforms we
introduce be meaningful and sincere. They must be effective and
not just window dressing. The voters of Canada want
substantial, useful and worthwhile changes and they want to be
able to see the proof that these changes are being implemented.
The voters of Canada want actually to see the consultative
process turn into a course of action by the government as
suggested by the majority. They want to witness free votes in
this House and they want to see that individual MPs can have an
influence on the new legislation as it is studied in committees.
Our view is that the government must be willing to accept
changes to its legislation during the process and that it should
not feel threatened by free votes or even the loss of a vote.
Greater flexibility in the process will mean better government
for all of us and will help restore respect for Parliament from the
people who elected us.
I am especially pleased that this motion includes provision for
the procedure on House affairs committee to study and report on
political reforms such as the introduction of recall.
Talking about recall usually causes an allergic reaction among
politicians. I often see it on the other side of this House. The
symptoms include chills of horror down the spine,
uncontrollable nervous twitching, squirming in the seat, catcalls
and the hurling of insults.
We should recognize this disease and name it recall phobia
disease, meaning fear of recall. One cause of this disease is the
widely held but totally incorrect belief that if a Liberal MP only
got 40 per cent of the vote, the Reform supporters could get
together with the NDP supporters and recall the Liberal MP
simply because they held 60 per cent of the vote.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. White (North Vancouver): I hear laughter from the
other side of the House, and that is because this is silly.
It is not because the NDP and Reform supporters could not get
together on such a project but because good recall legislation
sets up reasons for recall so that political and special interest
groups cannot initiate recall simply because they did not vote
for the member.
The threshold number of signatures of eligible voters on a
petition for a byelection could be very low indeed if the recall
petition first has to pass an eligibility test before a
commissioner of elections.
The responsibility would lie with the persons initiating a
recall petition to prove that there were grounds for that petition.
As I have already said, it would not be sufficient for
petitioners to simply say that 60 per cent of the voters did not
vote for the member. Nor could they state that the member failed
to represent the constituency properly unless they could produce
evidence for the commissioner of elections to prove that this
was the case. Therefore it is not the number of signatures on a
petition for recall that is critical. It is the validity of the reason
for the recall petition that is important.
(1340)
Some likely valid reasons for a petition could be a criminal
act by a member, a proven failure to vote in accordance with the
clear majority wish of the constituents, misrepresentation, for
example, as has been recently revealed in the House, and so on.
In places like California, Montana and North Dakota recall
legislation exists with petitions thresholds of less than 20 per
982
cent. I challenge any member of this House to point out when the
last recall took place in one of those states for any reason, let
alone by a special interest group.
The voters of jurisdictions where recall exists hardly ever
need to recall a member because the threat of recall ensures that
they receive good representation and therein lies the real reason
recall is opposed by the traditional party structures in Canada.
It has nothing to do with claims that special interest groups
could initiative mischievous recall because, as I have already
pointed out, legitimate reasons for recall can be built into
legislation. We can also build in limits on the number of times
recall can be initiated in a term or at what point in a term that
petition could begin.
Nothing brings on a violent attack of recall phobia disease
more than the thought that MPs might actually vote to represent
their constituents in the House. Good recall legislation can
answer all of the concerns of those MPs who have been struck
with recall phobia disease. It can totally eliminate the fear for
good MPs while still making possible the recall of MPs who
have failed to represent their constituencies or have conducted
themselves in an inappropriate manner.
I am personally unafraid of recall. I do not get shivers down
my spine. I do not squirm uncontrollably in my seat or hurl
insults or catcalls at the mention of that six-letter word. I am
immune to recall phobia disease.
With a bit of logical thought every MP in the House could be
immune to recall phobia disease. Hopefully there will soon be a
time when we will vote to accept recall legislation as part of the
ongoing reforms of our parliamentary system.
In the meantime I once again thank the government for having
given us the opportunity to discuss this motion. I expect to vote
in favour of the motion.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
enjoyed the hon. member's remarks very much.
I participated in a discussion last evening with his colleague
from Calgary Southeast, I believe it was. I may have got the
direction incorrect, but it was one of the members from Calgary
and of course I cannot use her name. I enjoyed the discussion
very much. I was pleased to hear the hon. member echoing the
comments she made about the virtues of recall.
I have not noticed anybody's spine twitching on this side of
the House, but I think there is something that the hon. member
might want to bear in mind in his comments about recall. I know
it is one of the things that will be studied in the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs when it becomes
seized of the matter once the motion has been passed. He may
want to give evidence before the committee on his views on this
important issue.
He might bear in mind the fact that in political life popularity
of governments goes up and down. When the government goes
down the opposition normally goes up but not always.
Sometimes it gets fractured among various opposition parties. I
need hardly remind the member there are two splinter groups
sitting behind him that are no longer parties in the House.
However they do have some interest and still some support
among the electorate, weak as it may be. Governments, as I say,
go up and down. When they go down, the opposition parties go
up.
Surely the hon. member must be very suspicious and a little
mischievous in proposing a recall of members when he knows
that as an opposition member there will be very little call for
recall in his case. When I was an opposition member the chances
of anybody instituting a recall petition against me were virtually
nil unless, as I say, there had been some major problem for
which I might have been expelled from the House, like a
criminal conviction on a very serious offence. Those are
grounds for the House to expel a member. It has happened
before. There are precedents for it.
(1345)
On any other matter my electors are most unlikely as long as I
am an opposition member to consider recalling me because I
cannot do damage in a riding. It is quite impossible. The
government on the other hand makes decisions that can affect
ridings across the country. It has to take sometimes-
The Deputy Speaker: The time is going by. I think the
member gets the point. Would the member wish to reply to what
has been said?
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, I can see that
the hon. member opposite has not yet been made immune to
recall phobia disease, but I am pleased he paid attention and did
not notice the squirming around him at the time.
This is not a matter of popularity of the government. It is a
matter of individual recall. There is definitely a public
movement out there to have some accountability in members. I
would repeat to the hon. member that a critical part of recall
legislation must have built into it the ability to assess the reason
for recall. That is really the key to it. There is nothing to be
afraid of if there are established genuine reasons, not just a
matter of popularity.
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth): Mr. Speaker, I listened
to the comments of my colleague from the Reform Party. The
concept he puts forward is an interesting one on recall.
I have been a member here for five years, in the bad old days
when we were perhaps in greater disrepute than we have been at
any time in the history of the country. I have never had a
constituent in the riding of Dartmouth, or any riding I went to in
my capacity as a critic, come up and talk to me about the need to
983
recall or to have a provision within our rules for recall. Many of
them came forward and indicated to me that other things should
be done such as freer debates in the House of Commons.
Does the member believe this is an issue created by the
Reform Party in the pre-election period, or does he really
believe it is a grassroots movement? If it is, I certainly have not
seen it in my travels.
Mr. White (Vancouver North): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for his question. I suspect as a result of his question in
the House that he will get some telephone calls from his riding
requesting that there be recall.
I can see that he has not yet been made immune to recall
phobia disease either. I hope we will manage to make some
progress on this over the ensuing months.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Public Works and Government Services): Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his address and ask
two brief questions.
The first one relates to his suggestion that there are particular
reasons why members might be recalled. I wonder whether he
would like to share those with us.
My second question is whether his party has costed out the
expenditures that would have to be undertaken in order to have a
by-election under those circumstances. How expensive would
that be?
Mr. White (Vancouver North): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for his question. It gives me the opportunity to expand a
little. Some valid reasons that I suggested earlier in my speech
might be a criminal act by a member or a proven failure to
properly represent the constituency.
I do not pretend to be the person who would write the
legislation or who has taken sufficient input to know all the
reasons that could be valid.
In terms of the cost of democracy, there is a cost to democracy
which we are ready to accept in terms of recall. That push that is
out there is telling us that people are prepared to have a cost of
recall. I have to say that the member is assuming that recall is
going to happen every day and shows a fear of recall. Recall is
such a rare event that it would be well worth the cost when it
eventually happens.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to address Parliament. The committee on parliamentary
reform has put Motion No. 6 before the House. I wish to do a
particular thing here, that is to reconcile the responsibility of a
member of Parliament as a representative and the technological
means that currently exist that would better facilitate the overall
operation of this place.
(1350 )
I particularly wish to applaud the motion currently before the
House to amend the standing orders. I suggest that these
proposed changes are really but a tiny step forward. Given the
task before us, now is the time to take not a tiny step but a big
step forward. Now is the time to determine what aspects of the
old way of doing politics should be kept as a tradition and what
things should be changed so that we can improve and represent
our constituents better in this place.
I am not talking about some kind of fantastical movie script. I
believe it is time to leave the ``Jurassic Park'' era of governing
without worrying about offending the old guard of ``The Firm''.
We have surpassed the technological ``Age of Innocence''. As
those who govern this land we want to improve our standards
and efficiency of governing. To do that we must move forward at
a pace similar to those we seek to serve.
As a member of Parliament I have a number of roles as does
every member in this House. These include at least three areas:
first as a representative, second as a legislator and finally as a
source of legitimization. Let us examine each of these in turn.
Let us consider the words of the chairman and chief executive
officer of Canada's largest chartered bank who described the
new frontier before us as a multimedia universe of converging
services ultimately coming into the home through a single
carrier, smart phones, smart TVs, smart computers, smart
VCRs, smart faxes and smart cards that let us pay bills, transfer
money, make investments, play games, show pictures, selected
products and services, take college courses and maybe even
vote. Let me repeat those last words ``maybe even vote''.
Electronic voting is one element which would greatly improve a
member's ability to perform the duties of representation,
legislation and legitimization.
Consider first the area of representation. Being the
representative of Okanagan Centre incorporates three
dimensions, mandate, proxy and trusteeship. The mandate
function is determined by my political party whose principles
and policies I support. By proxy I am bound to represent, to the
degree that they can be determined, the wishes of the
constituents in my area. In an instance in which that cannot be
determined it is my responsibility to act as a trustee to make
decisions that act in the best interests of my constituents. To be a
truly effective representative we require a dynamic synthesis of
all three roles.
After the debate in the House a decision is made on the matter.
The decision is made by means of a vote. Where representation
certainly takes place during the debate, actual representation
happens when the vote is cast.
Because members are required to be away from this place
from time to time it is not possible for them to be present at all
times when a vote is called. When a member does not cast a vote
984
it can be argued that the member's constituents were not
represented.
Let us recognize that we have the ability today to ensure that
every member is able to vote on every bill from anywhere in the
world. The technology can work for us.
Let us look at the second function, that of legislators. The
decision to introduce legislation is not arbitrary but rather the
development of implementation of legislative measures which
reflect the goals of all Canadians. In its ideal form legislation is
a result of consensus among Canadians. A recent example of
consensus gathering was the pre-budget debate in this House.
Another was the consultation of the Minister of Finance in four
major urban centres in Canada. Although it is commendable that
the minister sought the advice of Canadians it is unfortunate that
this type of consultation does not occur before every major
government decision.
Further, it is too bad that many Canadians were excluded and
did not have the opportunity to participate in the finance
minister's sessions. An electronic town hall meeting similar to
the one recently held by U.S. Vice-President Al Gore would
have enabled residents from every part of Canada to participate
simultaneously in such consultations through technological
interconnections.
A much wider and probably more representative consultation
would have resulted without incurring the costs of air fares,
hotels, meals and sundry items, to say nothing of the personal
energy that was invested by the persons involved in travelling
about this country.
(1355 )
A final function of a member is that of legitimization.
Democracy requires that the rules which govern society are
respected. Respect results from an acceptance, not necessarily
agreement with legislation either past or present. The notion of
legitimization comes from belief that a member will act in
accordance with the rules of decorum and do the utmost to
represent the riding.
Legitimization occurs as a function of the member voting on
legislation, responding to constituents and fulfilling the
promises made during an election campaign.
The notion of legitimization may be taken one step farther to
include access to information. A government which voluntarily
shares information as well as seeks the opinions of its people
instils trust between government and the people. Failure to
observe this relationship results in cynicism as was evident
during the last federal election.
Open and easy access demystifies the political process and
reaffirms the need for our existence. I am suggesting that we
examine the contents of the technology treasure chest.
Technology can allow individuals to communicate more
readily and easily with their members and with the government
as a whole. My job as a representative of my constituents would
be made easier if the federal government took a big step forward
and provided greater integration, technological integration,
within the House and outside the House.
Many Canadians know that both government and business
leaders need to understand the drivers of change within our
economic system. Those who understand the impact of
technology and the impact that it will have will be the successful
leaders of the future.
Many aspects of the tomorrow envisioned by Alvin Toffler in
his works The Third Wave and Future Shock are upon us today.
Technology affords us the right to expect bringing into
existence, probably in the House, the concept of electronic
democracy. It is this concept that should be incorporated into
any discussion concerning parliamentary reform, particularly as
we try to fulfil the many roles that members must undertake to
represent their constituents.
We are taking small steps in the proposed amendment, but
now is the time to take a big step and significantly alter the
standing orders of the House of Commons to incorporate
technology and thus greater involvement from all Canadians
into the decision making process. Imagine electronic
referendums and more direct, less complicated democracy,
electronic interaction with constituents and with this place.
Now is the time. Carpe diem. Let us seize the day.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Public Works and Government Services): Mr.
Speaker, I thank my colleague for his address and I ask a couple
of brief questions.
I listened rather carefully but I did not hear any reference,
although there might have been, to other countries utilizing
some of the concepts that he has put forward. Are there
examples of other countries doing exactly that?
The other question is in terms of cost. Do we have any notion
as to how costly this would be?
Mr. Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, in the first instance there are other
examples in which this technology has been and is being
applied. A variety of examples can be made. For example, I
referred to Vice-President Al Gore who conducted a town hall
meeting electronically and people virtually from right across the
United States, from one end to the other, were able to talk to one
another in this particular instance via a computer network.
Of particular interest to me in that instance was the
involvement of people unable to come to a meeting, who were
physically disabled and had to sit at home in their wheelchairs.
They were able to involve themselves as readily and as
completely as someone not physically disabled. There was a
great and wonderful opportunity for these people to be actively
involved in the decision making and communication interaction
process.
With regard to the second question of the hon. member as to
the cost, the details of this have not been worked out. I do not
985
have the details of the costs, but there are two dimensions here.
One is the dollar cost and the other is that if we really believe in
democracy we should pay the price to have democracy that
actually reflects our people's needs. We will do so successfully
and it will not be an inordinate amount. To suggest that the
present system does not cost money is false as well.
(1400)
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth): Mr. Speaker, I know the
clock is ticking but very quickly I would like to ask the member
a question. He is a new member who canvassed on a platform of
parliamentary reform as some of us on this side of the House did.
Does he not believe that some of the initiatives which have been
undertaken by the new government have been positive?
An example is the fact that we have had so many free debates
in the House on major issues. In the early days of this Parliament
the government put forward some initiatives to start the reform
of the political process.
Mr. Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had listened
carefully to my speech, he would have heard that I did applalud
the government's actions in my speech.
_____________________________________________
985
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, the
Kahnawake Band Council has issued a press release which is a
full blown charge against Quebecers and their government. This
press release refers to the hatred of the population, the
persecution of English speaking Quebecers and the immorality
of the Quebec government.
I want to say that Quebecers are a tolerant people and that,
despite numerous exactions by armed native groups, they
continue to have good relations with native people. Moreover, I
would like to say that the Quebec government was the first to
recognize the principle of self-determination and that the James
Bay Agreement is still a model in Canada.
We have in Quebec a joint forum made up of equal numbers of
representatives from various native peoples and representatives
of Quebec society where current problems are being discussed.
Instead of resorting to such unacceptable and provocative
language, the Mohawks should join this forum.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough): Mr. Speaker, the people
of St. John's Church, Peterborough are proud of their past and
are planning confidently for the future.
A few years ago, the 150-year old church encountered damp
and peeling paint on its walls. Studies showed that the proper
cure involved major repairs to roofs and walls as well as
repainting. Instead of simply trying to patch, members of the
congregation embarked on an elaborate program to restore their
church to the glory that it had a few decades ago.
Despite difficult economic times, the work has now been
finished. The architectural heritage of the city of Peterborough
has been greatly enriched. The new chimes bring a sound of
hope to all citizens.
There is a lesson here for all Canadians. Like St. John's, let us
be proud of our rich heritage and build on it not for ourselves,
but for our children.
* * *
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today for the first time in this House to bring
forward the concerns of the farmers of my constituency,
Dauphin-Swan River, with respect to the grain handlers' strike
on the west coast.
I strongly encourage the parties involved on the west coast to
resolve their differences quickly because a large number of
innocent third parties on the prairies are drastically affected by
the work stoppage.
* * *
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): Mr. Speaker,
many of my constituents are greatly concerned by the
suggestion that the government may be about to lower the taxes
on cigarettes. The concerns range from the loss of revenue to the
increase in health costs due to the effects of smoking.
Now the health minister for the province of British Columbia
has added his voice to those of my constituents. The hon. Paul
Ramsey predicts a 35 per cent increase in tobacco consumption
by B.C.'s adolescents if the government follows through with its
suggested tax cut.
In addition, Mr. Ramsey projects the measure will result in an
increase of $130 million per year to his budget for the treatment
of tobacco related illnesses.
986
Mr. Ramsey has requested the government take no action to
reduce taxes until it is fully discussed at the meeting of
federal-provincial territorial ministers of health tomorrow.
My constituents and I add our voices to that request.
* * *
(1405 )
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham): Mr. Speaker, those of us who
are proud Canadians are offended that CP Rail has decided to
change its company logo into what in effect looks like the
Canadian flag becoming or being subsumed into the America
flag.
It is not just Canadians who are offended by this logo. This
logo has also been challenged in the United States for defaming
the American flag.
Regardless of CP's rights as a private company to choose any
logo it wants, Canadians should have a voice in this matter. CP
Rail is a company that Canadian taxpayers have helped to
establish through subsidies, outright gifts of land and other
means. I note that most of the track in eastern Canada is owned
by CN and more precisely, the taxpayers of Canada.
Currently CN, which displays the Canadian flag on its trains,
and CP are in negotiations for consolidation of rail service in
eastern Canada.
I would like to bring this matter to the attention of the House
so that we can convey our desire to have the Canadian flag and
not the offensive logo of CP Rail flying over taxpayers' property
in eastern Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon
(Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine): Mr. Speaker, today, I
would like to mention one instance where federalism was good
for Quebec.
The Federal Office of Regional Development has recently
announced a partnership between Canada and Quebec which
will allow Ericsson Communications of Montreal to launch an
important research and development project in the field of
cellular telephone communications.
That partnership between the federal and provincial
governments and Ericsson will maintain 400 jobs and create 140
new ones. The expected investments could exceed $94 million
and will open important markets for many small and medium
sized businesses in Quebec.
Thanks to such investments, Ericsson will be a world leader in
cellular phone technology. That project reaffirms, once again,
Montreal's position as the true telecommunications centre in
Canada.
In conclusion, let me stress the fact that this company has
been able to pursue its expansion in Montreal and in Quebec
thanks to the Canada-Quebec agreement on industrial
development.
* * *
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi): Mr. Speaker, 1994 is the
International Year of the Family. This should be the opportunity
for parliamentarians to become aware of the many difficulties
Quebec and Canadian families are faced with, and for the
government to respond to the crying needs of today's families. It
goes without saying that the economic difficulties we are
experiencing take a terrible toll on families.
According to Statistics Canada in 1990, 1.1 million Canadian
children lived below the poverty line. No one can be indifferent
to such alarming figures. Another international research
organization estimates that 29 per cent of single parent families
live below the poverty line, putting Canada in seventh place
among industrialized countries.
It is high time we give back their dignity to Quebec and
Canadian families so they can fully develop on a personal level
and find total fulfilment worthy of a truly modern society.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke): Mr. Speaker,
it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House to announce that
the neighbouring cities of Trail and Castlegar in the riding of
Kootenay West-Revelstoke have jointly been selected as the
location for the 1996 British Columbia Summer Games.
Kootenay West-Revelstoke is made up of many small towns
and communities, the largest having a population of about
10,000.
The games are traditionally held in large urban areas but
nowhere will visitors find the hospitality and enthusiasm that
will be present during the 1996 games. The two towns are
representative of the spirit and hospitality which can be found
throughout the riding.
I would like to take this opportunity to invite all members of
the House and all of their constituents to visit the most
breathtaking area in western Canada and to enjoy the spirit of
the games and the hospitality of my riding.
987
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain): Mr. Speaker,
earlier today I had the pleasure of participating in a special
presentation when members of CAVEAT, Citizens Against
Violence Everywhere Advocating its Termination, presented
petitions containing over 2.5 million signatures to the Minister
of Justice.
These petitions ask that Parliament recognize that crimes of
violence against the person are serious and abhorrent to society.
Mrs. Priscilla de Villiers suffered a tragedy in her family with
the abduction and murder of her daughter, Nina, in 1991. Mrs. de
Villiers was determined to turn tragedy into positive action. She
formed CAVEAT and brought to national attention the
deficiencies in the criminal justice system through media
appearances and a petition which has elicited an overwhelming
response from over 2.5 million Canadians.
(1410)
We are honoured to have Mrs. de Villiers and some of the
members of CAVEAT with us today. I am sure all my colleagues
join me in saluting her efforts to bring about changes to the
criminal justice system.
* * *
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to draw the attention of this House to the disturbing
proliferation of killer board games and serial killer cards
depicting perpetrators of violence.
Many Canadians have expressed concern about the
insensitive glorification of violent crime that these games
promote. The exploitation of human suffering for the purpose of
financial gain is morally unacceptable.
Recognizing that the most expedient means of getting such
products out of stores is to make them prohibitively expensive
and that there may be freedom of speech issues in relation to our
charter, I recently tabled a motion recommending $100 per unit
tax levy on the manufacture or importation of such products
which explicitly depict or promote actual or fictional
perpetrators of homicide, kidnapping or sexual assault.
I urge this government to consider that motion as a means of
preventing or limiting distribution of these products in Canada.
* * *
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth): Mr. Speaker, I am sure
all members of this House were shocked and saddened to see
reports of the carnage in Sarajevo on Saturday.
Once again the shortcomings of the UN position have been
seen. Despite the best of intentions lack of a coherent direction
is costing lives daily.
Warring factions continue to thumb their noses at the
international community while we continue to issue
condemnations and pass UN resolutions which we simply are
not prepared to enforce, except for the one ensuring that the
Bosnian government cannot acquire the means necessary to
defend itself.
I implore our government while ensuring the safety of our
troops on the ground to urge the UN to take whatever actions are
necessary to stop this genocide. As one citizen of Sarajevo said
on the weekend: ``This was not the Chetniks that did this, it was
the world. This is the world's responsibility''.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, the
unilateral cuts to social and co-operative housing that were
applied in the last Conservative budgets had very severe
repercussions.
In Quebec City and particularly in the lower town, housing
needs are great. Today at least 1,200 households are on waiting
lists to get low cost housing in the area and 600 more are looking
for co-operative housing.
Quebec City wants the CMHC to be given enough funds to
reactivate the Canada-Quebec agreement on social housing.
It is time for the Liberal government to act and the Minister of
Finance should take these problems into account in his
upcoming budget.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette): Mr. Speaker, I
rise in the House to inform members that the latest
unemployment figures for Manitoba increased by almost 2 per
cent in the previous quarter.
Farmers in Lisgar-Marquette have suffered through a
summer of extreme weather, crop disease and now a strike by
Vancouver dock workers.
With 1.5 million workers unemployed, a rejection of a $2.12
an hour wage increase over a three-year contract is not only
shameful but devastating to other workers and businesses who
have consented to a wage freeze or wage cut.
The failure of this government to deal with smugglers,
unemployment and labour disputes is putting any economic
recovery in jeopardy.
988
The Minister for Human Resources Development is becoming
the minister of human misery. I urge the government to wake up
and take actions to solve problems rather than to contribute to
them.
* * *
Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount): Mr.
Speaker, on Friday a mortar shell landed in a crowded market in
Sarajevo killing 68 persons and injuring 197. This is the largest
number of persons killed in a single attack since the beginning
of the war in Bosnia. I am sure all members join me in
condemning this massacre of innocent civilians whose victims
included Muslims, Croats and Serbs.
The impulse is to lash out or strike back but as British foreign
secretary Douglas Hurd warned, a retaliatory air strike may
simply yield one day of satisfaction followed not by the lifting
of the siege, but by its intensification.
In order to put an end to the fighting both the United States
and Russia must become more actively involved. The United
States has criticized various peace plans and has proposed
actions which many believe would intensify the war. The United
States must show more leadership if we hope to bring an end to
this bloody war which has dragged on far too long.
* * *
(1415)
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe): There is a 33-mile
rail line in my riding between Collingwood and Barrie. CNR is
considering closing this line in the very near future.
The impact on the environment and the tourism industry in
this area would be horrendous. Hundreds of trucks full of grain
corn supplying two very successful companies in Collingwood
would make the highways in this area impassable and very
dangerous to the tourist industry.
I feel it is imperative that CNR reconsider its decision of
closure of this essential rail line.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Mr. Speaker, it appears
this government is going to cave in to the law breakers by
lowering taxes on cigarettes.
Tobacco, I might point out to this House, is the only legal
consumer product that kills when used exactly as intended. It
costs the Canadian taxpayer an estimated $15 billion in indirect
and direct health care costs.
The revenue minister says cost does not affect the use of
tobacco. I wonder what the minister is smoking. In 1992
Statistics Canada indicated: ``Affordability is to date the most
significant factor in the reduction of tobacco use in Canada.
Regular smoking among Canadian teenagers has plummeted as
taxes drove prices up higher''.
How about getting from the Minister of Health a real
commitment to the health of Canadians. Stop the smoke-screen.
The Minister of Health should come clean and cough up: Does
she or does she not support lowering taxes on cigarettes?
_____________________________________________
988
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Saturday, another barbaric act was committed in Sarajevo,
where a mortar shell that hit the central market killed 68 people
and wounded over 200. Following this tragedy, UN
Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali asked NATO for
authority to proceed with airstrikes against the Serbian artillery
positions which hold Sarajevo under siege.
I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he could indicate the
Canadian government's official position on this request from
the UN Secretary-General which favours airstrikes to free
Sarajevo.
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
like everybody else we are very unhappy with the unacceptable
and barbarous act committed in Sarajevo over the weekend.
At this moment we are consulting with our allies on this
problem. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has been in
discussions with U.S. Secretary of State Christopher and the
foreign ministers of England and France. Discussions are going
on at this time.
The situation is very, very bad. We will see in the next few
days what the best action is that we can take. Of course,
Canadians have the particular situation that our troops are
located in Srebrenica and we have to consider that.
We will be consulting with our allies. We hope that we will
find a way to have peace in that part of the world because what is
going on at this time is completely unacceptable.
989
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, an emergency NATO meeting on the matter was
scheduled today, at the request of France and Belgium. What
position did the Prime Minister instruct his representatives to
take on behalf of Canada at this meeting?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
do not think we can make a final decision at this time. I believe
that the people who are meeting at this very moment want to
analyse the situation and try to propose an action plan. The
Canadian officers present are to report to us on the nature of
these discussions, and we will see what their decision should be.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he can
promise that his government will not approve airstrikes without
guarantees for the safety of Canadian peacekeepers in Bosnia.
(1420)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
at this very moment people are discussing the use of airstrikes to
prevent the so-called strangulation of Sarajevo, and there is no
direct connection with the position of Canadian soldiers who are
now located in another part of Bosnia.
We have to weigh the pros and cons, and our position is still
the same. In Brussels we said that airstrikes could only be used
in self-defence, which is not the case in the Srebrenica area at
this time. In the case of Sarajevo, the governments concerned
are now analysing the situation.
* * *
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, the Saturday
edition of
The Gazette reported that the chief of the Kahnawake
reserve, Mr. Joe Norton, claimed to have received assurances
from the RCMP that it was not planning to enter the reserve to
fight cigarette smuggling and that moreover, the RCMP
considered Akwesasne, Kahnawake and Kanesatake to be
special cases.
Can the Prime Minister tell us clearly and unequivocally
whether or not the RCMP gave such assurances to Chief Norton?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
think the RCMP officer who spoke last Friday evening on
television stated his case very clearly. We have said clearly to
everyone that the rule of law applies everywhere in Canada,
without exception.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): In that case, Mr. Speaker,
and to dispel any doubt or confusion people may have, including
the inhabitants of these native reserves, could the Prime
Minister agree to a request to meet with Mohawk chiefs and
make it clear to them that he intends to ensure that the rule of law
is applied everywhere in Canada?
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
officers of the RCMP had occasion to discuss these matters with
them last Friday. They were told clearly that the law has to apply
everywhere. They have been in touch with the Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development about that.
One thing I do not like is the impression the hon. member is
trying to make that this is only a problem within Indian reserves.
Contraband is a problem across the country but especially in
Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada. Most of the contraband
comes in outside the reserves and it is not very fair to try to
create the impression that it is a problem with Indians in Canada.
It is a problem with many people in every city across the land.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Prime Minister.
It is rumoured the government is considering a major
reduction in tobacco taxes. If this is true, to avoid any increase
in the deficit these cuts will have to be offset by matching
spending cuts or replacement tax revenues.
Can the Prime Minister tell the House which programs he
intends to cut or which taxes he intends to increase.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
there will be a budget in a few weeks.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, with all due
respect the rumours are very strong.
Health organizations across Canada are outraged by the
government proposal to cut tobacco taxes.
Would the government calculate the long term increase in
health care costs which would result from these cuts in tobacco
taxes?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
hope to make a statement tomorrow on this. I said to the House
very clearly that it is no good for anybody to bury his head in the
sand.
A lot of very cheap illegal cigarettes are available everywhere
at this moment. I said we would use every means at our disposal
to make sure that the traffic of illegal cigarettes and other
smuggling are terminated in the short term. We will use every
tool at our disposal to achieve our goal in the shortest period
possible. We are faced with a problem that has existed for years.
We have decided that the time has come to bring order to that
field and it will be done very quickly.
(1425)
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, a second
supplementary question. Last week certain native Canadians
threatened an armed response to any attempt by the RCMP to
990
enforce existing smuggling laws. This situation has caused
understandable concern among law enforcement officers
involved.
Does the Prime Minister's definition of self-government
include the right to disregard the laws of Canada and to threaten
police who may be called in to enforce them?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
this statement is extremely exaggerated. We want to make sure
that native Canadians can make decisions concerning
themselves in order to find a better place in Canadian society. At
the same time they know and accept the fact that they are within
Canada and they have to respect the laws of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): My question
is for the Prime Minister. A few days ago the chief of the
Akwesasne reserve, Mike Mitchell, stated:
[English]
``[The police] are going to have to be reminded that there are a
lot of weapons that exist here-and trying to pursue this in a
violent manner is going to be met with probably a very hostile
manner as well''.
[Translation]
Does the Prime Minister think this is idle talk? Does he think
that the police should let themselves be intimidated on the
Akwesasne reserve?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
the position of the government is clear. It intends to have the law
enforced everywhere in Canada. That continues to be our
position. It is not a matter of looking for confrontation but
instead, of enforcing the law in an equal manner in every part of
the country. This is what we are going to do.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, I would remind you that there have been over 70
violent deaths on Akwesasne over the past seven years and that
the Mohawk people are presently being terrorized by a handful
of individuals. Is it not the responsibility of this government to
ensure that all the inhabitants of this country, including the
Mohawks living on Indian reservations, can live in peace
without being terrorized at the hands of a few individuals?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
That is exactly what we intend to do, and I am very pleased to
have the support of my colleague opposite on this.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The
Globe and Mail quotes a spokesperson for the Mohawk
warriors as stating that any RCMP incursion into his reserve
would be treated as an invasion by a hostile government.
As the civilian police forces are not presently enforcing the
law in the Mohawk's self-declared sovereign lands, would the
minister of Indian affairs agree the Canadian government
appears to have accepted the Indian self-declared sovereignty?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, there are times when we have to
come together not just as members of this Commons but as
concerned people and not be throwing gasoline on a highly
volatile situation. Does the hon. member want to force another
Oka? It happened so innocently and it could happen again.
If the hon. member would take the time to go down to
Akwesasne, as many members on this side did, he will find
12,000 law-abiding Indians doing their business-law abiding,
with a hospital, a school and a 500 criminal element. It is the
criminal element we have to deal with.
The member for Lac-Saint-Jean said that in his statement
about two weeks ago. There are Indians and there is the criminal
element. The leader of the opposition said that when dealing
with Davis Inlet. The hon. member who sits behind the leader of
the opposition said that today. We do not have to deal with
Indians, but with the criminal element in Indian communities
the same way we deal with the criminal element in the
non-Indian community. That is the long and the short of it.
(1430 )
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, I suggest to
the minister that we might be able to cool this fire if he could
give us the government's position on this.
Does the government, representing all the people of Canada
have ultimate, exclusive, supreme power and authority over all
Canadian soil including territory claimed by all identifiable
groups including those people described as aboriginal?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, there are one and a half million
aboriginal people. We are dealing with them as individuals, as
family.
The hon. member is looking at one part of the country. I wish
he would look at what the government has just done in
B.C.-toward his neck of the woods-in Labrador and Nunavut.
991
In twelve weeks we have kick started most of the negotiations.
That is what is going to bring this country together. Common
ground brings us together and not what certain groups within the
Mohawk community are doing right now.
I am getting upset because it only took Oka three weeks of this
type of dialogue to happen. Meech Lake floundered. A few
Indians went out to protect a golf course. The army was called
out by the province of Quebec and the next thing is that we spent
$150 million and killed a person. I do not want to see that happen
again.
Our party and our government is going to ensure that it does
not happen again.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
It is obvious that the Ontario government does not agree with
the federal government's proposal to lower taxes on cigarettes to
curb smuggling. The Premier of Ontario has stated that, in his
opinion, smuggling could easily be thwarted if the federal
government imposed a special export tax on cigarettes
manufactured in Canada.
Does the revenue minister share the Ontario premier's
opinion regarding the imposition of an export tax on Canadian
cigarettes?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue): Mr.
Speaker, it is true that the Ontario premier has made statements
on this matter and that he has proposed an export tax on
Canadian cigarettes, but I do not agree with him on this point.
This alone would not solve our current smuggling problem.
We need something much more effective than what the premier
has proposed, and I am sure that we will have more details on
this tomorrow, as the Prime Minister just said.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, does the
revenue minister not agree that the refusal by the Ontario
government to lower its taxes on cigarettes would make his
anti-smuggling plan totally ineffective, particularly in Ontario
and perhaps even in Western Canada?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue): Mr.
Speaker, it is true that in hypothetical situations, we can have
hypothetical answers to hypothetical problems. However, we
still do not know what we will do. We do not know all the steps
the government will take, that will be announced by the Prime
Minister tomorrow. As to what can happen at the border between
Ontario and Quebec, I cannot give a good answer because it is a
hypothetical situation.
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley): Mr.
Speaker, my question has been inspired by Dave and Brenda
Fountain of Burns Lake, B.C. who are currently being
challenged on a piece of duly deeded private property they own.
My question is for the Prime Minister. In the throne speech,
his government committed to the forging of a new partnership
with aboriginal people, specifically in respect to the
implementation of their inherent right to self-government.
Will the Prime Minister commit to all Canadians that his
government's definition of aboriginal self-government does not
mean a self-government that would exist outside the federal and
provincial laws that all Canadians are currently obliged to abide
by?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
said many times that the situation with regard to Indian land is
that it is all part of Canada. They have to abide by the legal
system in Canada when we sign agreements. The Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development is trying to find a way
to give the authority to the native people to be able to make their
own decisions that affect themselves, so they can find a proper
place in Canadian society.
(1435)
That is what he is negotiating at this time, but all within the
fact that they are within a sovereign nation that is Canada.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley): Mr.
Speaker, I commend the efforts of the Prime Minister in his
search for the meaning of aboriginal self-government.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister if at this time his
government defines aboriginal self-government as an order of
government that would exist outside federal and provincial
jurisdiction or as a level of government that would exist within
and under federal or provincial jurisdiction?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): The hon.
member should know that Indian reserves come under federal
jurisdiction within a province. The Indian land is in the name, in
the trust of the federal crown.
Therefore we already have a system that sometimes, like
passing a road through an Indian reserve, has to be done by the
federal government, not by a provincial government. It is the
law of the land following the signing of the treaties with the
natives in Canada.
992
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, after
hesitating for several weeks, the government finally told
Canadians that it will unveil its action plan against cigarette
smuggling this week.
In the context of the health ministers conference, will the
minister ensure that a comprehensive strategy to discourage
tobacco consumption will be introduced as part of that action
plan?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, a
few minutes ago the Prime Minister said that he would make an
announcement on this issue tomorrow.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, will the
minister undertake to provide the necessary funding to ensure an
increased and effective control of the sale of cigarettes in
schools?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I
am always prepared to co-operate with my provincial
counterparts. Schools are under provincial jurisdiction.
Therefore I will have to meet with my provincial counterparts
before coming up with a concrete plan.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Agriculture.
The shutdown of the port of Vancouver, Canada's largest
seaport, has cut off millions of dollars of commodity exports
including hundreds of millions of dollars of grain, potash and
forestry products.
Now that the mediated talks have broken off, could the
minister give the House an undertaking as to what specific
measures the government is prepared to take to guarantee that
Canadian grain exports will reach their markets and that the
integrity of our international trade position is not hindered?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the
question of the hon. member.
As the House knows, over the past week or 10 days we have
been encouraging the parties to the dispute to exercise their
rights and obligations under collective bargaining to reach an
agreement. In the past several days we have offered the
mediation services of the federal government to do that.
Unfortunately as of yesterday the talks once again broke down
and the sides were unable to come to any agreement that would
allow them to proceed with a new contract.
The assessment we made is that the impact of this work
stoppage is now reaching beyond the parties themselves. It is
having a very serious impact on the economy generally;
certainly the grain economy of western Canada and the economy
of the port of Vancouver.
Consequently notice will be placed on the Order Paper today
of the government's intention to introduce measures to end the
work stoppage and bring about a resumption of port operations.
I would ask for the co-operation of all members of the House
for quick passage of this legislation.
* * *
(1440 )
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, I applaud the hon. minister for his announcement in the
House. My question relates to the same subject.
I would like to ask the Minister of Human Resources
Development if he is willing to bring reliability to Canada's
export commitments by designating grain handling as an
essential service so that we do not have to keep on introducing
special legislation to deal with the situation Parliament after
Parliament, session after session?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. member that the
most immediate and important requirement is to end the work
stoppage problem at the port of Vancouver. There are many
other questions related to labour matters and I hope that we will
providing, during the course of the next several months, an
opportunity for this House to discuss them and to come to grips
with them.
The important thing right now is to get the port of Vancouver
back to work, the grain moving and the other commodities
moving. I would invite the hon. member and his party, along
with others in the House, to concentrate and focus their efforts
on that singular task.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, indeed we will be co-operating with the government to
try to bring an end to this work stoppage.
However, in the meantime there have been severe financial
losses by many Canadian exporters, including agriculture
producers. I am wondering if the government has any intention
of covering some of the costs incurred by producers through
high demurrage costs that are passed on to Canadian exporters.
993
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I suppose we are prepared to take
under advisement the hon. member's proposal if at the same
time he is prepared to show what he would do about the deficit in
the meantime. I would think that we should try to get the Reform
Party to be able to speak with some consistency on these
matters.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Prime Minister.
A report from the U.S. State Department, which referred to
so-called problems experienced by anglophones and allophones
in Quebec has caused considerable consternation among the
Quebec public. The report is critical of Bill 86, especially where
it affects access to English schools. However, the Quebec
Minister of international affairs was strongly critical of this
report and said, according to La Presse, that legislation to
protect the French fact in Quebec did not constitute a violation
of human rights.
Can the Prime Minister tell us whether his government,
through the Minister of Foreign Affairs, intends to lodge an
official protest with the U.S. ambassador regarding the contents
of a report that is very damaging to the reputation of Quebec
and, hence, that of Canada as well?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, speaking on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs
who is not in the House today, I would say that the Canadian
government does not make a habit of commenting on documents
originating from the foreign affairs departments of other
countries. It is not in keeping with international custom.
I may add as a general comment that I myself did not read the
report by the U.S. State Department, but from what I have heard
it was drafted before certain amendments were made to
Quebec's legislation, which means that today, considering the
rules of international courtesy and the scope of the comments
made by the State Department, there is no good reason for
making representations to the U.S. government.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ciaccia
felt he had to make a strong protest and ask the federal
government, or at least he says he will in La Presse, to support
him in that endeavour.
Therefore, does the federal government refuse to close ranks
with Quebec and lodge a strong protest against these comments
which are very damaging to Quebec?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, I believe that we should take the U.S. government's
reports at face value. I am not sure they are extremely damaging
to Quebec. Quebec makes its own decisions, and that is fine with
me.
* * *
(1445 )
[English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the hon. Minister of National Defence. As we
have already heard in this House this afternoon members on both
sides of the House, indeed all Canadians, were appalled by the
bombing of the Sarajevo marketplace on Saturday.
Can the minister inform this House what options the
government is considering as a suitable response.
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I
think the Prime Minister has addressed that question.
There are meetings going on in Brussels today and will be in
the next couple of days.
As far as the Canadian government is concerned we are most
interested and concerned that the Canadian troops in Bosnia are
not put at undue risk by any escalation action that may occur as a
result of these discussions that are going on.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): Mr. Speaker, I
have a supplementary question. Can the minister tell the House
what the government's position is on air strikes.
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister addressed that subject when he was in Brussels a
couple of weeks ago.
The former government did sign on with the rest of the NATO
nations in not ruling out air strikes in certain eventualities.
However the Prime Minister made it clear in Brussels that
linkage of air strikes with an attempt to open the airport at Tuzla
and to liberate the Canadian contingent at Srebrenica was just
not acceptable to the Canadian government.
Our position is that we believe that there are other ways to
achieve peace there before we start taking drastic action.
Indeed the Minister of Foreign Affairs made a statement
yesterday which has been broadcast widely on television to the
effect that the negotiations must still go on and that we prefer a
negotiated route before any further escalation.
994
[Translation]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the minister of agriculture. The
minister is aware that the subsidy cheques from the Canadian
Milk Board were delivered to farmers almost eight days late in
December and four or five days late in January.
In view of the problems facing the Canadian agricultural
industry, what does the minister intend to do to assure farmers
that those cheques will be delivered on time in the future?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question. He is right. There was an unfortunate delay in the
delivery of some dairy cheques in late December and early
January. That delay resulted from communication problems
between the Department of Supply and Services and Canada
Post.
As soon as the Canadian Dairy Commission learned of the
problem it notified all of the provincial milk boards and
agencies to let them know the nature of the problem. The
commission has also received the assurance of Supply and
Services Canada and Canada Post that every effective control
measure will be put in place to ensure that this kind of problem
does not recur in the future.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for the Minister of Human Resources
Development. I too would like to raise the issue of the labour
dispute which has been paralysing Vancouver harbour and,
consequently, has brought to a halt the export of millions of tons
of Canadian agricultural products.
Has the minister asked the mediator, whom he appointed, for a
report on this labour dispute and, if so, will he make it public?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, as I already said in answer to a
previous question, we are tabling a bill today. During the debate
on that bill, members will have several opportunities to
exchange views regarding the report presented by the
Department of Human Resources Development. I will certainly
share all information with the members on both sides of this
House.
[English]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est): Mr. Speaker, what
sort of delay does the minister intend to give to concerned
parties before imposing this special law because it is very
important. The minister knows that as long as western grain sits
in the Vancouver port, Canadian grain farmers are not being
paid.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, that very much depends upon
members of this House.
If in fact we got full co-operation from all members we could
have the legislation passed by tomorrow.
(1450 )
It would depend upon the full and total co-operation of all
members and deputies of this chamber. I would invite them to
co-operate now that the decision has been taken to introduce
legislation. It will be tabled tomorrow. If members co-operate
we could have the problem resolved by tomorrow night. It all
depends on members opposite.
* * *
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the right hon. Prime Minister.
During this past weekend a meeting attended by more than
500 people in the riding of Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville
resulted in a demand that the government investigate the
circumstances surrounding the election of the sitting member. A
petition has also been initiated with the intention of collecting
around 40,000 signatures to support this demand.
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that these events are
symptomatic of the growing public support for recall legislation
among the voters of Canada.
An hon. member: Out of order. Ancient history.
The Speaker: Order. I believe we are straying off the mark
with regard to these questions. Perhaps if the hon. member could
rephrase his question in such a way that it was not so pointed we
might be able to get answer. I wonder if he would try to rephrase
the question.
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, would the
Prime Minister agree that there is a general mood among the
public of Canada in support of recall legislation?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
do not know where the member is taking that. Perhaps he should
read the editorial from the Calgary Herald that supported his
party last election where they say recall is unnecessary.
995
He should read that. He will come to the conclusion that it has
been tried in many places including the grandfather of his party,
the Socred Party. They are the ones who recalled the recall.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister constantly brings up ancient history in response to this
question. The constituents of
Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville are clearly showing they
are not satisfied with the Prime Minister's suggestion last week
in this House.
The Speaker: Order. I would rule the question out of order.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
now we all know that 190 Canadians with an annual income of
more than $250,000 did not pay one penny in income tax in
1991. Even worse, that same year, 20 millionaires paid less than
$100 in taxes to the government. And these are only a few
examples of social injustice, a few of the scandals.
Like his Minister of Finance, does the Prime Minister intend
to go on tolerating such situations as those concerning family
trusts and tax shelters? Or does he intend to act quickly to put a
stop to it?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
usually when people quote someone, they mention their sources.
The problem was raised several days ago, in caucus and in the
media, by the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls. I think
that is exactly what the Minister of Finance wants: to make the
system more equitable. I hope that if he does and he manages to
plug these loopholes, opposition members will not complain
that he is raising taxes.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
about this concern for fairness, instead of attacking social
programs, the middle class and the elderly who pay their taxes,
can the Prime Minister promise Quebecers and Canadians that
this disgraceful injustice will be stopped once and for all?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
there will always be people who find loopholes in the tax
system, and it is up to the Minister of Finance to deal with that.
The Minister of Finance is now trying to remedy the situation.
The minister said that in his budget, he intends to bring fairness
back to our tax system. Naturally, some people will be affected.
As I said earlier, I hope the Opposition will not claim he is using
the word fairness as an excuse to raise taxes. He will use it to
ensure that everyone pays their fair share. If this happens to
increase government revenues, that is fine, and I think everyone
in the House will agree.
* * *
(1455 )
[English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre): Mr. Speaker, my
question is to the minister of immigration.
On December 15, 1993, I sent a letter to the minister urging
him to remember and to recognize that convicted child molester
Michael Drake posed a serious enough threat to warrant
detention but was released on bail and is still out on bail today.
To date I have heard nothing from the minister. What action is
the minister of immigration prepared to take to ensure the safety
of the children of British Columbia?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I believe that one of the hon.
member's colleagues asked the same question last week.
I mentioned to her and through her to the House of Commons
that privacy laws prevent me and him from going into the
details. Suffice it to say that Mr. Drake is coming up for a
hearing and I will use every method within the Immigration Act
to protect Canadian communities and the security of Canada
with respect to this case as with respect to other cases.
The hon. member should also know that since my
appointment as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration I have
acted to move and to deport individuals whom I thought
thwarted the very system upon which this act is predicated.
* * *
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey): Mr. Speaker, my
question today is for the Minister of National Revenue.
Over the last number of weeks the minister announced in his
proposed legislation some savings from the amalgamation of
two departments. I would like to ask the minister today what part
of that revenue, if any, is being used to make sure that our
borders are more secure from criminals and the abduction of
young people who are crossing the border.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I can assure
him that because of a number of savings that have come about as
a result of automation we have been able to put a large amount of
resources, approximately $13 million, into computer and
electronic surveillance equipment for our customs officers at
border crossings.
In addition, I can tell him that through reorganization again
we have the possibility of increasing the number of people at
customs stations, so we will in fact have a larger number using
996
better equipment to reduce the number of abducted children that
cross the border, and also deal with other elements such as
terrorists, criminals or others who attempt to cross the
Canadian-American border and other borders, and of course at
airports.
I would specifically like to mention, as he has, that the
programs for missing children are working effectively, but we
need the support of the public in making sure that we have the
maximum amount of information available so we can in fact use
our automatic systems for licence plates and other such things
and make sure that the numbers of missing children and
abducted children who are recovered is increased.
* * *
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): Mr. Speaker, my question
is to the Minister of Human Resources Development.
As the minister said last week, the Reform Party is the party of
free enterprise. As such, we recognize that some labour disputes
in monopoly-like situations may require third party
intervention or regulation which will prevent the problem.
Clearly the labour dispute at the port of Vancouver is such a
case.
Will this government permanently resolve the problem of
grain handling interruption by declaring grain handling an
essential service?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier we will be
putting on the Order Paper today notification of legislation. I
will be more than interested in listening to the hon. member's
comments on debate trying to justify such a position. I would
hope he would not take too long because we would like to get the
legislation passed and into law tomorrow so we could put people
back to work.
He may want to hold back his larger philosophical discourse
until another occasion when we can talk about labour relations
in this country and how we can assure that both parties' rights
are protected.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain): Mr. Speaker, the
wasting of public money seems to have no limits. This morning
again, the
Toronto Star revealed that Canadian taxpayers have
had to shell out more than $150,000 for the reconstruction of the
towers of the Caribou pier in Nova Scotia, and the Wood Island
pier in Prince Edward Island. This expenditure was made
necessary simply because the Department of Public Works did
not check to make sure that the size of those piers could
accommodate the ferry.
(1500)
My question is for the Minister of Public Works. How can the
minister explain or justify such irresponsible planning of
federal investments, since it seems that those who built the ferry
and those who built the piers had some communication
problems?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon.
member for his question. It is a question that probably should
have been directed to the previous administration when this
incident occurred.
I want to assure the hon. member that after the error was
detected it was rectified within a two-week period at a cost of
$150,000. I have given clear instructions to my staff at Public
Works and Government Services Canada that that kind of
behaviour will not be tolerated.
In essence we have asked for a review and if necessary,
disciplinary action will be taken.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, my question is
directed to the Prime Minister. He will likely be aware that
earlier today his House leader indicated the new government's
approach to Parliament and to government was to include all the
stakeholders in a decision prior to its being made.
The Prime Minister will realize that nearly 40,000 people die
of cigarette related illnesses each year. He will also realize of
course that health care which is a major component of this
discussion is largely a provincial jurisdiction.
Will the Prime Minister indicate to what extent the provincial
ministers of health and the health care community in general
have been consulted prior to the decision which he says is
coming down tomorrow?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
we have been in discussions with the premiers. I hope they are
talking to their ministers of health just as I have the pleasure of
talking regularly with the federal minister of health. She has
good judgment.
_____________________________________________
996
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal): Mr.
Speak-
997
er, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table,
in both official languages, the annual auditor's report and
financial statement of the Canadian Transportation Accident
Investigation and Safety Board.
This report covers the fiscal year ended March 31, 1993.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State
(Multiculturalism) (Status of Women)): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, copies of the annual report on the
operation of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act for 1992-93.
I will be making a statement shortly, outlining my vision on
this government's new directions for multiculturalism.
The Speaker: Madam Minister, we are at that point now.
* * *
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State
(Multiculturalism) (Status of Women)): Mr. Speaker, I did not
anticipate your being ready so quickly.
In 1971 the Liberal government took a timely step forward in
affirming the uniqueness of Canadian identity. It proclaimed the
multiculturalism policy of Canada showing how we perceived
ourselves and how we were viewed by nations throughout the
world.
We let it be known on domestic and international stages that
we placed a high value on the diverse heritage that history
bestowed upon us to share. Many changes stemmed from this
policy in the lives of citizens and in government activities. Part
of this social evolution took place in 1988 when the world's first
national multiculturalism legislation saw the light of day in the
House and was unanimously passed.
(1505)
Through the multiculturalism act we made an emphatic
statement that ours is a life story to celebrate a legacy of
traditions brought from nations far and near to link our cultural
communities as one people united under one banner. The act
codified in law the multicultural reality that has flourished since
the First Nations settled this vast land, long before the advent of
the explorers. We were indeed proud to see respect for our
neighbours' origins become the law of the land.
Diversity is a Canadian reality, a reality reflected in this
House, in you, in me and among all our colleagues, and among
the citizens from all ethnocultural groups who have placed us
here to speak on their behalf. The essence of this diversity lies in
how we conduct day to day life in Canada, at home, at school, in
our neighbourhoods and in the workplace.
It is with regard to where many Canadians work and provide
services to the public that I tabled the fifth annual report on the
operation of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. It documents
progress the federal departments and agencies made in
honouring this government's commitment to reflecting
Canada's cultural make up in its daily affairs. It also helps keep
these administrations accountable to the people of Canada
whom we have the privilege of serving.
[Translation]
In other words, the federal government must play a leading
role in Canada's cultural development. This annual report
covers the 1992-93 fiscal year. It applies to a time that preceded
the return of this government by seven months.
Nevertheless, I have the duty to ensure that the document is
tabled.
[English]
Some departments and agencies have made great strides in
upholding diversity in the workplace and ensuring that all
citizens have equal access to government services.
To cite just two examples among the many highlights of
outward looking ventures, during 1992-93 CBC prepared a plan
of action on equitable portrayal in programming. This led to
further progress in the movement toward increasing the
presence of visible minority performers and subjects on TV and
radio in Canada.
A great number of programs dealt with the fight against
racism and hatred as well as with the promotion of cross cultural
relations. It included a Canada Day documentary in which five
Canadians of diverse cultural backgrounds discovered the
meaning of being a Canadian.
Agriculture Canada funded research into the diverse food
buying habits of consumers and the opportunities that these
trends present to Canada's agri-food industry. The results of this
research were provided to producers and retailers in this fast
growing sector. We shall do some ongoing nation-wide studying
of these trends and help our food processors compete with
foreign companies.
These innovative ideas are but a few among the many put
forth by a large number of agencies and departments on the front
line of diversity awareness. These employees deserve our
praise. Other administrations proceeded at a somewhat less
998
accelerated pace. We acknowledge their efforts and encourage
them on.
Finally, a minority of offices have not quite blazed a trail in
advancing the benefits that diversity can bring and diversity
offers. Hanging posters in the lobby is a good start but one must
make the actual message on those posters come to life. Their
intentions are honourable but they really could go further.
With this in mind, I have asked program staff to convene a
round table of senior officials. These people will explore new
ways to highlight the fact that the government demonstrates
leadership in bringing about meaningful change in Canada.
Clearly one cannot look to the outside until one has had a
thorough scan of the inside.
(1510 )
As my hon. colleagues have likely sensed, this report is a good
foundation for a much more energetic plan of action for the
remainder of the decade. However one cannot really call it a best
seller, not at least right now. Let us wait until I table some
reports in the year to come, same place, same time, but I do
believe it will be a different story, a story about widespread
institutional change.
[Translation]
The portfolio entrusted to me by the Prime Minister is an
honour, as well as a challenge.
Our mandate is to articulate the idea that our approach to
citizenship embraces all Canadian women and men-seniors
and young people-regardless of where they or their ancestors
were born. We will be busy during the 1990s and I look forward
to every day of it!
[English]
At the top of our agenda is the need to enlighten, to educate, to
arouse a better understanding and interest, to open the eyes, to
drop the lid on the coffin and finally entomb the myths that
multiculturalism is merely an immigration issue, that diversity
must lead to division, and the misguided musings about quotas.
I have already heard rumblings in this House about
ghettoization. It is true there are those who do move into places
some people think of as comfort zones. Others might call them
ghettos. I do not think that is the right nomenclature, but they
move to a place called Canada first. They contribute their skills
to a land built by others before them who arrived with courage,
hope and dreams.
Canada is a nation where we all enjoy freedom of movement
and we all have the right to move to a neighbourhood with
stores, with a market and with a community centre that
represents a familiar setting. It is a comfort zone. All citizens
have that right too. They have every right to tell us to stop
focusing on the small picture of who lives where and who does
what and to look at the whole screen in panorama.
[Translation]
Let us recognize diversity as the most obvious characteristic
of the Canadian reality, thanks to our ancestors from around the
world.
Our diversity is at the heart of our identity, and you cannot
rewrite history. We know of regimes in this century that tried to
do so, and they failed.
[English]
I suggest that members see ``Schindler's List'' if they want a
reminder.
[Translation]
Whether people know it or not, multiculturalism will not fail.
[English]
Anyone who foresees the end of our respect for neighbours'
origins and for their right to become involved in our
communities is not facing the fact that all Canadians have equal
rights and equal responsibilities.
Embracing all our traditions is an eloquent expression of the
Canadian dream. It forms the very lifeblood of our nationhood.
It creates building blocks, not stumbling blocks, for one only
stumbles when one lives in darkness and cannot see the path
ahead.
[Translation]
The federal government intends to follow a path clearly laid
out, long before Confederation, by our aboriginal peoples and
generations of ancestors.
The finest homage we could pay them is to show that there is
no such thing as us and them, mainstream versus immigrants,
old guard versus newcomers.
Even the so-called mainstreamers have roots that spread all
over the world. We Canadians are one big family. After all we
are all made of flesh and blood.
[English]
We also have a mission on a broader scale to serve as an
example to troubled nations that look to us for inspiration in
times of strife when they think of freedom, human rights and
shared values. We will reinforce our status as a role model
through an alliance of every man, woman and child with a grasp
of the responsibilities of Canadian citizenship. We shall pick the
route that leads to a land where every person's talent and energy
will build on what is great about Canada. We will strengthen our
economy through communication with trading partners. It will
help us maintain our revered status in the eyes of the world.
999
(1515)
The task that faces us all is not an easy one. Yet I can think of
little in life more debilitating than idleness, scapegoating,
antipathy and apathy.
I speak from my own heart to those who ask if a land of
opportunity, equality and fairness is a dream world; who
question whether multiculturalism has a value or is a value, has
an inclusive policy or is an inclusive policy; or who think that it
can happen alone. I say when we cease to dream we cease to
grow.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, I welcome the opportunity afforded by the presentation
of the fifth annual report on the operation of the Canadian
Multiculturalism Act by the Secretary of State for
Multiculturalism to address this important topic.
We are also anxious to hear the results of the round table of
senior officials, which will report shortly to the secretary of
state on new ways to demonstrate the government's leadership
in bringing about meaningful changes in Canada. However, I
would like to draw attention to the subtext of the speech by the
secretary of state, which implies there is no difference them and
us, no difference between immigrants and the citizens of this
country, the founding citizens.
How can the government claim to promote multiculturalism
while stating there is no difference between the members of
cultural minorities and the members of our two majorities in this
country, the franco-Quebecois and anglo-Canadians?
The secretary of state appears to use the words
multiculturalism and assimilation interchangeably.
Let us look at the facts. In most Canadian provinces,
Amerindian and cultural minorities of every description are
assimilating in great numbers. In Quebec, however, aboriginal
nations maintain their language and culture to a greater extent,
and we can even speak of a renewed interest in those languages.
Among Quebec's cultural minorities, mainly in Montreal, we
see greater retention of their mother tongue by children of
immigrants-the second and third generation.
I think the secretary of state was referring to the integration of
immigrants in the vast Canadian anglophone majority to which
she belongs. Does the secretary of state realize what is
happening in her own province? This is a denial of Quebec's
distinct identity. Her department's mandate is to encourage a
sense of Canadian cultural identity based on the main
characteristics of Canada, which are bilingualism and
multiculturalism. it is clear that the federal government's
policies are more inclined to embrace the perspective of a
hypothetical pan-Canadian cultural identity.
Until Quebec has acquired full political sovereignty, we will
defend Quebec's right to the recognition of its cultural identity.
When the secretary of state says that diversity is the most
obvious characteristic of Canada, because our ancestors came
here from all over the world, we must not and cannot ignore the
fact that today, and in fact for the past 350 years, there has not
been one Canadian reality but three: one francophone, one
anglophone and one Amerindian or aboriginal, the reality of the
aboriginal First Nations.
(1520)
This is not a situation unique to Quebec. It is the same for
Acadians and the French speaking communities of the rest of
Canada.
Waves of immigrants settled in Quebec, coming first from
Great Britain, Ireland and Mediterranean and slavic countries,
then more recently from Asia, Africa, Latin America and West
Indies. Quebecers do not make a distinction. They are all true
Quebecers.
For Quebec, the diversity principle must revolve around the
French nature of our culture embodied in all our institutions and
on which is based Quebec distinctiveness. The contribution of
immigrants to Quebec and Canada is enormous, culturally as
well as socially and economically. The diversity of our
population must allow for differences while encouraging
newcomers to blend into the social fabric.
To that end, the authorities having jurisdiction, that is to say
Quebec and the other provinces, must have the tools necessary
to facilitate this blending in, whether it be job training or French
language education.
It is important to establish clearly that a sovereign Quebec has
every intention to abide by the treaties and conventions which
protect minorities. We will participate fully in the discussions
that, at the international level, will focus on the tools developed
to better protect minorities.
The multiculturalism policy of the Canadian government has
a lot in common with that of Canadian diplomacy. It irons out
the reality and distinctiveness of Quebec.
A federation has to give a certain image of itself, whether
abroad or to newcomers. In this regard, it appears that our
federation hides behind stereotypes the true identity of one part,
because it cannot integrate its distinctiveness.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Mr. Speaker, the
statement of the hon. minister was long on rhetoric but in our
opinion very short on substance.
As the party in power for 17 of the past 25 years and the
architect of the multiculturalism policy since 1971, the minister
gave two examples today through which she was able to identify
progress having been made in upholding diversity in the work-
1000
place in the public sector. One of them was in the form of a plan
of action prepared during 1992-1993 to increase the presence of
visible minority performers and subjects in Canadian television
and radio.
Twenty years after the multiculturalism policy was
proclaimed the Canadian Broadcast Corporation finally made
plans to be more inclusive of visible minorities. This the
minister heralds as a great stride forward. Can we expect to wait
another 20 years before this plan of the CBC is actually put into
action?
This brings clearly into question the effectiveness of the
official multiculturalism policy. Given the identification of the
policy with the Liberals, it is particularly surprising that Liberal
MPs from ethnic minorities have in the past been openly critical
of the policy of multiculturalism. The Liberal MPs representing
Toronto area ridings particularly were critical not only of the
creation of a separate department but also of what they termed
the ghettoizing nature of multiculturalism as a whole.
(1525 )
Expressing sentiments he said were shared by several ethnic
minority MPs in the party, the member for York South-Weston
argued that while the policy of multiculturalism may have been
valid in the past, it no longer plays a constructive role.
I believe strongly that the policy is no longer valid or appropriate today. In
effect, the present policy of multiculturalism is divisive. It divides Canadians. It
is unfair in that it treats Canadians in different fashions. It is regressive and at
times discriminatory.
That statement was by the member for York South-Weston.
In an article entitled Ethnic Pluralism Under Siege-Popular
and Partisan Opposition to Multiculturalism from Canadian
Public Policy, December 1992, Spencer's commission argues
for refocusing official multicultural policy as follows:
We believe that Federal Government funding for Multiculturalism activities
other than those serving immigrant orientation, reduction of racial
discrimination and promotion of equality should be eliminated, and the public
funds saved be applied to these areas.
The Spencer report's criticism of multiculturalism and
recommendations for narrowing the policy's scope were
reinforced by suggestions that minority and immigrant groups
were also critical of the policy.
For example, one writer of Japanese ancestry describes the
reality of racism from her experience as a child and adult in
Canada that is belied by the rhetoric of multiculturalism. She
says:
Multiculturalism, a term everyone loves to use in defining Canada, is admirable in
theory but it does not work in practice. Multiculturalism is the name given to the ethnic
and cultural diversity of our country. It implies an attitude of tolerance and acceptance,
of equality among all regardless of ethnic background. This idea does not stand the test
of personal experience. And the experience of individuals provides real insight into
what defines our country. Though official policy would have it otherwise, it is hard to
be different in this country. For me this is an irony that underlies the very fact of being
Canadian.
Still others have gone further to argue that through
strengthening the associations between being ethnic and being
of inferior status, multiculturalism actually promotes or causes
racism.
Similarly novelist Meil Bisoondath writes:
In stressing the differences between groups, in failing to emphasize that this is
a country with its own ideals and attitudes which demand adherence, the policy
has instead aided in hardening of hatreds.
This brings me to the position of the Reform Party on the
current policy of multiculturalism. We call for the abolition of
the official multiculturalism department. We call for the
acceptance and integration of immigrants into the mainstream
of Canadian life.
We have found that Canadians welcome, value and enjoy the
wealth of backgrounds and cultures represented by its citizens.
This great country was built by hard working and enterprising
people who came here from all over the world. Many are proud
to celebrate their heritage and ethnic societies have flourished in
Canada for generations.
Whatever our ethnic and cultural backgrounds, what binds us
together is our tremendous pride and privilege in being
Canadians. It ought to be the role of the federal government to
preserve and protect those things that we all have in common,
and in ensuring equality for all regardless of things like race,
language, culture and country of origin. Because of this I urge
the minister to use her influence in cabinet to end the use of a
definition of Canada as a meeting of two founding races,
languages and cultures. This definition of Canada was
introduced by the Liberals and is one which they cling to to this
day even though it excludes more than 12 million Canadians
whose culture and language of origin is neither French nor
English.
In addition, those proud Canadians who fall outside the
Liberals' two founding races definition are ready, able and
willing to preserve those elements of their culture and heritage
that are important to them, using their own money and their own
resources.
(1530 )
They do not require these activities to be funded by other
Canadians through the allocation of tax dollars. Keeping the
heavy hand of government out of such activity would also allow
ethnic societies to remain free of some of the unfortunate
political obligations that have been perceived to arise in
conjunction with the allocation of political largesse.
1001
Instead the Reform recommends that federal multiculturalism
programs provide immigrant adjustment services, language
training and focus on the elimination of racism. These are the
services new Canadians really need to help them build a new life
in this country.
The Reform's position is that official multiculturalism has
indeed failed to respond to historical and contemporary
discrimination as well as class and gender based inequities in
the workplace.
I suggest to the minister that we ought to focus our energies
and resources on the key problem which is removing the
tremendous challenges and obstacles to ensuring that every
Canadian becomes an effective participant in the economic and
political spheres of our country, Canada.
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle): Mr. Speaker, I
seek unanimous consent of the House to be able to place on
record for maybe five minutes or so the position of the New
Democratic Party on the statement by the minister.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the
member's request?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank you and the
members of the House for giving me unanimous consent to put
on record our position.
First of all I would like to congratulate the minister on her
new responsibilities and position. I have worked closely with
her in previous parliaments and I know she will do an excellent
job. Her heart and mind are in the right place.
I also wish to congratulate the government for following
through on its promise to have ministerial statements and new
policy directions being made in the House rather than at press
conferences.
It does not bode well for this Parliament when one hears the
position taken by the Official Opposition party and by the
second largest party in the House. The Official Opposition party
is so narrowly focused in its own little world that I am afraid it
misses the much larger point and the larger reality that most
Canadians are living in.
The position of the Reform Party I also find most unfortunate.
They suggest we should focus our efforts on the pride in being
Canadians. I have always felt that my support of
multiculturalism was my way of celebrating being Canadian.
One of the major essences of Canada is the fact that we are not a
melting pot and that we celebrate our diversity. In this diversity
is our strength.
We see the ramifications of this all over the place. We see
people of Ukrainian, Croatian, Chinese or Vietnamese descent
opening up trade connections and possibilities with the
countries of their origin. This has a tremendous economic plus
for Canada.
It also is when one sees throughout history the rise of great
nations, those great nations that embraced multiculturalism,
different thoughts, different traditions and different ideas. This
coming together made countries great. I believe if
multiculturalism does its job in Canada it will help make Canada
great.
I urge the minister to continue with her work and to redirect
some of the things that department has been doing. It can be
more successful in some areas. Certainly the concern of racism
being on the rise is a legitimate concern. In hard economic times
we will have that increase in racism. The department has an
important task to fulfil. I extend to her and the department all of
our best wishes.
* * *
(1535)
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops) moved for leave to introduce
Bill C-211, an act to amend the Criminal Code (cattle rustling
and range cattle).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this private
member's bill regarding cattle rustling and range cattle
problems.
It sounds as though this is a bill that comes out of the 1890s
but in fact cattle rustling in the last number of years has become
a major problem not only in western Canada where I am more
familiar with it but, I am told, across the country per se.
In spite of the reductions in staffing of the RCMP they do an
admirable job but it is impossible for them to carry on the
necessary surveillance. The various cattle organizations do their
best in terms of range land patrol but not are not able to do the
job required in such a vast country as Canada.
Over the years when cattle rustlers have been caught, very
little normally happens. The case does not make it through the
courts. Consequently today people are literally losing thousands
of livestock to one form of cattle rustling or another.
The severity of the crime must be reflected by the severity of
the punishment. This bill increases significantly the punishment
for cattle rustling. It is not hanging. I do not support capital
punishment. It goes a long way to making the point that this is a
serious offence. It should be dealt with appropriately.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
Mr. Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know this is
an issue of interest to other members. I simply want to say that if
people are interested in providing seconders to this legislation,
which of course is within the rules, they would be welcome.
1002
Again this is not simply something coming from central British
Columbia but it is a Canadian-wide problem.
The Deputy Speaker: That is a good point, but it is not a point
of order.
* * *
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I
have petitions with over 5,000 signatures from people from
every part of Canada to add to the over two and a half million
signatures which have already been presented to Parliament.
They are from citizens who feel that there are serious
deficiencies in the criminal justice system.
These petitioners are calling on Parliament to recognize that
crimes of violence against a person are serious and abhorrent to
society. They ask that the Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail
Reform Act, 1992, and the Parole Act be amended accordingly.
These petitioners hope that with a new government we will
quickly see major changes in Canada's justice system.
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford): Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a
petition that I have received from several hundred of my
constituents in Oxford county.
This petition has been duly certified by the clerk of petitions.
Most of the petitioners are citizens of the city of Woodstock.
They are requesting that the government ban sales of the serial
killer board game and serial killer cards and prevent any other
such games, cards or material being made available in Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed that all questions be
allowed to stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(1540 )
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Before recognizing the member for
Dartmouth, I wish to inform the House that pursuant to Standing
Order 32(2)(b), because of the ministerial statement
Government Orders will be extended by 27 minutes.
1002
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure after five years of serving as the member of Parliament
for Dartmouth to rise in this place to talk about the changes that
have been proposed and put before us today with regard to the
standing orders of the House.
When I first arrived here in 1988 I guess I was one of those
people who wanted to change the world and do it rather quickly.
But at the same time, because I had spent some time working for
the previous Liberal administration, I knew that the rules of the
House could be used either in favour of reform of the rules and
progression of legislation or used to stymie.
Unfortunately, in the first four and a half years I was here the
rules of this place were all too often used to stop that type of
exchange and that type of debate and in actual fact to undermine
the confidence Canadians had in this institution.
The Right Hon. John Turner, the member for Vancouver
Quadra until the recent election and who chose not to seek
re-election, often said that this place is the highest court in the
land. It truly is. It is a pleasure to be sent here no matter what
political philosophy one harbours at any time. Indeed it is an
honour to be allowed to come to this place and represent one's
constituents.
However, what happened in the last session at least, far too
often the government of the day even without a great deal of
consultation with its own members would decide with rules that
were enacted in an archaic way so that only the executive branch
of government had any right to know what in the name of
goodness was going to take place. Bills were put before the
House which were imperfect as most bills will be. Even on the
government side good members, nearly all of whom were
defeated or retired, were not allowed to have any input. They
really saw what was going on when it went to their Wednesday
caucus meeting. At that time there was no attempt to seek input
so that as legislators or as representatives of the people we could
better the legislation and put our ideas forward. It was the
government line.
The bill would come down and members would be told: ``That
is it. You go in the House. You have your marching orders and
you support that bill to the death''. Members on the opposition
side did exactly the opposite. Most times it did not matter if
there was a grain or a whole beach full of wisdom in the bill
members of the opposition opposed because it was viewed in
1003
that type of combatant legislative set of regulations that was
what they did.
The rule changes that are before us today are a step forward.
We have seen a few steps forward since this Parliament was
elected. We have seen the reform document that was tabled.
When the Minister of Supply and Service and Public Works was
our House leader, he put forward a number of reforms that we
thought if we were the government we would like to try to
pursue.
One thing was that we would have free debates in this House
so that prior to the government making a decision members from
all sides, not just the government side, but the opposition and
other parties and the independents represented here would have
an opportunity to put their position forward. Hopefully the
minister or the government generally would listen and come up
with better legislation, better regulations and better governance
for the country. These rules start to do that.
I recall that in 1988 after I was elected committees were
struck and all too often government members came in and
supported bad legislation. As I said, in most cases opposition
members would not support even good legislation. But there was
one opportunity we saw for change. It was when the then
Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs came forward to
me as the critic and said: ``Look, we have a Bankruptcy Act''. It
was Bill C-22. ``We are going to introduce this thing in the
House of Commons''. I think the six or seven previous attempts
to pass that had failed. It was clearly not in the public interest for
anybody who was on that committee to see another attempt at
reforming Canada's bankruptcy laws fail. We were in the middle
of a recession and we were seeing unprecedented numbers of
individuals and companies going bankrupt. I think the
Bankruptcy Act dated back to 1948 or 1949. It had never been
substantially reformed.
(1545 )
I said to the minister: ``If you are prepared to allow us to
pre-study the bill or give it to us after first reading and if you are
prepared to tell your members on the committee that they have
free rein to treat the bill as a draft piece of legislation, I will give
you the assurance of the Official Opposition that our members
will try to build a bill that can pass the House of Commons, that
takes account of the special interests but comes forward with
what is in the public interest''. That worked and for months we
studied that bill. The bill we came up with did not even look the
same as it had.
Alas, when it came down to the crunch the government of the
day decided it was going to become partisan again. When that
happened the business of the committee shut down. That rare
period of harmony in the committee changed. We became highly
partisan and the bill hit the rocks. It was only because we were
able to rediscover that sense of joint responsibility for
legislation we were able to pull it off the rocks.
The country is better off today because there is a new
Bankruptcy Act. Probably thousands of people are still
employed in Canada because that act allows for reorganization
of corporations and allows for reorganization of personal debt.
It was a fine hour for the House of Commons when we did
exactly that type of work.
The changes to the standing orders we are debating today go
even further. I am an advocate of reform. If we are to gain back
the respect of the people whom we are elected to serve it is
important that we be allowed to do our jobs as parliamentarians.
It means that members of the Bloc Quebecois, the Reform Party,
New Democrats and the independents in the House be allowed as
much input as possible into the legislative process.
The reforms before us today indicate that after first reading
and before approval in principle when everyone is tied down to a
position, bills can be referred to standing or special committees
of the House. This has pushed us miles forward from where we
were.
If we pursue this vigorously on important or contentious
pieces of legislation or those which have various sides to them,
members of the Bloc, members of the Reform and indeed
members of the governing Liberal Party will be able without
fear of reprisal from their whips-God love all the whips-to
provide direct input. This is a very positive step for this
Parliament.
Through the reading of the proposed amendments we are
debating today I also get the sense that committees will or can be
asked by a minister to come up with the general direction on a
piece of legislation. In other words it can roughly formulate
legislation which would then go to justice officials who would
put it together.
As time goes on and in practice I hope that these committees
will work together. I hope they will find areas in the public
interest to conduct their own studies without necessarily a
reference or request from a minister and come forward with
what they believe is appropriate legislation addressing those
concerns.
For example, in the last couple of sessions of Parliament
members have come forward with private members' bills. Some
of those private members' bills dealt with ingredient labelling.
Actually the Deputy Prime Minister when she was in opposition
had put forward a couple of those bills.
Suffice to say perhaps standing committees will be able to
take that type of subject matter and formulate pieces of
legislation. They could then be put before the House finding
some process by which they could be properly debated and
passed, if they are good pieces of legislation.
I could speak for days on this subject, but in closing I
commend my government for taking the initiative so early in
this new Parliament to put forward what I hope is the first of a
1004
number of reforms. It will put some respect back into the
parliamentary process and will also make this place more worth
while for the members who serve here.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington): Mr.
Speaker, I say to the hon. member for Dartmouth that I too feel
this is a positive step in this new government. When we were
campaigning during September and October all members on all
sides of the House heard the same thing from the Canadian
people. They are not happy with the way Parliament has
functioned. They are unhappy with the tight and rigid rules.
(1550)
This is a step forward, but I believe we do have a long way to
go. We have many avenues to explore in order to make all our
voices heard in Parliament. Any movement forward will be seen
as positive by all Canadians.
I would ask the member for Dartmouth to comment
specifically on the areas of reform, such as pensions. In general
Parliament has taken a fair amount of heat particularly from the
Reform Party in suggesting that perhaps Liberal members are
not supportive on reform in the pension areas. I believe that is
not true and that a good many members are quite supportive of
practical measures to be reformed in the pension area.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the whole area of pension
reform is not something the Reform Party, the Bloc or the
Liberals can claim credit for.
The Canadian public, because of the way we have conducted
ourselves in the past here, has had a pox on both our Houses, and
I mean the other place as well as this place. Therefore the good
members who sit here are constantly being questioned about
whether or not they are paid too much or whether or not they
give value for money. That did not happen 10 or 15 years ago. It
has just happened recently.
I can think of nobody in the previous Parliament who did not
fully justify the pay received from the crown for the job
performed. I can honestly say I have never met anybody who
served in this place, at least when they first came to serve in this
place, who was here for self-interest. They were here because
they wanted to better the country.
The problem we have as legislators is that there are people
like Mr. Somerville of the national coalition who would have
everybody in the world believe that nobody works up here. That
is fundamentally wrong. Every member of Parliament knows, as
the new members in the Reform Party, the Bloc and the Liberals
have learned very quickly, that this is a very difficult job. It is a
tough job but it is one we sought.
As far as pension reform goes, I have always said I do not
believe people in this Chamber are overpaid. They are underpaid
for the work they do. Far too many have to make choices with
their families and they have to live with those choices long after
they finish serving in this place. Nobody here should get rich,
but nobody should be beaten every day in the media and by
public interest and indeed by some members here because they
take a salary home for a job well done. That is on all sides of the
House.
The public wants pension reform. I will continue to say what I
said during the campaign. I am fully in favour of an independent
committee saying what we are worth here. Regardless of
whether it says we are worth $100,000 or $30,000, or if it says
we are worth a pension after 20 years or 10 years, I am quite
prepared to live or die by whatever the recommendations are, if
it is a truly independent committee. Other members have to be
prepared to do that also. They have to defend whatever it is the
independent committee recommends to their own constituents
not just during election campaigns but as soon as that committee
reports.
I am in favour of pension reform, but let us support whatever
it is that comes in from the independent commissions.
[Translation]
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Léonard): Mr. Speaker, this is
the first opportunity for me to address the House since the
elections. First of all, I want to thank the voters in my riding for
giving me a third solid mandate to represent them in the House,
as I have done since 1984.
Some hon. members: A good choice, indeed.
Mr. Gagliano: My hon. colleagues say the voters made a
good choice; I thank them, and especially my constituents for
their continued support. I want to assure them that I will do my
very best to represent them well, as I have been doing for nearly
ten years now.
I also want to take this opportunity to thank the Prime
Minister for appointing me chief Government whip, a rather
heavy responsibility considering the historic outcome of the
elections.
(1555)
Since October 25, 205 new members have arrived to sit on
both sides of this House. Furthermore, two new parties have
joined the mix, making it a difficult task to organize everything
on Parliament Hill. With the co-operation of the other parties
and of my colleagues, the Official Opposition whip and the
Reform Party whip, I think a more civil tone has been adopted in
this House and I hope that this can be maintained. That is what
Canadians want. We have a House with 295 energetic men and
women who want to make their views known. Given the fact that
we sit opposite one another, we cannot liken our system to a
round table meeting. At times, some animosity may surface,
particularly during oral question period, but I think that every-
1005
thing is going well so far and I hope that this continues to be the
case. As chief Government whip I will try to set an example.
Everyone points to our famous red book and to the fact that
during the election campaign, we made some very specific
promises. From the moment the government was sworn in, the
Prime Minister set the tone by slashing ministers' budgets and
by following through on his first promise, namely to save $10
million per year. Immediately after taking this initiative the
government cancelled the helicopter contract, as it had
promised to do. It also carried out a number of other initiatives.
Not only the government, but all of us in this House have
come up with a plan to cut $5 million a year in the expenses of
the House of Commons. It is not much, a mere drop in a budget
of $220 million a year, but this is just a beginning. In time, with
your help on the Board of Internal Economy, Mr. Speaker, we
will look for ways to make further savings. For the time being,
we have a plan to save $5 million a year. The Board of Internal
Economy has already adopted a certain number of measures and,
hopefully, with the support of my colleagues, we will be able to
go ahead with this plan at our next meeting.
As I said, we will continue to save a little here and there, not
just for the sake of saving money, but to allow this place, this
House, this Parliament Hill to be really operational and to adapt
to a new reality, a new situation and new technology to be put in
place. So, this is an important proposal, not only to cut expenses,
but also to promote the efficiency of this place and allow us to
represent our voters effectively, thereby sending the right
message to our constituents.
This brings me to the subject of today's debate: parliamentary
reform. I see my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the
House Leader. We sat together on the Board of Internal
Economy and now we both sit on the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs. In the past, we have debated the
issue of parliamentary reform at length in our committee and
even in this House.
Now, just a hundred days or so after coming into office, the
new government, the new House of Commons has put forward a
motion on parliamentary reform, a rather important subject that
we have already taken steps on, about ten days ago, when we
adopted the new House of Commons Standing Committee
format. Here is another measure relating to this reform to enable
all members to speak to represent their constituents and their
views.
Since 1984, I have had the honour and pleasure of sitting in
this House as a member for nine years on the other side, and a
few months on this side. But on one side or the other, there is one
very important question that my colleagues and I have to ask
ourselves in this debate today. We do not realize the implication
of this change: to allow a bill to be referred to a committee after
only a few hours of debate. This is a major change. I know that
the Official Opposition mentioned it in their remarks, but this is
of paramount importance.
(1600)
Once this reform is implemented, every minister and hon.
member will make a speech, but their time will be limited. We
will not have the time previously provided for second reading.
How did we proceed in the past? Members on both sides of the
House all made long speeches and took position and, when the
bill was in committee, no one on either the government or the
opposition side wanted to change their position. We would go
through the same debate in committee and then, at the report
stage, we would go over the same debate and the same
amendments once again.
I think that the amendments proposed in this reform package
will enable committee members from both sides of the House to
look at bills and to invite witnesses and experts; they will then
be able to go beyond preconceived ideas and to propose
amendments to improve the bill.
If the bill is not valid and a lot of changes are made to its
substance, I am confident that the government and its ministers
will take this into account and withdraw the bill under
consideration. This will make a real debate possible, unlike the
shocking situation that prevailed in the past. We could spend
hours, days and often weeks in the House on second reading of a
bill. The debate in committee was just a formality since the
government stuck to the position it had defended in the House at
second reading and the opposition did the same thing.
I think that, for once, hon. members on both sides of the
House have a real opportunity to make changes in committee
and to improve legislation. That is the role of lawmakers, who
must also put forward and review options, like the Minister of
Human Resources Development who has just presented a
motion to give committees the mandate to look at this whole
important issue. Whether or not we agree with this approach, we
had one or two days of debate to express our opinions and
suggest ways to resolve problems, and all these options are now
available to the committee.
Some members, especially in the Reform Party, may accuse
us of not going far enough. There is the whole issue of free votes
that has arisen since the opening of this Parliament. I can tell
you that, as a whip, I consider all votes to be free.
Nowadays, it is unthinkable for a whip to tell members how to
vote. That is just not done anymore. I think that members are
free to vote as they wish. There are party positions, there is the
question of leadership in each party and every one of us is big
enough to face his or her responsibilities.
1006
Many times in this House we have seen members decide to
vote against their own party. Some regretted it, others are proud
of it.
We must not say that is a small step; for me, it is a big step.
Mr. Speaker, I hope-you are indicating to me that my time has
expired-that with the co-operation of my colleague, the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader, who
chairs the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, we can
look into the whole issue of electronic voting. That is very
important.
We have already discussed this subject with my colleague, the
chief opposition whip, and we are trying to have all votes held
on Tuesday evening. The idea of voting on Tuesday and
Wednesday evening is not bad; I think it would save time. That
too is important. The members would all be here and while they
are in the House, we could vote on several bills, one after the
other, instead of always ringing the bells for fifteen or thirty
minutes; and members could plan their schedules better.
I am glad that this reform will be implemented within a few
days and I am sure that the House of Commons will be better for
it.
(1605 )
[English]
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest to our whip's speech. I have a few
questions for him. When I was in opposition I was always
concerned about the fact that when we were sitting in
committees, we as members in the committee could not bring
forward any pieces of amendments to that bill that actually cost
the government money.
As a result a lot of the proposals being put forward by
committees, a lot of the good ideas that came out of committees,
were always ruled out of order because they cost the government
money. I am wondering if our whip can tell me whether or not
that has been alleviated. Are there in place now some provisions
to allow committees to actually do the work they were put there
to do which is to bring forward ideas that the people of Canada
want to bring forward in legislation and ideas that unfortunately
may cost the government money?
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his
question. He explained a situation that we have both
experienced in committee. It has not changed. Unfortunately
this parliamentary reform motion we have before us does not
address that particular problem for the reason that there are
some constitutional situations that do not allow us to go ahead
right now. We wanted to make sure that we had some substantial
parliamentary reform but naturally we could not address the
whole package altogether.
What is important here, and I want to stress what I said before,
is that after 180 minutes the legislation will be sent to
committee. That is so early that I am sure members will be able
to influence the minister and his officials. Therefore on those
monetary amendments that the members will make I am sure
the minister or the officials of the minister will agree to make
them.
Indirectly we are answering that problem which would take a
long time in the House and through lawyers and so on regarding
how we can go about this constitutional impediment we have in
terms of spending money because it is the crown and only a
cabinet minister can do that.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member mentioned the whip and the whip's
powers, so to speak, and the government does recognize free
votes to a certain extent right now.
Keeping that in mind, I would ask the hon. member if the
government would consider allowing free votes in the standing
committees including free votes for chair and for vice-chair
rather than have the whip tell the members who they will vote
for for chair and vice-chair?
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, a very interesting question. I
would like to tell the hon. member that all our votes are free
votes, including in committees.
The Prime Minister, a minister, the whip and the House leader
can all express our opinions. We suggest our choice but
members in a committee or in the House can stand and vote the
way the member wishes to votes.
The idea that there is no free vote is a figure of speech. The
member has the right to vote freely in a committee or in the
House. The Prime Minister, the leader of the party, the whip, the
House leader and any other minister or member have the right to
say we should vote that way. It is up to the member in the end to
decide.
(1610)
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa): To begin with, Mr. Speaker,
I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Saint-Léonard.
Saint-Léonard is the riding next to Bourassa and we have a lot in
common, including an important Italian ethnic minority.
I also want to express my support regarding the committee's
policy to reduce by $5 million a year House of Commons
expenditures. This is an important message to send to the public,
particularly in a period of economic crisis. I also want to say that
I will support any measure to enhance the status of the work
done by MPs, as well as to improve Parliament's effectiveness.
I have a question for the hon. member: When you looked at
parliamentary reform and drafted the proposal which you tabled
in this House, did you take into account the experiences of the
United States, France and Great Britain?
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Léonard): Mr. Speaker, as I
said in my speech, in the last two to three years, my colleague
the parliamentary secretary of the Government House Leader
1007
and I have examined this whole issue and we looked at what was
being done elsewhere.
In the case of the United States, we must of course consider
the fact that their system is presidential, while ours is a British
parliamentary system; it is therefore more appropriate to look at
Great Britain, although we must take into account the Canadian
reality-namely that Canada is a federation with some
distinctive features. We also looked at the way things are done in
France, and in other countries which have a British
parliamentary system similar to ours.
Parliamentary reform is of course an ongoing process which
is applied every day. Indeed, without realizing it, we often reach
unanimous agreements which can later become regulations.
Consequently, I fully agree with the hon. member for Bourassa
that we must continue to try to make the role of MPs more
effective, so that we can adequately represent those who elect us
every four or five years. This responsibility which consists in
representing the public and with-
The Deputy Speaker: The time for questions and comments
is up. Resuming debate. The hon. member for
Richmond-Wolfe.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, I am
proud to take part in this debate concerning amendments to the
Standing Orders of the House. After listening to the previous
speakers, you can tell how everyone is concerned about giving
elected representatives more responsibility and more influence
on how this House and the whole process work.
As my colleagues have done earlier, I would like to express
my point of view and begin by describing some of the
fundamentals involved here. The hon. member for Dartmouth
talked about progressive elements. Instead of using words like
``progressive'', he should talk about rules or evolution, as his
colleague from Saint-Léonard did.
The hon. member for Saint-Léonard reminded us that there
are over 200 new members in the House. It is true that those new
members have a lot to learn and to take in.
As for the proposed amendments to the Standing Orders of the
House, according to the Constitution, Canada's sovereignty is
entrusted to three entities: the Crown, the Senate and the House
of Commons. In reality, however, that is not the case. We have
learned from the history of Western parliamentary government
that the real power belongs to the inner cabinet of the
government party.
However, as we come to the end of the 20th century, the
political power in Canada is based on only one legitimate
principle, and that is the power given to the House of Commons
whose members are elected to represent the will of the people. A
minimum balance has to be struck between the sovereignty of
the people, expressed by universal suffrage, and the efficiency
of the modern state so that the spirit of democracy can survive
throughout Canada as well as Quebec.
(1615)
The primary objective of members of Parliament, who
represent the various societies and nations that comprise the
Canadian entity, is to control the actions of the parliamentary
executive.
With the emergence of the welfare state, the postwar period
marked the beginning of an era in which politicians were faced
with an ever increasing number of laws that were more and more
complex, mounting budgets and a more cumbersome
administration. So, we are witnessing the progressive growth of
the executive at the expense of the legislature. This is not in
itself a serious problem, but it can become extremely dangerous
for the democratic future of a geopolitical entity when, for
example, the leader of the governing party states repeatedly in
the House that no one in Canada or in Quebec wants to reopen
the Canadian Constitution, thereby denying the very existence
of the official opposition.
As I said, the contemporary role of the House of Commons is
to control the government's actions, which implies the right of
members to question and criticize freely and publicly the
government and its legislative measures. The disappearance of
the parliamentary balance and the emergence of a parliamentary
oligarchy infringes on this right and reduces the democratic
nature of the House of Commons.
The members of the Bloc Quebecois, the Official Opposition
in this House, have a number of reservations about the proposed
changes to the Standing Orders of the House put forward by the
Liberal government, since the dynamics of the proposals are
such that the sacred balance between the legislative and the
executive powers would be destroyed.
These proposals call into question the very essence of
parliamentary democracy. However, Bloc members did not
receive a mandate from Quebec voters to reform federal
institutions and, in this particular case, much less a mandate to
reform the House of Commons which of all the institutions is the
one largely responsible for Quebec's gradual, ongoing loss of
political autonomy.
The Bloc's mandate in this House is clear. It is to defend the
interests of Quebec, according to parliamentary rules and
traditions, while there is still time. The Bloc has a fundamental
obligation to oppose any reform which is aimed at limiting the
role of opposition members in controlling government activity.
This obligation involves protecting the interests of Quebecers.
Since this political party's primary objective is to secure the
national independence of the Quebec state, it cannot help but
advocate the decentralization of the decision-making process.
In short, the Official Opposition acts as a watchdog in ensuring
1008
the transparency and openness of the proceedings of the House
of Commons.
It is written in the famous red book, the Liberal Party agenda
so often waved about during the election campaign, and I quote:
``The people are irritated with governments that do not consult
them, or that disregard their views, or that try to conduct key
parts of the public business behind closed doors''.
This amendment put forward today by the same Liberal Party
would enable a minister to make a motion to refer a bill to a
committee immediately after second reading. It makes the Bloc
Quebecois wonder what some of the statements contained in the
red book are worth.
Also, the throne speech mentioned that the government was
``committed to enhancing the credibility of Parliament''.
Basically, to make the House of Commons run more efficiently,
the Liberals advocate providing members of Parliament a
greater opportunity to contribute to the development of
legislation. Again, the Bloc Quebecois questions the value, the
usefulness of the government proposals in terms of referring
bills to committee immediately after first reading, because that
is the intent: to change second reading proceedings to allow the
minister to ask for the bill to be referred immediately to
committee. This would means that no amendments could be
considered in the House. We do not think that abolishing debate
in the House at the second reading stage is a measure that will
increase transparency or allow members to make a greater
contribution. The Official Opposition believes, on the contrary,
that it undermines the legislative function of private members.
Does this mean that parliamentary democracy is progressively
disappearing? Is the member of Parliament not the front-line
representative, that is to say the elected representative of the
people of his or her riding, the riding being foremost in a system
of democracy by representation? Those are the questions that we
must ask ourselves.
(1620)
The reality is the following: the time allocated to the
consideration of private members' bills in the House of
Commons has shrunk from three to four days a week in 1867 to a
mere two to four hours a week in 1968. The exact same thing is
happening now with regard to the time allocated to the Official
Opposition, for this government proposal basically eliminates
any debate in the House on the principle of bills being read for
the second time. And that is an important stage! Second reading
is the most important stage a bill has to go through. That is when
the House gets to vote on the very principle of the legislation.
Again, the Bloc Quebecois has serious reservations
concerning this measure put forward by the government to
reform the House of Commons. One of the primary immediate
objectives of the Bloc Quebecois will be to introduce legislation
to increase the capacity to get involved, the legislative
responsibility and the input of members of Parliament in the
development of a decentralized Parliament. After all,
Parliament is a rhetorical instrument in the original meaning of
the word, that is to say one that allows public debate on matters
of public interest. As I said, it also encourages the expression of
dissent in a civilized way. Real political opposition is a
necessary attribute of democracy, tolerance and confidence in
the people's ability to resolve their differences peacefully.
Opposition is essential to the parliamentary political system;
otherwise, politics simply becomes administration.
With this in mind, the debate and vote on the principle of a bill
at second reading is the most important way that opposition
members have to oversee government bills and provides an
opportunity to question the advisability of a bill before it is
studied and debated clause by clause. By sending a bill to
committee right after first reading, the government prevents
members from criticizing the principle of a bill before its
passage is assured.
Mr. Speaker, you will agree that it is difficult in committee, at
report stage, to call into question the principle of a bill while it is
being amended clause by clause. Once again, the Bloc
Quebecois believes that this infringes the fundamental right of
members to control government legislation.
With this reform, the opposition could no longer delay debate;
from at least six hours allotted to the official opposition under
the present Standing Orders, we would have at most one hour
under the government's proposal. It seems that the power of
backbenchers is being strangely eroded, as I already said several
times, whence the reluctance of Bloc Quebecois members to
approve such a measure. Incidentally, this same amendment
does not restore Parliament's public credibility.
The government's proposal to amend the Standing Orders of
the House concerns the committee charged with tabling a bill.
Thus a minister can present a motion delegating to the
committee the power to draft a draft bill and table it in the
House. In its report, the committee can then recommend the
principle, scope and general provisions of the draft bill, which
implies a provision for an immediate vote on second reading,
without debate or amendment.
(1625)
The consequences of this proposal on the principle of
parliamentary democracy and the importance of the role of the
backbencher as a legislator are the same as in the case of the
preceding proposal, namely that it prevents MPs from
criticizing the principle of government bills. Indeed, nothing in
this proposal indicates that a bill tabled by the government,
following the report tabled by a committee, complies with that
report. The government may well not respect the principle of the
bill drafted by the committee when that bill is tabled for first
reading.
1009
With this measure, the government is trying to force the hand
of the opposition by indirectly implicating it in the decision
process, by enabling it, in theory since committees are
controlled by the majority, to participate in the drafting of bills.
The government is trying to get the opposition to support the
bills which are tabled.
Although we do not systematically oppose this proposal, Bloc
Quebecois members want to emphasize the importance of
having a debate here on the principle underlying any bill, and
they want to make this House aware of the fact that this measure
does absolutely nothing to ensure transparency and to improve
Parliament's credibility, two important election promises
contained in the famous red book.
The Official Opposition deplores the fact that the
government's proposed reform does not provide for special
debates on bills deemed important by MPs. Indeed, emergency
debates are rather rare in the House. The rules governing such
debates are very strict, thus preventing this type of exercise on
issues of concern to the public. The relevance of the proceedings
of this House often is not obvious for the public, since in the
absence of emergency debates these proceedings are not always
related to current issues.
In order to better protect Quebec's interests, the Bloc
Quebecois would like to enhance the status of the work done by
the House of Commons. We therefore propose that a procedure
be established to hold special debates on specific issues, as was
recommended in the 81st report of the Standing Committee on
House Management.
The Bloc Quebecois also deplores the fact that the
government did not make any proposal for a special question
and answer period on specific issues, during which some
ministers would answer all the questions asked.
The eighty-first report, mentioned earlier, contained a
recommendation that a special period for questions and answers
be institutionalized on a weekly basis. The Standing Committee
on House Management saw this as an effective means of dealing
with regional and sectoral problems which, due to lack of time,
could not be dealt with by the opposition during Question
Period. The committee also saw this as a way to question
ministers more systematically.
We therefore notice a lack of political will on the part of the
government and an attitude that clearly contradicts the great
principle of the election platform of the Liberal Party of Canada.
In this perspective, and to protect the interests of Quebec, the
Bloc Quebecois proposes setting aside once a week, outside
normal sitting hours, at least one hour for questions and answers
on a subject or problem to be dealt with by a single minister. The
Official Opposition would determine early in the week which
ministers are to be questioned on what subjects, as well as the
date and time of the proceedings. During these sessions, the
House would sit according to a format similar to that of
committees of the whole.
And, as a last point, I would like to draw the attention of the
House to several government proposals concerning public
spending and pre-budget consultations. The proposed reforms
which empower the committee to examine the future year
expenditure plans of departments before the last sitting day in
June and to table a report advising the government on its future
expenditure plans is a positive measure involving backbenchers
in the budget planning process.
The item on authorizing consideration of proposals regarding
the budgetary policy of the government from September to
December is also a way of involving backbenchers in the budget
process. The opposition sees this as a positive element as well.
(1630)
Finally, the proposal regarding the possibility to amend the
tax system in committee without previous notice before the
introduction of a bill seems destined to give committees, with a
parliamentary majority, all the flexibility required to impose tax
measures. That way, the opposition would not get notices in the
House and the government could introduce bills without saying
immediately that their application would entail taxes.
Before I conclude, I would like to remind the federalist
members of this House who might feel very patriotic that Bloc
Quebecois members were not sent to Ottawa to reform
parliamentary structures, but to defend the interests of the
Quebec state. Need I mention it? We are sovereignist members
and as such we denounce the proposed changes to the Standing
Orders since they do not improve openness and are not,
therefore, in the interest of Quebec.
Let me mention, as an example, the absence of any measure
whatsoever which would allow the House to examine
order-in-council appointments of officers of Parliament,
judges, ambassadors, high commissioners, presidents and
administrators of Crown corporations and of various people in
regulatory bodies, agencies, and courts. It would have been very
much in the public interest if, in the context of this
parliamentary reform, a procedure allowing members to
examine appointments before they became reality had been
proposed to the House. In so doing, the government would have
enriched and transformed the members' role and would have
given back to Parliament its credibility. That type of proposal is
essential to the openness of political decision making and seems
to be a fundamental democratic measure if the people are to
express their sovereignty since it would protect the country
against patronage and political bias.
The Bloc Quebecois cannot help but feel concerned since it is
not covered in the proposal for parliamentary reform. The lack
of such measure shows how the government are against
openness even though last autumn, during the campaign, they
prom-
1010
ised they would base appointments on qualifications and put an
end to patronage.
In conclusion, I would like to quote the liberal member for
Kingston and the Islands who said, on April 9, 1991: ``That
exposition of the importance of an opposition in Parliament to
inform the people and to express their grievances in Parliament
is a deep rooted one in the British parliamentary tradition'' and
``We believe that this country functions best when it has a strong
and effective opposition''. We of the Bloc Quebecois also
believe that our country, that is Quebec, will have the
opportunity to assert itself and gain political autonomy thanks to
the presence in Ottawa of a strong and efficient Official
Opposition. The voice the Bloc Quebecois is raising in protest
against the centralizing views of the federal government and the
lack of transparency of the parliamentary reform proposed
today, is the same voice we hear, coming from the Canadian
political scene, in favour of political independance for Quebec.
Therefore, the sovereignist MPs reject the government's
proposal to refer bills to committees for review, immediately
after first reading, on the grounds that it violates the guarantees
granted opposition members, under the Standing Orders, to
question and criticize the government.
The Bloc members deplore the lack of political will that
would have allowed for real reform and put an end to the general
disillusionment felt by Canadians for politicians as a whole. The
same members deplore a partial reform which does not provide
for this fundamental balance between the role of the
government, which is to govern, and that of the opposition,
which is to control the government's activities.
To conclude, we also deplore the fact that this reform of
parliamentary rules, which challenges some fundamental
principles of our parliamentary system, does not address the
tarnished image of MPs.
In short, all the Official Opposition is seeking is that the rules
of the parliamentary system be respected, and that decisions
made by the Canadian political community be transparent, as
requested by the Quebec people.
Quebecers have a good memory and they are not ready to
forget the many years under the Liberals, when many decisions
regarding the political future of Quebec were taken, with total
disrespect for openness, and resulted in the Constitutional Act
of 1982.
(1635)
The Deputy Speaker: 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 Richelieu-Cigarette Smuggling; the hon. member
for Yukon-Tobacco Products.
[English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, the
remarks that have been made in the debate today have been of
considerable interest to the government. I will deal with the hon.
member for Richmond-Wolfe in due course, but I wanted to
start by speaking briefly about the remarks made particularly by
the hon. member Mission-Coquitlam in her speech this
morning. I thank all the members who participated in the debate
for their contributions and suggestions which are of
considerable importance to the government.
Members on the opposite side will agree that the government
has attempted to consult with them in formulating the proposals
that were put forward. The general thrusts of the proposals were
ones set out in the red book and we have proceeded with those.
However we have added to the motion changes as suggested by
members in the opposition and in the Reform Party which we
think have ameliorated the motion and made it a better one for
all members and for the House in general.
The hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam referred to several
of the items being referred to the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs which really are in the last
paragraph of the government's motion today. The number of
items being referred to the committee for consideration is a very
substantial one. I know it will take the committee some time to
get through it and the date for return has been omitted from the
resolution. The committee is free to report from time to time its
findings to the House. I am sure it will do so on some of the
issues as the study is undertaken and completed.
The interest in reporting on a large number of subjects at once
saves time in terms of debate in this Chamber if there is going to
be a debate on the adoption of the committee's report. On some
of the issues no doubt there will be a desire on the part of
members to have a lengthy debate. I can see that on an issue such
as recall there may be considerable pressure to do that.
On the other hand, the committee affords an excellent
opportunity for discussion. The committee can hear witnesses
and members are free to make speeches in committee. They can
arrange to have those printed and reported if that is the interest. I
look forward to a lively discussion in the Standing Committee
on Procedure and House Affairs concerning the items referred to
there.
I remind hon. members on all sides that this particular
committee has the standing orders, procedures and practices of
the House referred to it on a permanent basis. It is free to launch
a study on any aspect of the rules and practices of the House that
it sees fit to do and may then report those findings and recom-
1011
mendations to the House in the form of a report. We are not in
any way restricted to the items listed in the paragraph at the end
of this motion if the practice or rule that we are undertaking is
already part of the practice of the House.
In the speech by the member for Mission-Coquitlam she
indicated that her party was interested in restructuring the
committee system. I am not sure how she intended to restructure
it. We have restructured it a bit. The changes were made last
week. The changes contained in the motion before the House
today are significant ones and in my submission give substantial
additional powers to the committees of the House, particularly
in dealing with government bills.
[Translation]
The problem as described to us by members of the Bloc
Quebecois is totally different. I believe that the person who
talked to all Bloc members misrepresented the implications of
this resolution, of this motion. They misunderstood our
proposed change to second reading and referral to committee of
a bill after the first reading. This change is very significant
because in the past, because second reading always took place in
the House, when a bill was referred to a committee, that
committee had to consider the bill as already agreed to by the
House.
(1640)
The committee could not change the principles of the bill. As
there were several principles at stake, it was very difficult to
propose admissible amendments to a bill in committee. Now we
practically have a free hand. When a bill is referred to a
committee after the first reading, the committee can review the
bill without restrictions. That is a major change to the Standing
Orders of the House. It gives all members, on both sides of the
House, the opportunity to propose such amendments. So it is
quite important.
[English]
I say to the member for Richmond-Wolfe that he should read
this again and not listen to whoever is giving instructions over
there. If they read the changes they would see that this is
significant.
In fairness, the members who have spoken were not in the last
House. The member for Laurier-Saint-Marie who was here
was never on a committee because he was not a member of a
party. The Bloc Quebecois was not recognized as a party before
the last election. Like the NDP and the Conservatives now in the
House, they were not allowed to be on committees. They were
struck off. Therefore he did not have experience on a committee
and I can understand his making this mistake.
Had the member been there and tried moving these
amendments he would have been frustrated to his wit's end.
Quite sensible, ordinary regular amendments could not be
moved because they changed the principle of the bill or were
beyond the scope of the bill as approved by the House at second
reading. That is gone and those restrictions are off.
When a bill is there to amend the Canada Elections Act, for
example, and it is before a committee after first reading, other
amendments to the Canada Elections Act could be added to that
bill before it comes back to the House.
It gives tremendous scope to members of Parliament from
every side to make changes in legislation that has been
proposed. It is a very significant departure and one quite
contrary to anything we have had before. It is a case of the
government's giving up significant control of the legislative
agenda in respect of a bill when it adopts this course and refers
the bill to committee.
It will be interesting to see how it works and I invite members
to wait and see how it works. However, to criticize at this point
as depriving the opposition an opportunity to debate the bill at
second reading is unfair.
It has that effect but the opportunities thereby created are so
much greater that it is a bonanza for members, particularly
members who are not of the cabinet, on every side of the House
to participate in the legislative process.
[Translation]
I also know that the leader of the Bloc Quebecois comes from
the Conservative Party. He was a Conservative before he
founded the Bloc Quebecois. He approaches all changes in this
House with the eye of a Conservative. I do not share his
viewpoint.
[English]
I am a Liberal. These are Liberal changes. These are changes
that members are going to appreciate and enjoy. The fact that the
Reform Party is accepting of them in such a generous way
indicates that they do meet some of the objections.
We have had arguments in the House that the House is
unresponsive and there is a need for changes that allow for
greater participation of members in debates of particular
importance at a given moment.
I recognize that a government's legislative agenda may not
allow for such debates. I am delighted to see members referring
to the 81st report of the standing committee on House
management, as it was then called, that came in during the last
Parliament which did make some proposals for changes in the
opportunities for members to ask questions of ministers and for
special debates on different occasions that were not emergency
debates under Standing Order 52.
Those are extremely rare. We had something like five
Standing Order 52 debates in the last Parliament. They were
extremely rare and very hard to get. They were subject to some
comment by me in that committee, but most of the proposals that
were put
1012
forward by that committee are ones that I personally support and
am urging the government to consider.
I am sure that in the new Standing Committee on Procedure
and House Management the members opposite who have
mentioned these with favour will raise them as proposals the
committee could put forward to the House. I hope they will find
some support among members of the committee on all sides. If
we can come up with a recommendation to make such changes it
would be delightful. I note the proposal for doing so is contained
in the motion the government has put forward which indicates a
willingness on the part of the government to consider this.
(1645)
I may say the government has shown restraint in not wishing
to touch on things like question period which are principally the
domain of the opposition. Members of the opposition can come
forward with constructive suggestions that will improve
question period and the other opportunities they have as
members to participate in the affairs of the House by
questioning the government ministers.
I look forward to the opportunity. I look forward to the debate.
I want to say how much I appreciate the very constructive
suggestions being put forward today by members on all sides as
we grapple with this problem.
The lack of confidence in members of the House stemmed in
large part because the last government was so inattentive to the
wishes and desires expressed by Canadians. It ignored
Canadians. It failed to live up to the promises it made.
In proposing this motion we are trying to fulfil the promises
we made in the red book. We are interested in allowing
Canadians to participate in the committee process in a very
meaningful and very direct way. In my view these changes
which may sound small to somebody listening to this debate
outside represent a revolutionary change in the way legislation
is dealt with in the House.
I look forward to having these in place and having the
co-operation of hon. members on all sides as we move forward
to try bills in this new process.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for answering
my questions from this morning.
He also inquired as to how I felt we could restructure the
committee system. In keeping with the rules of the House I
would like to reword my answer into a question so it will be
allowed.
Would the government consider going to the extent of
initiating and setting up a public accounts committee with
all-party membership to look at the spending of two or three
government departments for a year? In the process of one
Parliament, which would be five years, we would be looking at
15 or perhaps 20 government departments after the fact. This
would be a way to hold us accountable. Could I have an answer,
please.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 104 there is
already a Standing Committee on Public Accounts created by
the House which is chaired by a member of the opposition. It has
been a tradition in this place that a member of the Official
Opposition is elected chair of that committee. I do not believe
the committee has yet met, but when it does I have no doubt it
will elect a member of the Official Opposition to be its chair.
The public accounts committee includes, and I quote from
Standing Order 108(3)(e):
Public Accounts shall include, among other matters, review of and report on
the Public Accounts of Canada and all reports of the Auditor General of Canada
which shall be severally deemed permanently referred to the Committee
immediately they are laid upon the table;
Therefore the Auditor General's report, which was tabled the
other day, is deemed referred to the public accounts committee.
It is free to study as many government departments in a year as it
wishes to do. It is free to study, because those are all reported in
the public accounts of Canada, which are referred to the
committee and the Auditor General's report thereon is also
referred to the committee.
The committee is free to undertake the study of any
government department it wishes at any time. It is under the
chairmanship of a member of the opposition so there is pretty
free rein granted to that committee.
The hon. member may have missed it as its reports are not
widely covered by the media and so we do not hear about it, but
it worked extremely well during the last Parliament.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciated the comments of the hon. member with
regard to the proposed changes to the standing orders.
I have a couple of comments and then perhaps a question.
First, the door is open but we have not passed through it yet. I
might say we have identified the right buttons but we have not
pushed them yet. We are hoping that in the 35th Parliament we
will not only identify the needed reform in this very institution
but will also act upon those needs and implement them. I was
glad to hear the hon. member say that the procedure and House
affairs committee which he chairs would be willing to look at
other issues with regard to parliamentary reform as well as the
ones that are identified in the document we are debating today.
(1650)
A particular interest of mine is reform of the other place by
non-constitutional means. Perhaps once we have dealt with
some of the issues on this paper we can get to those as well.
1013
Another concern of mine is dignity and decorum in the House.
I understand that the House is performing much better than has
been seen in the past. As someone involved not only in
campaigning in an election but also in candidate recruitment I
found that young people were particularly turned off by this
place. It would be appropriate for the House to do all in its
means to change the appearance of this place so that young
people would become excited about this institution and
interested in the politics of their country.
Does the hon. member have some ideas on how that could be
accomplished?
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I have a suggestion I would be
interested in discussing with hon. members that would
encourage young people to participate in Parliament.
When I was in university I had the privilege of working here
as a summer job for one of the ministers of the then government.
It was quite a long time ago and I enjoyed it very much. I found it
a tremendously worthwhile experience.
We have two avenues open to us. One is to employ summer
students. Many members may be able to afford this in their
budgets and I think it is a great idea. I have done so since my
election in 1988 and I found it extremely helpful.
The intern program that is currently operating in the House is
a relatively small program. It involves a number of individuals
who are assigned for periods of months to a member's office to
work there. Something the House might look at is the expansion
of that program with a view to providing additional assistance to
members in their office work, at the same time giving students
an opportunity to learn more about the way Parliament works.
I would recommend this to the House. It could possibly be
accomplished by some change in the member's budget so that
the service was provided by the House. Everyone would have an
intern.
That is a possibility. It is something we might look at as a
House. It is certainly not government policy. It is something
suggested to me by others who have been involved in the intern
program, or indirectly through the intern program, and it would
be a good opportunity for more people to participate.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River): Mr. Speaker,
I am very pleased to speak to the issue of parliamentary reform.
It is one that has been my favourite since I was elected to
Parliament in 1988.
I would expect that all members take some pleasure from the
fact that the government has moved to make changes in the way
we do business in the House and in committees. It has been done
early in its mandate and in a manner that reflects both the
election promises it made and the work of other members on
both sides of the House, not just in the last Parliament but going
back about a dozen years.
I would like to put the issue of reform of Parliament in
context. It is a rather large context. I have to go back and at least
make reference to the foundation document, the Magna Carta. I
am not going to read from it but it is here. Part of the Magna
Carta shows up in our statutory books of reference. It is actually
an appendix to the Revised Statutes of Ontario if I recall my
days of law practice. It is not an unimportant foundation
document.
I refer also to the bill of rights of 1689. It consolidated many
of the rights and privileges that had been given birth to since the
Magna Carta and which we still rely on.
I have a photocopy of proceedings of the British Parliament in
the year 1788 where an individual by the name of Harris and
another unfortunate individual by the name of Lee were both
arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for contempt of the House in
failing to attend and answer questions at committee. I have a
long history of reform supplemented in part by a document I
read on the weekend which was written by William Lyon
Mackenzie and contained a proclamation from Navy Island,
U.S.A., following the Upper Canada rebellion in 1837. There in
print were many of the basic fundamental rights and freedoms
that we required in this country at that time and which we still
rely on today.
(1655)
This House should always be reforming itself. We can reach
back to 1837 and see the work and the lives lost. There were
people hanged, people who followed Louis Papineau in Lower
Canada and people who followed William Lyon Mackenzie in
Upper Canada. But the work of reform of this House must
always continue.
Who is reforming the House? Is it the government? No, it is
not the government's job to reform the House; it is the job of
members of Parliament. Anyone who uses the term government
in reforming this place is in part misinformed. The government
does have a role in that it collectively is the word that represents
all of the members of the House who sit on the government side.
The government must show leadership, but the government
cannot by itself reform this place. The government is a
manifestation of the crown, of the King, of the executive branch
of government. The government does not run Parliament,
members of Parliament do. That is something we must never
forget.
The genesis of this round of reform, if we reach back about a
dozen years, is the Lefebvre report, which I commend to
members, and the McGrath report which dealt with a similar
phase of reform. In the last Parliament we had the work of the
House management committee, the work of the subcommittee to
the liaison committee on committee reform and the work of our
colleagues in the Liberal caucus, all of which has collectively
1014
been, at least in part, manifested by the proposals for reform in
this 35th Parliament.
I want to recognize a very important dynamic in
parliamentary reform. One member can do nothing by himself
or herself. Simply stated that is a fact of life; one person can do
nothing. On the other extreme, we have a critical mass of people
in parties, and a party can accomplish something, especially if
we are the party on the government side and in the majority. But
we must be careful to recognize that a party in majority is a party
that holds virtually dictatorship powers. I say virtually because
it is not often that a government will go to such extremes to
impress its will on Parliament without listening to the
opposition. Exceptions perhaps are the last Parliament.
However we must all recognize this.
Where is the middle ground? What is the mechanism? The
only mechanism capable of delivering a vehicle for reform and
activity by members of Parliament greater than one but less than
the party is the parliamentary committee. That is where we must
look for reform.
I want to address two of the areas of reform very quickly. One
is our absolute and utter failure to deal with the government's
estimates. We have failed for years to do our work in monitoring
the expenditures of the federal government. We are not alone in
the western world. I know the British Parliament has similarly
failed. I know that other Parliaments have failed. We do not want
to continue this failure. We must recognize the challenge as it is.
I believe the challenge is at the committee level. I am prepared
to support the initiative in this round of reform that provides for
a pre-estimates round of review that permits committees and
members to impress upon government their views as to the
spending in each envelope. I can only hope that it will work. I am
not convinced that it will but we have to try it. We must start
somewhere.
(1700)
The other area is the new process of referring bills to
committee after first reading. I am at first blush going to support
this. We have to do something to improve the legislative
mechanism here.
In my view it would be a wonderful institution if a committee
could take a small piece of legislation, a small amendment, a
one-page amendment, with the explicit or tacit consent of the
minister, draft it and bring it into the House even during Private
Members' Business as opposed to government business and
have that amendment passed without having to gobble up the
time required to develop cabinet consensus around the Privy
Council table, back and forth among bureaucrats and back and
forth through committee just to get one clause in a bill changed.
It can take a year or two or three or four. I would love to see the
new proposals accommodate that type of procedure. We will see
if they do.
Finally I want to make a pitch for codifying and putting into
statute the mechanism of the House for reviewing all the
delegated legislation, that is the statutory instruments and
regulations enacted by the Privy Council. There are over 1,000
per year. They are reviewed by the joint committee for scrutiny
of regulations. This place and the other place share the
workload.
At the moment there are some areas of delegated legislation
and regulations that are excluded from the disallowance power
of the committee. The disallowance power was used three times
in the last Parliament. However, because the power is in the
standing orders as opposed to being statutory, this committee is
not able to provide for disallowance of regulations and statutory
instruments made by agencies outside government such as the
National Transportation Agency of Canada.
I would like to put it on record that it is my hope this will be an
area for reform a little later in this Parliament. I want to join all
members of the House from all sides who want to work to
modernize Parliament's institutions and to make it a more
effective place that will reflect the wishes of our electors and be
efficient in so doing.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario): Mr. Speaker, I have the
unique pleasure today to compliment the member for
Scarborough-Rouge River. About five years ago around this
time I had the benefit of being his campaign manager. At that
time I recall these same eloquent remarks being placed before
the electorate and the fine people of Scarborough-Rouge
River.
It is significant that this is my first intervention as the member
for Ontario. I will have an opportunity at some point to discuss
that.
Going very quickly to the question, how does the member for
Scarborough-Rouge River feel these changes will impact him
now that he is a government member? We know he has
distinguished himself as a member of the opposition but now
that he is sitting on the government benches it is very important
for him to understand where his role is now in terms of
government and how these new reforms will help him along.
Mr. Lee: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Ontario for his
question and comment.
I learned a bit about Parliament before I was elected to
Parliament. It will not be a surprise that most of what I have
learned was in my first few years here as a member of the
opposition. In my first few months sitting on the government
side of the House I want to confirm that I cannot and will not
forget all that I learned in opposition. I will not likely change my
views about what this place needs and how it should be run.
Hopefully I can be true to what I have always believed and to the
views I formed in opposition.
1015
(1705)
I realize that being in government has some additional
responsibilities and on behalf of my electors I am certainly
prepared to undertake all of those. Je me souviens. I will not
forget what it was like in opposition.
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure also to commend the hon. member for
Scarborough-Rouge River on his presentation. It is a very
happy day, I understand, for people on all sides of the House.
I want to say as a member on this side of the House that we
have to look on things, hopefully not differently but in a manner
better than for many years prior to this time in the House.
I say that many remarks have been made today talking about
the reform of the standing orders, the reform of all our workings
here in this institution. I know some of us believe that this is just
a small chink in the armour but at least we are on the road.
We talked about this for the five years we have been here. I
want to commend the member for his visions that he put forward
over the years and for the other members from all parties who
were involved in trying to get a presentation such as this and
trying to see this actual day come to pass.
I want to ask a couple of questions and get the hon. member's
views on what he would think of the possibility, as we go down
the road, of changing or amending legislation and of writing
policy. I wonder if he sees Parliament and the committees being
in a position to write policy, to get actually to the point at which
we will do those things as we reform this institution. What
extent does he see this going to?
Mr. Lee: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the
question. There is one principle if we are to proceed down the
road to making the place work better and if we are to use the
committee structure and that is the committee must, before it
starts work, have a consensus as to what it wants to do. Without
that all efforts will be scattered to the four winds and the
committee will simply not achieve any goal, whether it be
legislative or policy oriented.
I commend to all members who would be active in any
committee area to build a consensus at the committee level
before they start. One must accept a bit of divergence of views
here at committee, but if they lose the consensus the committee
will not impact on the government.
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk): Mr. Speaker, I am
wondering if the hon. member would give me his views on some
changes that actually are not in this because as private members'
bills go, everyone knows that we try to get up in this House and
put forward legislation. Because of the system of the draw we
have I was in a private members' draw for three years and never
got drawn. I am wondering if the hon. member would agree with
me?
Mr. Lee: Mr. Speaker, I have to admit to the hon. member and
to colleagues that I will be chairing the subcommittee on private
members' business. I can assure the hon. member and all
members on both sides of the House that we will be looking very
carefully at possible reforms in that area.
(1710)
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the
House that the hon. member for Calgary Southwest, a great
advocate of parliamentary reform, will be speaking for 20
minutes and after that we will again divide our time pursuant to
Standing Order 43(2).
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
first I would like to sincerely commend the government House
leader and other MPs responsible for these proposed
amendments to the standing orders. I would also like to thank
the member for Scarborough-Rouge River for reminding us
that parliamentary reform ultimately depends on the initiative
of individual members rather than on the initiative the
government.
The amendments proposed in the motion from our standpoint
reflect a significant step forward toward improving the ability of
the House to conduct its business. It is our sincere hope that this
is just the first step of many in that direction.
The proposed amendments that we find most attractive and
most deserving of support are the following: first, the proposal
to allow public bills to be sent to committees before second
reading rather than after; second, the proposal to allow
committees to draft and introduce bills; third, the proposal to
allow the Standing Committee on Finance to consider and make
reports on proposals regarding the budgetary policy of the
government.
The general thrust of all these amendments is to give members
of Parliament a greater say in the development of public laws
and budgetary policy. This in our judgment is just an excellent
first step in the right direction.
If hon. members agree with the spirit and the general direction
of these amendments, it is a sincere hope of Reform MPs that the
House will also be willing to consider additional steps in the
same direction, steps that will take us toward a truly democratic
and accountable Parliament for the 21st century.
Three of the most important of these additional steps are the
institution of freer votes in the Chamber, the acceptance of
direction by this House through referendums and citizens'
initiatives and the acceptance and institution of a recall
procedure.
1016
Reform members are pleased to see that the concluding
paragraph of the motion directs the standing committee to
examine procedures which would facilitate the institution of
these measures. Because these measures are frequently
misunderstood in some quarters and maligned in others, I would
like to add to the comments of the member for Lethbridge earlier
in the day and just comment briefly on the importance of each.
Let me start with the institution of free votes. If one is a
so-called backbencher in the House, in other words if one is not
a member of the cabinet, then there is no single reform that I
would commend to such members for increasing our influence
in this place and our ability to represent our constituents than the
institution of freer votes.
The Reform MPs have challenged the Prime Minister and do
so again to become the first Prime Minister to truly liberate MPs
from excessive party discipline. As I said in my reply to the
speech from the throne, this could be accomplished if the Prime
Minister were simply to rise in his place and say: ``Mr. Speaker,
the government will not consider the defeat of a government
motion, including a spending measure, to constitute an
expression of non-confidence in the government unless it is
immediately followed by the passage of a formal
non-confidence motion''.
If the Prime Minister were to take this simple step, what
would be the practical consequences? We would not, as the
Prime Minister suggested the other day in response to a
question, see the House dissolve into a Parliament of 295
independent members. Under the freer vote convention we
proposed we would still have parties. On most issues on which
our platforms and commitments were clear and we were elected
on the basis of those platforms and commitments we would
continue to vote, for the most part, in accordance with those
mandates.
However, if from time to time there arose issues on which our
constituents clearly wanted us to vote contrary to the party line
we should have the freedom in this House to do so without being
censured by our colleagues or maligned by the media as
dissidents or pressured by party whips or party leaders to vote
against our constituents' interests.
(1715)
If we also relaxed the confidence convention in this House in
favour of freer votes on estimates and individual spending
measures, we would not be destroying the capacity of the
government to carry a budget. We would simply be
implementing recommendations by previous committees of this
House to which the Auditor General again drew our attention in
his latest report.
I want to quote four sections from his report and ask this
House to come back to this subject. Paragraph 1.22 states in
part:
However, committees are spending less and less time on the estimates. One
major reason for this apparent lack of interest lies in the impact of the confidence
convention, which, as currently interpreted, makes any motion to change a vote
in the estimates a potential test of the House's confidence in the government.
Because failure to win a confidence vote leads to the resignation of the
government, no changes can be made in the estimates, even though committees
have the power-at least in theory-to reduce or reject estimate votes.
Paragraph 1.28 states:
In 1988, the public accounts committee expressed concern about the adequacy
of Parliament's scrutiny of the estimates-.The committee recommended to the
House that a new ``budget committee'' be set up to remedy these deficiencies, and
that ``the government not consider a reduction in the estimates as a matter of
non-confidence''.
In paragraph 5.114 of the report it is stated:
Opening up the budget process to allow parliamentarians to participate
would certainly contribute to a more meaningful dialogue on deficits, debt and
the expectations of the public. However there would still remain the stumbling
block known in our parliamentary institution as the confidence convention: the
notion that the party forming the government must be able to demonstrate that it
enjoys the support of a majority of the members of the House of Commons on
most pieces of financial legislation. The standing committee on House
management noted in its April 1993 report on reforming the House that to
change this confidence convention does not require amendments to the standing
orders of the House of Commons. Rather it requires a better understanding of
the rights and responsibilities of individual members and a recognition that
``Canadians want to feel that their members of Parliament have opportunities to
vote freely and they expect them to do it more often''.
Finally paragraph 1.31 states:
A recommendation in April 1993 by the standing committee on House
management dealt with the convention of confidence. It stated that ``with few
exceptions, motions proposed by the government should be considered as
motions of confidence only when clearly identified as such by the
government''. The committee felt that this, together with deleting some
references to confidence in the rules of procedure, could help in opening up the
budget process.
If we relaxed the confidence convention in this House in
favour of freer votes, a few government measures including
spending measures would be defeated. Under the freer vote
convention we proposed that would not automatically mean
defeat of the government. If a government measure were
defeated because a number of government members voted
against it, that defeated motion would immediately be followed
by a formal confidence motion. In that vote government
members would most likely support the government.
However by adopting the free vote convention we proposed,
government backbenchers would have acquired for themselves
and for this House the right to kill a bill or a portion of a bill
without killing the government.
1017
If the House were to support having the Standing Committee
on Procedure and House Affairs examine and report on this
institution of freer votes, it has also been suggested that the
committee should examine how freer votes, freer than the ones
we have in this Parliament, came about in the British
Parliament, the mother of Parliaments.
I stand to be corrected by members who may have more
intimate knowledge of the evolution of this practice in the
British House, but my understanding is that the current free vote
convention in that Parliament, while not as extensive as the one
Reformers propose for here, came about not at the initiative of
the cabinet and not at the initiative of the Prime Minister but at
the initiative of the backbenchers.
(1720 )
It is my understanding that some backbenchers in the
Thatcher government simply decided one day that they would
vote against a government motion and they told the cabinet so.
They also told the cabinet: ``We do not want to defeat the
government. We just want to defeat this bill. If when the bill is
defeated it is immediately followed by a confidence motion, we
will support the government''. As one British commentator put
it: ``After 300 years the backbenchers in the British Parliament
finally figured out the importance of one simple mathematical
fact: that there were more of them''.
In a democratic chamber in which decisions are ultimately
made by counting heads that fact ought to count for something.
We say let not the rank and file members of this House take 300
years to figure out that there are more of us here than there are
members of the executive and aspirants to cabinet positions. Let
us make that fact count for something in the 35th Parliament.
I do not want to sound radical like William Lyon Mackenzie,
but I say: Backbenchers of the House unite, unite behind the
principle of freer votes. You have nothing to lose but the
shackles of excessive party discipline.
Time does not permit me to elaborate on the contributions
which greater use of referendums and citizens' initiatives could
make to enhancing the credibility of Parliament and providing
this House with a clearer sense of direction on critical issues at
critical times. Suffice it to say that the country needs a full
blown referendum law that permits regular consultation of the
public by national referendum, the results of which would be
binding on the government of the day.
Reformers propose that at each federal election Canadians get
two ballots, not just one. On one ballot voters would mark their
choice for a member of Parliament; on the other, a national
referendum ballot, electors would vote on four or five major
issues.
Because Canadians do not trust governments always to frame
referendum questions fairly or to permit referendums on issues
of greatest concern to the public, citizens should have the right
to force a question or to initiate a question on to a referendum
ballot if 3 per cent or more of the total electorate were prepared
to sign a citizens' initiative petition.
One major reason we support the motion before the House is
that its concluding paragraph directs the standing committee to
examine ways and means to incorporate the results of
referendums and citizens' initiatives into the legislative acts
and decisions of the House. Anything which enhances the
capacity of the House to respond to public direction will
increase the credibility of Parliament and the trust of Canadians
in this institution.
Finally I want to touch on the institution of recall. The third
step the House needs to take toward a more truly democratic and
accountable Parliament for the 21st century is the initiative in
proposing a mechanism for the recall of its own members if
members completely lose the confidence of those who have sent
them here.
Chapter II of the standing orders, in particular Standing
Orders 20, 21 and 23, provides for the House to exercise at least
some discipline over its members with respect to their conduct,
their election, their right to hold a seat and unacceptable
behaviour, such as the acceptance of bribes. The spirit of
Chapter II would be given some substance if Parliament were to
pass a law enabling the electors themselves to discipline their
members for unacceptable behaviour or consistent failure to
represent constituents' interests.
There have been primitive experiments with recall
mechanisms in this country in the past, mostly at the provincial
level by at least three different political parties: the old
Progressive Party, the Social Credit Party and the CCF, which
was of course the predecessor to the NDP. While none of these
primitive experiments was successful they provide valuable
lessons from which modern parliamentarians could learn in
designing an effective recall mechanism.
For example, the recall provisions used by the old Progressive
Party and by the CCF were for the most part incorporated into
party constitutions and procedures, not into public laws. They
were in essence private contracts between a member and a small
number of voters, usually the party executive or membership in
the member's riding. These recall mechanisms were subject to
abuse mainly by ambitious members of the MP's own party and
brought the mechanism into disrepute.
(1725)
The recall mechanism utilized in Alberta in 1936 to which the
Prime Minister directed the attention of the House the other day
was incorporated into a public law, but it too had its defects. In
this case the law was too easily opened to abuse by opposition
parties and interest groups. For example it contained no
provision prohibiting the purchase of signatures for a recall
petition.
1018
Its first use was marred by this abuse when a group of lawyers in
Calgary whose politics will remain nameless reportedly offered
the good citizens of High River up to $5 a signature to sign a
recall petition against the premier.
Incidentally, and I do not think the Prime Minister mentioned
this the other day, it may be of interest to members to know that
when the Alberta recall bill was repealed by the Alberta
legislature it was done by a free vote. The premier at the time,
William Aberhart, voted against the repeal as did my father who
was a cabinet minister at the time. The repeal was carried by a
majority of the backbenchers who considered the bill to be
defective.
Any modern recall mechanism to be considered by the
standing committee should have three major safeguards based
on what can be learned from the lessons of the past.
It should have a high threshold level. In other words a large
number of electors would have to sign a recall petition in order
to recall a member of Parliament and force a by-election. We
have suggested that the threshold level be 50 per cent plus one of
the number of electors who voted in the previous general
election. In the constituency of
Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville for example, this would
mean that almost 37,000 electors would have to sign the recall
petition in order to trigger the recall of the member of
Parliament who has lost their confidence.
In addition we would propose that except in exceptional
circumstances such as where it can be demonstrated that a
member of Parliament made fraudulent representations to
electors during the general election campaign, recall not be
available to electors until 18 months after a general election and
that it be available for use only once in a riding during the term
of a parliament. This together with the high threshold level
would largely prevent the politically motivated harassment of
MPs by their political opponents or by well heeled interest
groups through abuse of the recall mechanism.
While some members of Parliament may ridicule the concept
of recall I would encourage the more objective among us to do
one thing. Members should do an informal or formal survey in
their own ridings to find out what their constituents think about
these direct democracy measures, the use of referendums and
citizens' initiatives, freer votes, and the right of recall. I believe
hon. members will find there is a great deal of public support for
these measures and whether we like it or not the most popular of
these three instruments is the right of recall.
I close by again commending the government House leader
and others for bringing forward the proposed changes to the
standing orders we are discussing today. My only request is that
we persevere and go three steps further toward making this
Parliament an even more democratic and accountable institution
for the 21st century.
Reform members look forward with anticipation to the report
of the standing committee called for by the final paragraph of
the motion, in particular its recommendations on procedures for
achieving freer votes, the institution of recall, and the
incorporation of the results of referendums and citizens'
initiatives into legislative acts.
(1730 )
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth): Mr. Speaker, I have
listened to the hon. member often in the last two years as he led a
political party from relative obscurity to one that certainly holds
some currency with the Canadian public today. I do respect his
views, although I may not agree with all of them.
The hon. member has done quite a lot, as has his party through
their political movement to ensure that we just do not heap scorn
upon those of us who seek to do public service through our
respective legislatures but by raising some real issues.
Sometimes institutions change very slowly. As a young member
of Parliament I can tell the hon. member that much of which he
speaks I have supported and I will continue to support.
The whole concept of why we are here, whether it is to serve
our party, our political masters within the party or our
constituents, I am sure is one that each member of Parliament
has had to deal with at some point since this country was formed.
It is a matter of compromise and it is a matter of balance.
We have a party system. It means that within our party
structures we try to draw a consensus on major issues. To have a
complete lack of any discipline within the caucus system, I
would put forward, would lead to some anarchy and perhaps
some extreme forms of legislation, coming as the member
would say from the executive. I think there is a balance.
However, I do agree that excessive discipline has been used in
this place and in political parties for far too long. It has caused
an abuse of the privileges of members who come here to speak
on behalf of their constituents.
I want to ask the leader of the Reform Party if he believes
there is a happy medium between complete direct democracy for
every member and the party discipline system. I have noticed in
the few votes we have had in this House that it appears that
either they are birds of a feather flocking together or-
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I think the member has
the question.
1019
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
question. I want to acknowledge that none of us have a
monopoly on the concept of parliamentary reform. There are
members here who have advocated many of these changes for
years and I certainly want to pay tribute to them.
With respect to the member's question, yes, I would say that
what we are trying to do is to find a happy balance. We are not
talking about going from excessive party discipline to a House
of 295 independents whose voting and policy record would be
completely unpredictable.
We are trying to get a balance among three things. There is the
mandate theory of representation, that when members stand up
here they represent the mandate they got from their electors.
There is the trusteeship theory of representation, that when
members stand up here they represent their own views and their
own judgment that they bring to bear on public issues. There is
also the delegate theory that when members stand up here they
also represent the interests and views of the people who sent
them here.
I am suggesting we have to get a balance among those three. If
push comes to shove, in my view the will of the constituents
should prevail over my personal view or my party's view, and
the standing orders of this House should facilitate that kind of a
balance.
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester): Mr.
Speaker, I find it very interesting the member would indicate
that the recall mechanism is the highest priority of the public
today. Coming from the east coast I would have to disagree.
However, I would like for him to explain from where he gets
his statistical data that he dare make a statement that it rates
such a priority.
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her
question. I might not have made myself as clear as I should have.
I was not saying that recall was the most important thing in the
minds of Canadian voters. I was saying that if asked about these
direct democracy measures, referenda, citizens' initiative, freer
votes and recall, at either public meetings or through surveys we
have always found recall to be the highest priority of those four
direct democracy measures.
I think in a way it is a reflection of the public's cynicism and
mistrust of our institutions and an attempt to do something to
correct it.
(1735)
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington): Mr.
Speaker, to the Leader of the Opposition or who would like to be,
that would be fair to say would it not, I would like to ask the
leader of the Reform Party about the referendum idea. I am quite
concerned. On the surface it sounds very nice and appealing to
some people. However, on examination it is far too simplistic.
This is part of my question, but I must share a little of this
rationale.
The Deputy Speaker: I would remind the hon. member and
perhaps other members as well that I am reminded by our boss
that questions are to go through the Chair rather than directly to
the member.
Mrs. Chamberlain: Mr. Speaker, in a referendum we have
very solid views from Canadians from different parts of the
country but they have had no opportunity to debate as we do
here. I believe that part of our reason for being here is to have the
opportunity for dialogue and to exchange views, to find out the
rights and wrongs about things we would not have thought about
perhaps if we were sitting in our living rooms at home reading a
newspaper, watching the TV and getting all kinds of media
reports.
There are good and bad sides to everything. Without that
debate we would get a very cold, clinical, solid view in a
referendum. I am quite concerned about that kind of push
driving referendums. I would like to hear the opinion of the
leader of the Reform Party on that.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I think the question is
clear enough.
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her
question and for that brief promotion to Official Opposition
leader.
I agree with the thinking behind the hon. member's question
that unless there is an educational component and intelligent
public debate that goes along with referenda that they are not as
effective a mechanism for decision making as they should be.
What most countries that have extensive referendum
legislation provide for such as Switzerland and others is for the
establishment of educational committees or promotional
committees to thoroughly advocate the various sides of the
issue. Certainly that ought to be part of any national referendum
bill so that the decision made by people is an intelligent decision
made on options that are presented not just something based
solely on what they get from the media.
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk): Mr. Speaker, I will
take a little longer than 15 seconds. As a member who has
actually voted against my party on three separate
occasions-actually my party voted against me once-I have
always considered my votes in this House as a free vote and you
will notice where I am sitting.
I know that when I am elected that approximately 80 or 85 per
cent of the people elect the party and not the individual member.
Every time I stand up and try to express the view of my
constituents that might be a little different from that of the party
I always keep that in mind, knowing I represent a group that has
elected me as a member of a party.
1020
I wonder in this debate how he can reconcile that with more
free votes. I have a problem every time I do that.
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's
question and the dilemma that freer votes can create in that
respect.
What I am saying, and I am sure this is the member's
experience, that issues will come along where the party line is
quite clear and he is absolutely aware that his constituents on
that particular issue want him to do something different than his
party. In other words, I am not talking now about general support
for his party. I am talking abut whether the public supports him
standing up and voting in favour of some measure put forward
by his party with which his constituents disagree.
We are suggesting that the free vote convention should be
flexible enough to permit him to vote the way his constituents
wish in that conflict situation and for him not to be subject to
censor by his party or accused of being a radical or a dissident by
the media. That would be my response.
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough): Mr. Speaker, I want to
follow up on what my colleague from Haldimand-Norfolk said
to the member for Calgary Southwest. When the member for
Calgary Southwest talks about freer votes, referendums and
recall, I ask this question. I was one of the promoters of what we
are talking about today, free votes and more freedom to the
committees and things like that. I have no problem with recall if
that is what comes out of this. I have been recalled many times.
However, I believe that if we do not vote the way our
constituents want us to we do not have to worry about that very
long either.
(1740)
However, in all sincerity, if we do what we are talking about,
about opening this place up and making it freer in every respect
that we can, will that not in itself take care of many of the
problems we are talking about today?
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, the short answer to the member's
question is yes, up to a point. But just having freer debate or
freer discussion in my view is not enough. It has to be carried
that one step further where if, as a result of the discussion here,
one comes to a conclusion somewhat different than one's party
or one's constituents come to, that one would have the freedom
to exercise it.
Certainly this greater freedom of debate and expression is a
step in the right direction, but to cap it off there has to be some
application to the voting as well as the speaking.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, because
this is such an important issue and we have the leader of the
Reform Party who spent many hours and years working on this
issue maybe we could have the unanimous consent of the House
to continue questions.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed not to see the clock for
three more people to pose questions?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: I take it there is unanimous consent. Is
there with the Reform Party?
Some hon. members: Yes.
The Deputy Speaker: Very well. The three members who
were standing up can, with unanimous consent, put their
questions but please do it briefly.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I am sympathetic and support many
of the hon. member's recommendations. There are some that I
do not support, but I have real concern when he puts this
emphasis on always listening to the popular view of our
constituents.
I have not always shared the popular view of my constituents.
In fact I will give a specific example. When I started off
opposing the Charlottetown accord, for the first two weeks of
the campaign there were many of my constituents who did not
share my view. Over a period of time many came around.
The member does not realize that in this Chamber we have to
deal with national issues that do not just concern the people of
our riding but we have to make a judgment call and be sensitive
to all regions and all concerns of other members in this House.
I do not always believe it is the popular view of our ridings
that should drive us.
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, I should make clear to the
member that I am not talking about turning members of
Parliament into a voting machine where all they do is go home
on the weekend, count noses on an issue and come back here and
stick up their hands or not. I am not talking about that.
I agree with the member that there are lots of issues where the
relationship between the member and his constituents has to be
one of dialogue. The constituents may think this way and we go
to them and say that we think differently because we have had
this experience and have been exposed to this debate from others
in the House.
My experience has been that if our constituents think that we
will defer to their judgment if push came to shove they will often
defer to ours. However, if they think we are going to do what we
want to do or what our party wants to do regardless of what they
think, then that is where we lose them.
I agree with the member there has to be dialogue, but I do
think if push comes to shove the constituents ought to have the
final say.
1021
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario): Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank
the hon. member for Calgary Southwest for his rather
enlightening comment on what the Reform Party's position
would be with respect to recall.
(1745 )
This reminds any budding student of history of the famous
debate that took place some two centuries ago in the 1790s when
the member for Bristol in England in the other Parliament
discussed the various pros and cons of the system which the
member, some generations later, has just suggested.
My concern to the hon. member is that it seems very clear that
the system the member proposes is not only cumbersome, it
could very well be costly. If he stops to consider that if 50 per
cent of the signatures are required in any one constituency, what
is the cost that is going to be attributed to that very taxpayer in
terms of determining whether or not those are valid signatures?
The second part of that would be simply the cumbersome
nature of having that kind of a system.
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, two or three points. I thank the
member for his question. First of all, on recall if you set these
safeguards high enough and strongly enough you can ensure that
the instrument is not abused so it is not accessibly costly.
On the second point, I would ask the members to consider the
cost of having an unacceptable member of Parliament who will
not or cannot represent your views. That is the cost you have to
offset against the cost a removal mechanism.
The third point I would make is the member made reference,
and other members in this House have done this, to the famous
speech by Edmund Burke in which he said that he owed his
constituents his conscience, not his vote. This is the most
articulate expression, the trusteeship theory of representation. It
predated the existence of parties. The other thing the members
should remember is that Edmund Burke was never elected again
in the electoral district of Bristol.
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe): Mr. Speaker, with
the discussion we are having here on free vote, there has to be a
common ground between free vote and responsible government.
There is a beautiful example south of the border which is
predominantly free vote. On different issues I have watched and
read in the newspaper, we have seen shameless vote buying.
What I would like to know right now is where the leader of the
Reform Party thinks the common ground is between free vote
and responsible government.
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that
question. He hits on a very pertinent point. I believe this free
vote convention that we have suggested covers that common
ground. It gives the members the freedom to kill a bill or a
portion of a bill, but when they do that it reverts back to asking
the House if it wanted to kill this bill or this portion of a bill, or
did it actually want to kill the entire administration because it
has no confidence it it.
That free vote convention covers that common ground. It
gives the members this individual capacity to kill an individual
piece of legislation but ultimately also makes them accountable
for the entire administration and it accountable to them. I
thought this free vote convention we are proposing endeavoured
to cover that common ground.
The Deputy Speaker: I thank members for co-operating. The
time has long ago expired. With unanimous consent I will now
go back to debate.
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board): Mr. Speaker, this is a very
important debate we are having and it is going to be extremely
difficult and frustrating for me to be limited to 10 minutes.
For the last 20 years of my life I have been practising
participatory democracy first as a municipal politician and more
recently in Parliament. I have dedicated most of my political
career to opening up the processes of government, to making it
more truly representative of the views of the people I represent
and more broadly of the views of Canadians and their
communities. I would love to debate at length why I disagree
fundamentally with the member for Calgary Southwest, the
leader of the Reform Party.
Let me come to the subject of this particular bill before us
because as I see the context of this bill, for nine years we have
had a government that fundamentally did not believe in the role
of government in society and therefore had a great deal of
difficulty governing well and had a great deal of difficulty
governing with respect for the people of Canada and their
opinions.
(1750 )
I heard many times in the House: ``We have to make tough
decisions and if they do not like us they can throw us out at the
next election''. I do not believe that democracy begins and ends
at the ballot box. It is something that goes on every day. It is the
relationship between an individual member of Parliament and
their constituents, it is a relationship between the institution of
Parliament and all Canadians.
This motion in my view is a significant step forward in that
relationship not because how we conduct our affairs in this
Chamber or in our committees is of great overwhelming
importance to Canadians, they really are not interested in our
standing orders, but they are interested in what our decision
making process is and how their views count in that process.
1022
Substantial portions of that bill will allow them to see openly
and transparently how this House and how this government
reach the decisions that will affect how much they contribute to
their society, how it is used and how that will affect much of the
pattern of their lives as Canadians. What it will allow us to do
individually is to have a more of an input in that process and also
to get more out of it.
I do not come here only to represent my constituents. I do not
come here thinking that the views of Ottawa West should
determine what should happen to the country. I come here to be
part of building a nation on their behalf, certainly to represent
their interests. The development of this wonderful nation called
Canada is in their interest as well. I listen to the people from all
parts of this country, from different kinds of communities.
Together, certainly in my caucus, we try to come up with what
we think is best for the country and best for its people.
I hope that with these more open processes of members of
Parliament being able to work together in committees to develop
legislation, to consult openly with Canadians, Canadians will
feel and will truly have a more active voice in that decision
making if they choose to exercise that. They will also have
members of Parliament able to engage more actively and
dynamically in the exchange of views that allows to build
consensus, not only about the specific problems and actions that
we are confronted with but about a longer term vision for the
country.
We will always have differences of opinions on what those
directions are. At least I hope with the measures we are taking
today when we complete our work here in Parliament, a new
program, that it will better serve the interests of our individual
constituents and the country because we have looked at all
aspects of it, we have considered all points of view and we have
done that wonderful thing of not letting one point of view
prevail over all others, but of finding that accommodation of
many different points of view.
I want to touch on one thing. As some of the members in this
House know, my role in the last Parliament was as critic on
public service issues. I want to say one thing that I think is going
to become increasingly important. That is going to be
developing not only a House and committees but a government
in the broadest sense of including the public service that is also
more consultative, more open and more capable of balancing
those many different interests in society, making good decisions
and recommending to us as government and as parliamentarians
good decisions.
I know, having seen the transformation over a period of years
in municipal government to a more participative democracy, to
quote a famous Canadian, that it takes time for the public service
to see the wisdom of the people as a useful input to decision
making. I know it is going to be difficult for them. I know it is
going to be a challenge.
(1755 )
I encourage them to go along with Parliament on this trip to a
more democratic society and to see it as a positive step forward
for how the public service functions as well.
I have only a few minutes left but I do want to touch on a few
things. I want to touch on the issue of free votes. This is the
beginning of a debate that will come back to us.
It is very easy for me to know what the constituents who
phone or write to me on a subject or respond to a questionnaire
think. Do I really know what my constituents think when I know
the poorest members of society have less access to being able to
respond and participate in a public debate?
Do I have a responsibility to know that even though some
people in my constituency are relatively voiceless without the
money to organize, their views are, nonetheless, important and
how they are affected is important? Yes, I do.
Do I have the audacity to say that on any given vote in this
House I know what my constituents think? I do not think so. I
know what a small sample of my constituents think.
I also have to know in much broader terms who my
constituents are. I need to be in touch with them in a variety of
ways and to absorb into myself what the many different
concerns and preoccupations they have are so that I can bring all
of those to bear as well as what I hear from fellow
parliamentarians when I make a decision.
Do I believe in recall? Let me say that I have been married for
31 years. I am sure there have been hundreds if not thousands of
days in those 31 years when my husband thought his life would
be better off without this woman in it. On those days, he would
have chosen to divorce me.
However, on balance of those more than 10,000 days, both of
us would say that there has been more good than bad and a lot of
in between. We are glad that we did not have the easy escape
hatch, that we are prepared to live with the balance of the good
and bad. There is a lot of that in democracy.
On any given day I may displease my constituents. My
government my displease my constituents. On balance, I hope
they will weigh both the positive and the less positive and not
look at only their momentary self-interest when they decide
whether I and my government have done a good job or not.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey): Mr. Speaker, to the
member for Ottawa West, the leader of the Reform Party said
that there was almost a form of recall when he said that Burke
never got re-elected.
1023
One thing that concerns me as a new member of Parliament is
that all of us, for whatever reason, want to reinvent laws, rules
and regulations.
I will come to my question. I want to make a quick preamble
here.
General Robert made rules. We have a book of rules here and
there are other things. I come from a municipal council where
we stopped reading bylaws simply because what happened in the
old days was that some people could not read. Sometimes they
only had one written part and one had to read those things clause
by clause. Now we have the electronic media and we have to fine
tune it. That is what the government is trying to do.
What bothers me in this place both with the committee work
and with its rules and regulations and talking about laws is that
we are spinning our wheels. We spend a lot of time at it.
Somehow members of Parliament always want to do something
and they think doing something is changing the rules. I know
that rules are for making something happen.
I want to ask the member for Ottawa West, how do we
reconcile the permanent government, which is the civil service,
integrating with the rules and regulations we have? We make a
rule in committee, and it has been done before. I have seen this
kind of thing as a mayor when six members of council asked the
administrator to do six different jobs. They spin their wheels and
never get anything done.
How do we reconcile making a committee function properly
with the civil servants who are there? How could we make that
better by using these kinds of rules?
(1800)
Mrs. Catterall: This dilemma is not easy and I think the hon.
member knows that the permanent public service as he calls it
can be very resistant to change if it does not agree with it at first.
Let me tell the hon. member what I have seen over the five years
I have been here and how I think it has to change.
I have seen officials come before committees as they are
required to do to defend the position the government has put
forward. Unfortunately that position has often been developed
in the secrecy of cabinet without the open consultation and
discussion we are talking about here.
When we say we are going to send the concept of a bill to a
committee for discussion so that the committee can consult with
and hear the views of people who will be affected by the issue,
that leaves our officials freer to bring forward options for a
committee to consider. That is going to be a change for them. It
is going to take some time for them to understand they are not
defending a particular position and that they are free to advise
the committee on options and on the implications of those
options.
It also means that members of Parliament must have a new
relationship of respect and trust with the public service. It is not
the defender of the government now. It is working with members
of Parliament and the committee to help make a good bill.
The Deputy Speaker: Before recognizing the hon. member
for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell there are three people left to
speak. We have 22 minutes. I wonder if there would be a
disposition to give eight minutes to each of the members and not
have questions and comments. Is that agreeable? I take it it is not
agreeable to do it that way and I call on the member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me pleasure this afternoon to have the
opportunity to speak on the motion before the House to amend
our rules.
We are amending the rules pursuant to a commitment made by
our party during the last election campaign when we put out a
program to Canadians. They voted for that program which
included a number of things on Parliament. It mentioned
allowing more free votes, giving MPs a greater role in drafting
legislation, giving more power to House of Commons
committees and involving the public in consultation before
important legislation was introduced.
Many of these issues have been done already. The others are
in the motion we are debating today. That is what it is all about.
This is part of the program I and all Liberal candidates stood for
in the last election campaign.
I want to advance the proposition to all members today that it
is untrue to state at the present time there are no free votes. As a
matter of fact a very successful argument can be made that all
votes in this Parliament are free. I say it for the following reason
and I am not saying we do not need to improve our system. After
all we are proposing to do just that today.
Nevertheless as a member of Parliament I have the power to
make an accusation against any citizen of Canada in this House
and I could never be sued in a court of law for saying it. I have
the ultimate freedom in this Chamber on behalf of the people
who sent me here to say anything, anything at all. I, though,
must live with the consequences of that which I say in this House
once I leave this House. Nevertheless, I still have that freedom. I
as a member of Parliament together with my colleagues have the
freedom to defeat my government in a non-confidence motion.
Did the people of the United States have a tool like that in the
Watergate scandal? Do they not wish they had had something
like that? The process for getting rid of a president that country
no longer wanted and Congress no longer wanted dragged on for
months and months before the United States Congress. It would
take about six minutes to do that in the House of Commons
today.
1024
(1805)
We talk about freedom and powers that MPs have and do not
have. Maybe MPs do not use all the power they have, but they
have power in this House and to state the opposite is simply
incorrect.
We are talking about recall in this whole business. Does
anyone realize what the whole process of recall would do to the
freedom of a member of Parliament? If I were under threat from
my own riding association for leaving my party to be recalled
and lose my seat in Parliament, would that give me more
freedom as an MP? No, that would mean I would be subject to
even greater pressure from my colleagues. How much of that has
been considered by those proposing recall? I submit not much
thinking went into that particular proposition.
We are talking about voting only as it reflects the aspirations
of our constituents. I have been elected to this place three times,
to the provincial legislature of my province once, to municipal
council three times. I was fortunate and blessed by having
received the support of my electors on seven different occasions
in my life. I think I have done a few things which people might
consider controversial. I have not always voted according to the
wishes of the majority of my constituents.
Mr. Speaker, I think you will have some understanding for this
but I voted against abortion in this House. Was that the
reflection of the majority of my constituents? Probably not.
When I voted against capital punishment was that according to
the wishes of the majority of my constituents? Probably not.
And when I made very strong pronouncements against
euthanasia probably the same logic applies.
However in every case I made copies of my speeches and sent
them to every single constituent in my riding. I stood by what I
had said and stood there to be judged later by my constituents
about what I had said. That is what it is all about. It is being
accountable to those who sent us here and not necessarily always
voting in the manner that 50.1 per cent of the people advocate.
We are debating changing the rules of this House, rules that
have existed in one form or another and in this Parliament or the
mother of Parliaments for probably about 1,500 years dating
from the period of Saxon-Wettins through the Norman invasion
of Britain and then through all the changes that occurred. Then
there are those forms we have adopted here and modified for our
own use. We have to remember that there is a reason those rules
have evolved. Yes, they can be updated. Yes, they can be
improved. Yes, they can be modernized. Yes, they can be
liberalized. Yes, we can do all those things to those rules. But let
us remember why they are there.
On the confidence convention, I saw someone resurrecting the
ghost of William Lyon Mackenzie earlier today. Is that not
interesting. William Lyon Mackenzie and Louis Joseph
Papineau both fought for the institution of responsible
government. Both fought for the institution whereby there
would be confidence votes so that the government could be
accountable to the legislature. The member for Calgary
Southwest had the right argument but was making it in reverse,
unless I have totally forgotten everything I learned in history
and I do not believe that I have.
I say that having a system known as responsible government
means to have a vote of confidence. It means ultimately that the
government in this Chamber is accountable to all of us, where at
one point we can all say or have the right to say that we can turf
the government out right in here. That is an ultimate power few
legislators have. What does it do? What kind of pressure does
that put on our government, to say that it has to be accountable to
all of us, that all of us have that great power over the
government? I suggest to you that it can make government listen
to those who were sent here to represent the people of this great
country.
(1810)
Let us change this institution, let us modernize it, but let us be
careful as well that we do not destroy it in our zeal to make it
better.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu): Mr. Speaker, let me
congratulate the member on his speech. I cannot wait to see if he
will say the same thing in a month or two, when the Minister of
Finance will have presented his budget, when he will have
tabled a bill changing the unemployment insurance program,
when he will have modified projects in a way that will totally
run counter to what he advocated when he was sitting here on the
opposition side and, defending his principles, shouted down the
government.
Will he have the same courage then? Will he uphold the same
principles? When one crosses the floor of the House, one
generally receives a sort of electrical jolt and sometimes red
books, like the one you mentioned earlier, become blue. That is
why I am eager to see what will happen; I certainly urge the
member to stick to what he just said.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, since I do not have a good
memory for historical events in this House, the member
opposite certainly remembers the blue books better than I do.
After all, he is the one who sat as a Tory in the House, not me.
Nevertheless, I do not claim that-and I do not want the
member to suggest that I do-my government, the Canadian
government will never be at fault and will make no mistake. Of
course not. Nobody is perfect. What is important to know is
whether the government is acting in the best interests of
Canadians, not whether it is going to give a new grant to my
riding or to that of the member opposite. The government is here
for the common good, and I know that our Prime Minister, our
government, intend to do just that. As I said before, if the
government does not behave in a fair, honourable and account-
1025
able way, the House has the power to exercise the many
prerogatives it has.
[English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, the
member justified voting against the wishes of his constituents
on the basis that they could judge him at election time. But the
hon. member knows that there are many issues that come before
the House during a session and that it is unreasonable for him to
say that they could judge him on one or other issue of the
hundreds that come before us.
Can the member not see that by picking and choosing when
his personal beliefs will interfere with his representation of the
people who elected him, that he is taking an elitist attitude to the
people who elected him.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the member may think I am an
elitist. I find the comment rather odd as I came from the most
humble beginnings to take my seat in Parliament. As the
member gets to know me he will learn about that. The last thing I
have ever been called is elitist as I will describe to him privately
later. But that is certainly not the case.
The proposition I am advancing to the member is that
governments have to be accountable, MPs have to be
accountable for what they say. That does not mean they cannot
consult with their electors all the time. But it also means another
thing; that if members do not have discipline as a party, no
obligation to live with the program their party makes, either the
one that I present or the one the member presented to the
Canadian people, then surely the freedom he is advocating could
also be used to go against the collective wishes of those who sent
him here in the belief that within his own constituency there
would be half or 1 or 2 or 3 per cent of the people more against
the program of his own party than those who are for it. That is
the caution I want to give the hon. member.
(1815)
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island): Mr. Speaker, I join in this very
historic debate today. I believe we are at a crossroads in this
country.
I found it rather interesting and almost amusing to hear people
on the other side talk about what a wonderful breakthrough this
is, that we are debating things before we actually decide them. I
asked: ``Has it never been the case before?'' I am new to the
political process. I did not even belong to a political party before
I became involved very recently.
I am astounded to find that what I dealt with during the
election campaign is actually true, that for the most part our
democracy is very inclusive. It is inclusive among a very small
number of people. I applaud the government for the steps it is
taking. It is wonderful we are having this debate, that we are
looking forward to actually producing and having some
changes, not just talk, but some actual changes.
We need to reform the democratic process. It occurred to me
while I was sitting here that perhaps we are observing an
oxymoron. We are having a liberalization and a reform of the
democratic process, two very different words and yet to a great
extent we are heading in the same direction.
I believe that one of the reasons we have so much mistrust of
politicians is that our democracy works only in spurts. We have
a spurt of involvement of the people at election time and then
they are ignored until the next election. Consequently people
mistrust the politicians because they detect and observe no
ongoing accountability.
There is an interesting statement in the red book which is so
oft quoted in this Chamber. It really is not surprising that it
should be in the book. The Reform Party and my involvement in
it came as a result of this ``new emphasis in listening to the
people, the constituents, the voters and the taxpayers''.
When we listened to the taxpayers we found out among other
things that there was a great deal of mistrust and distrust because
of lack of consultation. The Liberal Party in its work to get
elected did a good thing also. It began listening to the people. It
probably did it through its polling techniques or whatever, but it
heard the same message we heard that gave birth to our party and
it was that people want to be involved on an ongoing basis in the
decisions of government.
The quote I would like to take from the red book is: ``The
people are irritated with governments that do not consult them
or that try to conduct key parts of the public business behind
closed doors''. That is the truth which we are reaching for here.
I pledge, and I am sure that I speak on behalf of all the
members of my party, that we are going to work together to
enhance not only the ease with which Parliament works but also
with its accountability to the people.
In that regard I would like to address for a few minutes a very
important aspect of our work in representing the constituents,
those that elected us. There is a lot of fear among
politicians-and maybe I am wrong here-in talking on an
ongoing basis with the electors and truly representing them. I
hear over and over innuendo that they are not to be trusted, that
perhaps they do not have enough ability, enough education,
enough sense of history, enough perspective or maybe they are
too narrow and they think only of themselves and so they cannot
be involved on an ongoing basis.
1026
(1820)
I read very recently an essay written by Woodrow Wilson
which I think is very illustrative. I would like to read just one
short section. He said: ``Today when our government has so far
passed into the hands of special interests, today when the
doctrine is implicitly avowed that only select classes have the
equipment necessary for carrying on government, today when so
many conscientious citizens smitten with the scene of social
wrong and suffering have fallen victims to the fallacy that
benevolent government can be meted out to the people by
kind-hearted trustees of prosperity and guardians of the welfare
of dutiful employees, today supremely does it behove this nation
to remember that a people shall be saved by the power that
sleeps in its own deep bosom or by none, shall be renewed in
hope, in conscience, in strength by waters welling up from its
own sweet perennial springs, not from above, not by patronage
of its aristocrats. The flower does not bear the root but the root
the flower''.
In conjunction with this I believe that we should pay a great
deal of attention to the concept of referendum to the people on
important issues. We all recognize that as legislators here we
represent a broader constituency than just our own home
constituency. I also speak for Canada. I long to keep this country
together. I think I speak on behalf of my constituents when I
voice those sentiments.
However we also need to recognize that on many issues our
people are well informed and with an informed debate can
become more informed and thereby give us real valid input,
even to the point of having a referendum.
I would also like to indicate that sometimes ordinary citizens
feel totally left out of the process. There is something that they
want done. Government will not hear them. It seems to me wise
as a back-up, probably used very infrequently, that we have a
method of citizens' initiative which will allow the citizens
themselves to place on a referendum ballot a question which is
to be answered and which is to be binding.
I recognize that my time is fast disappearing. I would like to
simply say that on the mechanisms of referendum and of
citizens' initiative we have done a lot of work in developing
them. I do not have time now to go into those details, but they do
work, they can work, they do work in other parts of the world. I
believe it would greatly enhance the democracy of this country
if we were to incorporate those as well.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6.22 p.m., pursuant to order
made Wednesday, February 2, 1994, it is my duty to interrupt the
proceedings and to put forthwith every question needed to
dispose of Government Business No. 6 now before the House.
[English]
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to.)
(1825)
_____________________________________________
1026
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu): Mr. Speaker, as the
Standing Orders allow for the ``late show'' or the adjournment
motion, we can come back to a question raised in the House. I
therefore take the four minutes which the Standing Orders allow
me to use to return to the question which the Prime Minister was
asked on January 21, 1994, when I asked why his Minister of
Indian Affairs spoke of setting up a system of native
self-government, although in his government program and his
political speeches, the Prime Minister still said that there was no
more room for constitutional negotiations.
In his answer, the Prime Minister said that it was not certain
whether negotiating native self-government required amending
the Constitution or not.
Now, all constitutional experts agree that it is necessary to
amend the Constitution and the Prime Minister himself said that
a committee was studying the matter and would report on it. So
if a committee is about to report, why does his minister say that
he wants to open negotiations right away, when he does not even
know if he needs the provinces' consent or if he must open the
constitutional issue to do so?
What is surprising is that, in the second question I asked him,
the Prime Minister said that the Minister for Foreign Affairs
would be very happy to answer in a debate. He said, ``I have
nothing to add to the statement I made earlier. Our ambition is to
treat everyone equally in Canada, and that is why we believe that
everyone is equal in this country and no one has special status''.
The Prime Minister said that after his minister announced that
he was ready to open constitutional negotiations with natives on
their right to self-government. Despite claiming to support his
minister, the Prime Minister said that he did not want to give
special status to any province or nation, such as the Quebec
nation or the aboriginal peoples.
1027
This glaring contradiction brings me to the question I am
raising in the House today to get more details through his
parliamentary secretary. But I also want to invoke the reasons
given by the minister to justify opening these negotiations to
recognize the right of natives to self-government. The minister
was doing it in the name of better economic management.
If it is in the natives' interest to administer their own affairs,
why would the same principle not also apply to the people of
Quebec who happen to be one of the founding nations and who,
like the other founding people, namely the aboriginal people,
aspire to manage their own affairs? It is in the name of this very
principle of better economic management and not to wage a flag
war against the rest of Canada or to break up a country but to
build one, like any free nation in the world has done. I think that
since the Second World War, 65 new nations have emerged with
all attendant rights.
Our guiding principle is this: let us collect our own taxes. Let
us manage our own affairs and then buy the services we need
jointly with the sovereign countries around us. That is how we
want to act with natives. In fact, the minister was talking about
opening the Constitution in the same sense that we also want to
open it, in the sense of managing our own affairs.
It is strange to see the Prime Minister saying two different
things, talking from both sides of his mouth about a founding
people, namely the aboriginal people, and about the other
founding people, namely the people of Quebec. It is in that sense
that I would like the parliamentary secretary to the Prime
Minister to answer pursuant to the Standing Orders for two
minutes to elaborate on the government's precise position.
[English]
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, I will respond to the member's question
of January 21, 1994, when the member for Richelieu asked the
Prime Minister a question regarding native self-government
and the Constitution.
Let me begin by saying that the Prime Minister has stated
unequivocally in this House and elsewhere that the priority of
the government is job creation and not the Constitution.
The Liberal position on the nature of self-government was
made clear in the red book. We said that the inherent right of
self-government is an existing aboriginal and treaty right. To
that extent the federal government is involved in a series of
meetings with national and regional aboriginal leaders,
provincial and territorial governments and other parties.
(1830)
The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples interim report
said it was possible to implement native self-government
without changing the Constitution. That is what we are working
on at this point in the discussion. I hope this satisfies the
member's questions which seem to have gone beyond his
question of January 21.
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to refer to a question I asked the
Minister of Health on February 1, 1994 as to whether she was
prepared to stand up for the health of Canadians on the question
of the government's proposed policy of lowering taxes on
cigarettes.
The real question today is who sets tax policy and who
defends health care policy in this country?
First of all on the question of who sets tax policy, Canadians
are wondering whether it is the law breakers or the cigarette
companies.
I must say the government certainly has some connections
with cigarette companies such as that with Imasco, for example,
which is the parent company of Imperial Tobacco. The Minister
of Finance was formerly a member of the board. In 1992 Imasco
donated $47,477.30 to the Liberal Party of Canada. Canadians
are wondering whether the cigarette manufacturers are setting
tax policy.
Is it the provinces and territories? It would seem it is not the
provinces and territories in conjunction with the federal
government because the provinces and territorial health
ministers are meeting tomorrow. The government has said it will
state its intention on this matter tomorrow before that meeting is
completed.
The Minister of Health in her response to my question said she
was concerned about health. She did not answer as to whether as
Minister of Health she would stand up for the health of
Canadians and advocate that cigarette taxes not be lowered.
Rather, she said that she was very concerned about the high
level of tobacco use among young people. I suggest to the
Minister of Health that she might have cited the Statistics
Canada study which indicates there was a direct decrease in
consumption of tobacco products by teens as the price went up.
However the minister refused to say where she stood on this
issue.
I would say also it is clear that the direct health cost results of
lowering the tax will place a further burden on the provinces.
Today there is a news release from the British Columbia health
minister which states tobacco related illness is estimated to cost
British Columbia nearly $1 billion annually.
I would also ask as I did on February 1 whether this
government is prepared to compensate provinces and territories
for increased health costs as a result of decreased cost of tobacco
products.
It is clear that the use of tobacco is a very high contributor
both to the health costs of Canadians and alas to the death of
Canadians with some 37,000 Canadians a year dying as a result
1028
of tobacco use. In fact, a recent survey on selected causes of
preventable death indicated that tobacco was number one far
outweighing traffic accidents, suicides, AIDS, homicides, fires,
accidental poisoning and undetermined deaths. The relationship
between tobacco use, health care costs and indeed the life and
death of Canadians has been shown clearly.
I would appreciate hearing what the government proposes to
do in terms of the health of Canadians and whether Canadians
are going to have a Minister of Health who advocates both
within the cabinet and this House of Commons for the health of
Canadians and takes that responsibility seriously .
In view of the fact that in the next couple of years we will be
undergoing a very comprehensive review of health care and
health care costs, it does not augur well that we have a Minister
of Health who would not stand up for the health of Canadians,
but chose to be evasive and not to answer the questions on this
issue.
(1835)
Ms. Susan Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Revenue): Mr. Speaker, I am to respond to the
question of February 1 and that is what I will do.
Research indicates that at least 38,000 die each year as a result
of tobacco related diseases. These deaths reflect smoking
behaviours of more than two decades ago when the risks of
smoking were less understood.
Even now more than 100,000 children and teens begin
smoking every year in Canada.
Enough is known about the hazards of smoking that we can
predict with gruesome confidence that one in four of these
young new smokers will die prematurely from conditions like
emphysema, heart disease and lung cancer.
Tobacco deaths are preventable and even one preventable
death let alone thousands constitutes a tragedy. This is
unacceptable.
Canada's national strategy to reduce tobacco use has gone a
long way toward reinforcing the idea that smoking is no longer
cool for youth and a lot less socially acceptable among adults
than once was the case in this country.
This strategy has proceeded on a broad front with federal
legislation restricting cigarette advertising and requiring strong
visible health warnings on the product package, with health
promotion campaigns aimed at encouraging young people to
think twice about starting to smoke and to break free from social
pressures to start smoking, and with federal legislation to raise
the age at which people may legally be sold tobacco products to
18.
Tobacco smuggling is a serious threat to Canada's strategy
against smoking because it is making cigarettes available to
young people through illicit channels.
Unless we put a stop to smuggling we will find it increasingly
difficult to keep tobacco out of the hands of young teens, which
is the very purpose of the sales of tobacco to young people act.
With this law we expect Canada's retail sector to take a
responsible approach to ensuring tobacco is not available for
sale to young people but to make it work to control tobacco
access by young persons.
The tobacco market has got to move above ground where we
can see it, where we can manage it, and where our programming
can have its full effect.
Canada leads the world in taking a comprehensive strategic
approach to reducing the toll of sickness and premature death
caused by tobacco smoking. We have no intention of forfeiting
this lead. The government is committed to implementing
innovative programs and legislation to maintain the momentum
of our national strategy to continue to reduce addictions to
tobacco in Canada and to continue to prevent tobacco related
deaths.
I want to inform the House that it is the government that sets
tax policy in this country.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: In accordance with Standing Order
38(5), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have
been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until
tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.37 p.m.)