37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 022
CONTENTS
Tuesday, February 27, 2001
1000
| AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
|
| The Speaker |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| MAIN ESTIMATES, 2001-02
|
1005
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-285. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| MAIN ESTIMATES, 2001-02
|
| Reference to Standing Committees
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Motion
|
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| PETITIONS
|
| Foreign Affairs
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1010
| Kidney Disease
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Petroleum Product Prices
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Nuclear Weapons
|
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT
|
| Bill C-11. Second reading
|
| Mrs. Lynne Yelich |
1015
1020
1025
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| Hon. David Kilgour |
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1030
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1035
1040
1045
1050
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
1055
| Mr. Inky Mark |
1100
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
1105
1110
1115
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1120
| Mr. Mark Assad |
1125
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1130
1135
1140
1145
| Mr. Joseph Volpe |
1150
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1155
| Mr. Janko Peric |
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1200
1205
1210
| Mr. Inky Mark |
1215
| Mr. Mark Assad |
1220
| Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
| Mr. Randy White |
1225
1230
1235
1240
| Mr. Mark Assad |
1245
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1250
| Mr. John Bryden |
1255
| Mr. Leon Benoit |
1300
1305
1310
1315
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1320
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1325
| Mr. Grant McNally |
1330
1335
| Mr. John Reynolds |
1340
| Division on motion deferred
|
1345
| SPECIES AT RISK ACT
|
| Bill C-5. Second reading
|
| Mr. Joe Comartin |
1350
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| ORDER OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
| REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES
|
| Mr. James Rajotte |
1400
| BIBI ZAMAN
|
| Mr. John Cannis |
| AQUATIC HALL OF FAME
|
| Ms. Anita Neville |
| URBAN TRANSIT
|
| Mr. Alan Tonks |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. John Duncan |
1405
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
| BAY OF BEAUPORT
|
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Murray Calder |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Paul Steckle |
1410
| VERSATILE TRACTORS
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| WOMEN
|
| Ms. Pierrette Venne |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| HEPATITIS C
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
1415
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| ORGANIZED CRIME
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
1420
| LUMBER
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
1425
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. David Kilgour |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. David Kilgour |
| BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
1430
| GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
1435
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1440
| Mr. John Williams |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| HEALTH
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| Hon. Andy Mitchell |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| ENERGY
|
| Mr. Joe Comartin |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
1445
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| LUMBER INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| MULTICULTURALISM
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
1450
| SHRIMPING INDUSTRY
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| EMPLOYMENT
|
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| LATIN AMERICA
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. David Kilgour |
1455
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| HEATING FUEL REBATE
|
| Mr. James Moore |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. James Moore |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| SOCIAL HOUSING
|
| Ms. Diane Bourgeois |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
1500
| DISASTER ASSISTANCE
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| MUNICIPALITIES
|
| Mr. Mario Laframboise |
| Hon. David Collenette |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Oral Question Period
|
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1505
| STANDING ORDERS
|
| Motion that debate be not further adjourned
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1540
1550
(Division 12)
| Motion agreed to
|
1555
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Motion
|
| STANDING ORDERS
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1600
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1605
1610
1615
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1620
1625
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
1630
1635
| Mr. Serge Marcil |
1640
1645
| Mr. Randy White |
1650
1655
| Mr. Grant McNally |
1700
1705
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
1710
1715
1720
1725
| Mr. Larry Bagnell |
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1730
| CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
|
| Bill C-213. Second reading
|
| Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
1735
1740
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1745
1750
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1755
1800
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1805
1810
| Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
1815
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| STANDING ORDERS
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Larry Bagnell |
1820
1825
1830
1835
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1840
1845
1850
1855
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1900
1905
1910
1915
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1920
1925
1930
1935
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1940
1945
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1950
1955
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
2000
2005
2010
2015
| Mr. Keith Martin |
2020
2025
2030
2035
| Mr. Geoff Regan |
2040
2045
| Mr. John Harvard |
2050
2055
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
2100
2105
2110
2115
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
2120
2125
2130
2135
2140
2145
2150
2155
| Mr. John Bryden |
2200
2205
| Mr. John Finlay |
2210
2215
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
2220
2225
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
2230
2235
| Mr. Gar Knutson |
2240
| Mr. Derek Lee |
2245
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
2250
2255
2300
2330
(Division 13)
| Amendment negatived on division
|
2335
(Division 14)
| Motion agreed to
|
| CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
|
| Bill C-9. Second reading
|
(Division 15)
| Motion agreed to
|
| IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT
|
| Bill C-11. Second reading
|
(Division 16)
| Motion agreed to
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 022
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, February 27, 2001
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1000
[English]
AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
The Speaker: Order, please. I have the honour to lay upon
the table the supplementary report of the Auditor General of
Canada to the House of Commons entitled “Reflections on a
Decade of Serving Parliament”.
[Translation]
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(e), this report is deemed to
have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
MAIN ESTIMATES, 2001-02
A message from Her Excellency the Governor General transmitting
estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 2002 was
presented by the President of the Treasury Board and read by the
Speaker to the House.
* * *
1005
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the fourth report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the associate
membership of some standing committees.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
the fourth report later this day.
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-285, an act to amend the
Criminal Code (no parole when imprisoned for life).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to reintroduce
this private member's bill. It amends certain provisions of the
criminal code relating to life imprisonment. It will eliminate
any provision for early parole, early release or parole
eligibility for a criminal who is sentenced to life.
The bill is about justice for the families of victims, for those
who have suffered an irreplaceable loss at the hands of killers.
For them, knowing that the offender will never walk the streets
again as a free person will bring a sense of relief and an
element of closure to a sad chapter in their lives.
My bill sends a clear message to murderers that if they take the
life of another, they will be locked away for the remainder of
their natural lives. Life will mean just that, life.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[Translation]
MAIN ESTIMATES, 2001-02
REFERENCE TO STANDING COMMITTEES
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Orders 81(4) and 81(6), I wish to introduce
a motion concerning referral of the Main Estimates, 2001-02, to
the standing committees of the House.
Since the list is rather lengthy, I would ask that it be printed
in Hansard at this point without being read.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
move:
That the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31,
2002, laid upon the table on February 27, 2001, be referred to
the several standing committees of the House in accordance with
the detailed allocation as follows.
[Editor's Note: The list is as follows:]
To the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs,
Northern Development and Natural Resources
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Votes 1, 5, 10,
15, L20, L25, L30, 35, 40, 45 and 50
Natural Resources, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30
and 35
Canadian Heritage, Votes 1, 5, L10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40,
45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, 95, 100, 105, 110,
115, 125 and 130
Privy Council, Votes 30 and 35
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, Votes 1, 5 and 10
Finance, Votes 1, 5, L10, 15, 25, 30 and 35
Foreign Affairs, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, L30, L35, 40,
45, 50 and 55
Health, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25
To the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities
Human Resources Development, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20
To the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and
Technology
Industry, Votes 1, 5, L10, L15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50,
55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, 95, 100, 105, 110, 115, 120
and 125
Justice, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50 and
55
Privy Council, Vote 50
Solicitor General, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40,
45 and 50
National Defence, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20
Veterans Affairs, Votes 1, 5 and 10
Parliament, Vote 5
Privy Council, Vote 20
Canadian Heritage, Vote 120
Governor General, Vote 1
Parliament, Vote 1
Privy Council, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 45 and 55
Public Works and Government Services, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15,
20 and 25
Transport, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 and 35
Treasury Board, Votes 1, 2, 5, 10 and 20
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the House gives its consent, I move that the fourth report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to
the House earlier this day be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present a petition on behalf of the citizens of Peterborough
area who are concerned about conditions in Iraq.
1010
The petitioners point out that Canadian churches have been
asking for the cessation of the sanctions. They call upon
parliament to accept the recommendations of the standing
committee for the lifting of sanctions and the establishment of a
diplomatic presence in Baghdad and the immediate cessation of
bombing.
In particular, the petitioners ask that Canada urge the UN
committee to quickly approve funds for the rebuilding of water,
electric power and oil production, and ask that the compensation
fund taken from the so-called oil for food program be suspended.
KIDNEY DISEASE
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a second petition from citizens who are concerned about kidney
disease, a growing problem in Canada, and the various ways of
preventing it.
The petitioners call upon parliament to encourage the Canadian
Institutes of Health Research to explicitly include kidney
research as one of the institutes in its system to be named the
institute of kidney and urinary tract diseases.
[Translation]
PETROLEUM PRODUCT PRICES
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am today
tabling a petition from some one thousand of my fellow citizens
of Saint-Jean, who object to exorbitant fuel prices.
The petitioners are of the opinion that consumers are being
impoverished by this and companies may be forced to slow down
activities, thus creating a danger of recession. They are
calling upon the government to take all possible steps to
control these exorbitant fuel prices.
As I said, they feel there is a danger of economic slowdown.
They are also fed up with seeing so much money go out of their
pockets every week. They clearly have the impression that the
House of Commons is doing nothing to control these prices.
I am pleased to table this petition on their behalf.
[English]
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by hundreds of
my constituents who express their continued concern over the
great number of nuclear weapons on our planet.
Having acknowledged that Canada and other states have signed the
nuclear nonproliferation treaty about five years ago, they ask
that we reaffirm our commitment and ask that parliament support a
binding timetable for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT
The House resumed from February 26 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-11, an act respecting immigration to Canada and the
granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced,
persecuted or in danger, be read the second time and referred to
a committee.
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is an honour to stand before you in the first sitting
of the 37th parliament. I take this opportunity to congratulate
you on the esteemed position to which you have been elected by
your peers and colleagues here in the House of Commons.
At this time I respectfully acknowledge my late parents, John
and Olga Zdunich, and my husband's parents, George and Katherine
Yelich. I also acknowledge my husband Matt and our daughters
Elaina and Ivana.
I thank all whose support and encouragement has brought me here
today: my campaign team, the hardworking volunteers, my friends
and family members, and especially the people of Blackstrap for
the vote of confidence that they have given me. It is an honour
and a privilege to represent them in the House of Commons.
The riding I represent is called Blackstrap. The name itself
has been a constant conversation piece and a point of interest.
People continually ask me where the name Blackstrap came from.
Local legend is that during the years of prohibition a rum runner
was not aware that one of his kegs had sprung a leak and he
travelled the valley leaving a trail of blackstrap molasses
behind him. The legend is so popular that some people actually
believe it. The real story behind the name is not quite so
colourful.
1015
Until filled with Diefenbaker lake water in 1967, making it into
a reservoir, Blackstrap Lake was a long, narrow slough filled
with black reeds. From atop its steep banks it resembled nothing
so much as a long black strap.
Today the area of Blackstrap is a 540 hectare provincial park
with a manmade lake at the centre. The provincial park is a
resort area that provides year round activities. In the winter
the manmade mountain is the centre of a winter activity sports
park. In the summer it provides a place for swimming, camping
and fishing.
Geographically situated near the centre of the province of
Saskatchewan, the riding of Blackstrap is bordered on the west by
the South Saskatchewan River and on the north by the Yellowhead
highway. It encompasses over 11,000 square miles, is home to
approximately 72,000 people and is a riding unique in its broad
diversity. This is the riding I call home.
My roots in this riding are almost as old as the province of
Saskatchewan. My grandparents immigrated to Canada from the tiny
village of Lovinac in Croatia as part of the massive land
settlement program of the early 1900s when Sir Clifford Sifton,
then minister of the interior, offered land to new immigrants for
settling the prairies.
Their move to Canada took a huge leap of faith. They left all
that was familiar because they believed a better life could be
found in Canada for themselves and the generations to come. I
will always be grateful for the courage they showed and what it
has meant to me to be raised a Canadian. Living and working in
this riding, which was developed almost solely on immigration, I
know how important it is that we aim to improve our system, which
I will speak to.
Much has changed since the turn of the century when a bright new
future could be found with the turning of soil on 160 acres of
raw prairie land. At one time the riding of Blackstrap was
almost totally dependent upon agriculture. However, as we embark
on a new century, the face of the prairie economy has changed
drastically, perhaps no more so than in the area I call home.
Throughout the riding are examples of how the people of
Blackstrap have shown their resourcefulness in the face of
crisis. There is no other word to describe what has happened to
the agricultural industry in the past two decades. One such
example is the Pound-Maker feedlot in Lanigan, where it decided
to integrate its existing feedlot into an ethanol plant.
In Canada as a whole, approximately 55 million litres of ethanol
are produced each year; 17 million are used in fuel and the rest
go to industrial uses such as toiletries, cosmetics and
medications for external use. The Pound-Maker facility has the
capacity to produce 13 million litres each year, or one-quarter
of Canada's total, in addition to being a 28,500 head cattle
feedlot.
Only a few miles away, Drake Meat Processors is a huge
successful meat processing plant where over 50 people are
employed in what was at one time a co-operative locker plant.
They have now developed product lines sold exclusively in
Saskatchewan.
Across the riding the pork industry is aggressively expanding
with the continual construction of new facilities producing
thousands of pork each year for the Canadian marketplace. Much
of this started with innovations by three individual pork
producers who decided to combine their energies and embark on a
new direction. Their start-up barn in Outlook has grown to
include 17 community based pork operations with a current
capacity of 500,000 pigs a year.
Farmers surrounding Lake Diefenbaker have dedicated thousands of
acres to irrigated potato production. In Outlook a mint-herb
processing plant is currently under construction. The
Saskatchewan Wheat Pool in Watrous has initiated a crop
development farm where new breeds of canola are bred and tested.
In almost every community, market gardens have become
commonplace as the people fight to keep their rural communities
alive in spite of negative farm incomes. To their credit,
hundreds of people in this riding have risen above the challenge
of the agricultural crisis and successfully built a diverse
economic base. I applaud them.
Obviously the agricultural industry is an important part of what
makes up Blackstrap, historically and in today's economy, but it
is not the only industry.
1020
The magnitude of the different industries that survive and
thrive are what make this area an anomaly in the prairie economy.
We are home to five potash mines, the IMC Kalium Mine and the
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Mines, PCS.
PCS in itself is an interesting study in the opportunities that
arise through diversification. At one time, PCS was a money
losing crown corporation that cost the taxpayers of the province
hundreds of millions of dollars. It was privatized in the late
1980s and sold to employees and other investors. Today, PCS is
the world's leading producer of potash and has 20 plants in North
America, Chile, Trinidad and another underway in Brazil.
We have six automotive retail businesses in the riding. When
the auto mall currently being constructed on the south side of
Saskatoon is completed, our riding will be home to the largest
automobile sales group in Saskatchewan.
Through the use of community development bonds, the people of
Manitou Beach and area invested in their own community. The area
brought the Manitou mineral spa back to its glory days, not seen
since the early twenties and thirties.
Building on its natural therapeutic qualities unique to North
America and found only in two other places in the world, Karlovy
Vary in the Czech Republic and the Dead Sea of Israel, the
committee initiated what has grown into a multimillion dollar
facility. Today at Manitou Beach there is a convention centre,
mineral spa and entire resort village that is a tourist
destination for visitors from around the world.
Blackstrap is home to a national defence base in Dundurn which
has the largest ammunition depot in the country. The Whitecap
Dakota/Sioux First Nation dates back to the eighteenth century
and inhabits the northwest corner of the riding. I should
mention that it was the Dakota/Sioux Indians who immigrated to
Blackstrap from the United States.
In Canada as a whole, we are all too aware of the problems our
aboriginal communities are dealing with, yet this particular
reserve is a powerful example of innovation, prosperity and
economic stability.
We are forward thinking, inventive, innovative and courageous
Canadians. I believe these qualities came with the early
settlers to this part of the country and live on in our
generation. These are the people of Blackstrap. The people gave
me a mandate to come to Ottawa and represent their interests.
They have a message that I brought here with me today. I would
be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to articulate to all
my colleagues in the House of Commons, in all the political
parties, what the people of Blackstrap riding have to say.
There has been a lot of attention recently focused on what has
been coined western alienation and talk of separation by the
west. It would be easy to get sidetracked. However, I know how
important Confederation is to the people of my riding. I know
how passionately they love the country. In fact, my esteemed
colleagues, I believe the focus on separation is backward. What
I hear in my riding is not so much that people want out, they
want in.
The people I represent want the message brought here to Ottawa
that their voices are a part of Canada. When there is talk about
equality, there is an intrinsic emphasis put on rights, which is
not necessarily the message that needs to be heard. As
westerners, we believe in balance and the responsibilities that
come with being a balanced partner in Confederation.
The people of Blackstrap want it known that while they willingly
and lawfully hand over their hard earned tax dollars, they are
frustrated by continual reminders that the federal government
does not manage the country's economic situation with the same
diligence it manages its personal finances. They want balance
brought back to the taxation system.
The people of Blackstrap are frustrated by a legal system that
has taken the place of what should be a justice system. They
want balance in the laws that govern us as citizens.
The people of Blackstrap are frustrated by regional differences
that are treated as divisions by the federal government instead
of opportunities for co-operation. They want to see a balance in
the regional interests within a federal system that provides the
opportunity to work together to overcome those challenges.
When my grandparents immigrated to Canada, they knew nothing of
eastern, or western or central Canada. French speaking and
English speaking Canada was not an issue.
1025
They came to Canada because they believed in Canada and what it
represented, hope for a new future, opportunity, room to grow and
contribute. Thousands of people just like them took what Canada
had to offer and built a country that has a distinctive label of
being the greatest country on this planet.
I have personally sponsored refugees and worked with many
immigrant families. The Canada they see is the same Canada that
beckoned my ancestors.
I hope and pray that those of us in the House will never lose
sight of that vision of the gift it is to be a Canadian and that
they will work co-operatively to build on the initial framework
that our country's forefathers put together.
As we speak to Bill C-11, the citizenship and immigration bill,
we will address how to improve our existing system. We will work
on answers to my constituents' questions, such as why does it
take so long for people with skills to immigrate to Canada? How
can we clear these backlogs? I have spoken to dozens of people
with stories of how long it took to get their spouses to Canada.
Why is the department cutting staff? How can we stop illegal
human smuggling?
My constituents in Blackstrap certainly appreciate the value of
immigration, as does my party, as a positive and dynamic force,
one that is vital to the economic and cultural growth and
diversity of our country. We must continue Canada's longstanding
humanitarian tradition of resettling genuine refugees. Canadians
have concerns about our present immigration system. We need to
restore public confidence.
There is a saying that holds particular significance for me and
my family. It sums up what I feel is the essence of what
immigration should and can be. The saying is coined as follows:
“Croatia gave the strength, Canada the opportunity“. That
statement reflects the importance immigration has had for my
constituents. I will endeavour to work very hard on their
behalf.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the privilege of addressing the
House today. I look forward to the years ahead as we work
together for the people who have put their trust and faith in us.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Blackstrap on her
maiden speech. There is no doubt that she brought a very clear
and concise message from her constituents in Blackstrap. We now
know in the House and across the country how Blackstrap received
its name.
I was moved to hear that her roots originated in Croatia. There
is no doubt that Croatians, like other immigrants who came to
this country, believed in it. They came here at the turn of the
century and have made a valuable contribution.
The member for Blackstrap comes from Saskatchewan and I am from
Manitoba. These two provinces have tended to lose their
population base. This fact is common knowledge.
The question I have for the member for Blackstrap is, how can
increasing immigration to Saskatchewan help the province in its
future?
Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Mr. Speaker, it would help a great
deal. Immigrants who have come in have been a valuable asset. We
have well educated people coming in as refugees. They are
genuine refugees who were in Croatia during the war in Bosnia.
They have contributed so much. We need to increase the number of
immigrants because they come with such strong values and
principles and are a real asset to our province.
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I would like to
congratulate the hon. member for Blackstrap on her excellent
speech. The House expects many more such excellent speeches from
her in the years ahead.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I too want to congratulate my colleague for Blackstrap.
We had a representative from Blackstrap in years gone by and I
never found out just exactly how Blackstrap got its name. I
thank her for the illumination on exactly what Blackstrap is all
about and how it got its name.
1030
It is very interesting that the constituents of Blackstrap chose
the hon. member to represent them. Not only does she look good
in this place but she actually has a very strong voice. I was
particularly taken by the comparison she made between Croatia,
her ancestral home from way back, and Canada.
I think she said something to the effect that Croatia gave them
the strength and Canada gave them the opportunity. That is an
absolutely fantastic statement. I wish she could explore it a
little further.
Canada is a multicultural nation made up of people from all
kinds of countries of the world. Could it really be that Canada
has become as strong as it is and has become the peacemaker it is
because of these various nations? The nations gave the
individual strength and Canada gave them the opportunity to
demonstrate to the world what multiculturalism can mean to Canada
and the rest of the world. Would the hon. member like to comment
on that?
Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say
where that originated from. Some people immigrated here from
Croatia with my in-laws at the turn of the century. They worked
very hard. Living in Saskatchewan at the turn of the century was
pretty tough. It was very lonely and very cold. However they
endured. They had a very large family. They had 12 kids. They
will be very proud that I have mentioned this in the House. All
those children have become very successful and many live abroad.
When their parents passed away that was their tribute to them.
Their parents never really had a lot of material things but they
appreciated Canada, how good Canada was to them, and the
opportunity Canada gave to them because they had nothing in the
old country but rock. They came here for opportunity and Canada
gave it to them. As I mentioned in my speech, there were no
special interests, not because of their colour, race or
background. They were given an opportunity because they had the
will and a good work ethic.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-11 for the NDP.
First, I thank my colleagues who spoke earlier, our current
critic of immigration and refugee policies, the member for
Winnipeg North Centre, and the member for Winnipeg Centre. Both
members did an outstanding job in presenting the concerns and
position in the NDP about not only the former Bill C-31 but the
current piece of legislation before the House. They have done a
very good job in working with local and national organizations to
understand what some of the fundamental concerns about the
proposed legislation.
Coming from Vancouver East I have to begin by saying that I
represent a riding, like other members of the House, which is
symbolic and reflective of the cultural and ethnic diversity of
Canada. Vancouver East is a community that has been built on
immigration, something of which we are very proud. It has been a
community that has welcomed working people from around the globe,
people who have sought to come to Canada to provide a better
opportunity, to look for a better quality of life and to provide
a good future for their kids.
Every day in my riding of Vancouver East, whether it is in
Strathcona, Mount Pleasant, the downtown east side,
Grandview-Woodlands or Hastings-Sunrise, I meet families who are
first generation, sometimes second or third generation, who have
established their new roots and homes in this community. I am
very proud to represent a riding where that kind of diversity is
actually valued. It is an enrichment of our community that
people of many different backgrounds, languages and classes have
come to Vancouver East to make it their home.
There are probably few countries in the world where immigration
and refugee policy is as significant and as fundamental as it is
in Canada.
1035
I am an immigrant myself. Like other members of the House, we
came to Canada because we knew it was a very great land. We came
because our parents brought us as children and we established
ourselves here.
The policies and legislation enacted by the government and
debated in the House go to the core of what we believe as
Canadians. One of the concerns that we have expressed in the NDP
is that the legislation the minister has now reintroduced is a
reflection of the public mood that has become more negative about
immigration and refugee policies.
I want to highlight one issue in particular because it is
something that is very pertinent to Vancouver and to East
Vancouver. More than a year and a half ago we saw the arrival of
what has been commonly referred to as the boat people, economic
migrants who are becoming involved in human smuggling out of
desperation. They put themselves at grave risk and danger. They
travel huge distances in very dangerous conditions, seeking a way
to escape the environment they are in.
The experience we had on Canada's west coast has been reported
widely in the media: the arrival of about 600 so-called boat
people from the Fujian province of the People's Republic of
China. It was very interesting to see the reaction in the media
and the general public mood around the issue.
There are concerns about human smuggling. We have to prevent
these kinds of situations from taking place. In working with
local organizations I visited some women who were detained in the
Burnaby women's correctional facility. At that time about 33
women were detained in jail. They had not committed a crime.
They had not been charged with anything. They were incarcerated
because they were considered to be at risk for flight if they
were released.
In visiting those women in jail I was very taken by the
situation they were in. They had inadequate access to legal
representation, to appropriate cultural language interpretation,
to phone calls and to any connection or visits with their
children who had been taken away and placed in care. It may
surprise some people to know that more than 18 months later there
are still about 25 individuals incarcerated in British Columbia
as a result of arriving on Canada's shores.
It is easy for us to look back historically at events that
happened 40 or 50 years ago when people arrived and were not
allowed entry. We can look back and say it was racist or
xenophobic, that we had a fear of others arriving, but when it
happens in contemporary society today it is something that is
very worth debating in terms of how we react to it.
One of the concerns of my colleagues in the NDP and I is that we
feel much of the response from the government is based on a very
strong reaction to the arrival of the boat people. I find it
unacceptable that 18 months after they arrived individuals are
still incarcerated and trying legitimately and legally to file
their applications for refugee status. We have a concern that
this is an underlying pinning of the bill. It is a bill that
seems to be based more on keeping people out rather than
acknowledging the incredible role immigration has played in the
country.
I have been very concerned over the last few years that the
government's own targets for levels of immigration are not being
met. It is very easy to play to fears in the community. It is
easy to dramatize and highlight individual cases of refugees
where there have been illegalities and where people needed to be
deported rather than focus on the incredible positive
contribution of not just new immigrants but of refugees to the
country.
1040
Although the bill does have some measures that provide for
family reunification, the NDP believes there should be a much
greater emphasis on family reunification and expanding the family
class. We should be saying that Canada welcomes people from
around the world, and that we should not be so suspicious.
I deal with hundreds of cases in my riding every year of
families who are desperately seeking assistance in order to get
through the system as it exists today. I am sure we have all had
cases where we really feel the frustration and the anxiety that
people have gone through in trying to deal with the system.
Officials have incredible discretion in denying people and in
deciding whether a family member can come to Canada.
I had a campaign in my riding called once in a lifetime. It
was actually an idea that the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration floated around about a year or so ago. She suggested
that there might be a special provision, a once in a lifetime
provision, whereby any Canadian would be able to sponsor someone
who would not normally qualify in a family class. Unfortunately
the idea was just dropped.
Local organizations in my riding, such as Success, collected
more than 15,000 signatures in support of the idea of once in a
lifetime. Then it was dropped like a hot potato by the
minister. However, I decided to keep the idea going. We
actually had a petition and a campaign on once in a lifetime,
which received tremendous support. The reason we received
support is that the current definitions are so narrow and
restrictive that it becomes very difficult to undertake family
reunification under the present policies.
Some of the other concerns we have, which have not been
addressed in the bill and which we will be following up on when
it reaches committee stage, are the problems around the live in
caregiver program. I have had cases in my own community where
women who have come into Canada through the live in caregiver
program have basically been exploited. They have had their
rights violated and have been placed in very vulnerable and
precarious positions because of this special provision by which
they gained entry to Canada.
We believe that the current legislation fails to address the
gender issues that are involved in the live in care program. It
bears a thorough examination to ensure that women who are coming
here under the live in caregiver program are not being exploited
by the system or by the situations in which they find themselves.
We have also expressed concerns about some of the provisions in
the bill that, albeit an improvement over the status quo,
need to go much further. I have met with organizations in my
riding that have done a lot of work and analysis on the
provisions for same sex relationships.
Although the minister and the government are finally recognizing,
along with other changes in legislation that have come before the
House, that we need to treat same sex relationships with the same
kind of legal provision and equality that we treat any other
conjugal relationship, unfortunately in the current bill these
provisions are contained in the regulations and not the bill
itself. I have had this expressed to me as a concern in terms of
it leaving the community still vulnerable to any future changes
in regulations.
The other matter I want to speak to involves refugees. It was
very timely that yesterday the Caledon Institute and the Maytree
Foundation, under the sponsorship of a human rights committee of
the Senate, brought a very notable and prestigious speaker,
Professor Goodwin-Gill from Oxford University, to Parliament
Hill. He came to speak to a number of people who were assembled
yesterday about Canada's practice of violating a UN convention as
it relates to the status of refugees in this country.
1045
Professor Goodwin-Gill, an internationally renowned expert on
refugee law, has taught at Carleton University, so he is very
familiar with Canada's legislation and how we process and treat
convention refugees.
He expressed grave concern about the practices that have taken
place in Canada which deny people access to travel or deny them
other resources and programs within Canadian society based on
their refugee status. He zeroed in on the fact that Canada does
not meet its international obligations under the UN convention,
in particular articles 25, 27 and 28 having to do with refugee ID
documentation.
I feel this is a very serious situation. For those members of
the House and of the Senate who were present yesterday at the
speech by Professor Goodwin-Gill, I hope very much that what he
said to us will be reflected in our debate and will be reflected in
the amendments once the bill reaches committee and there is an
opportunity to receive amendments.
To dramatize the real experience of convention refugees in
Canada, present at the meeting yesterday was a young woman who is
a convention refugee. I believe she was originally from northern
Somalia. She is the mother of four children. She described to
us with a great deal of candour and honesty the feeling that she
had of being in prison because she could not access the things
she needed to provide for her family.
She cannot put her teenage children through post-secondary
education because she cannot afford to pay for it. She works but
earns a low income, so neither she nor her children are able to
access the Canada student loans program. She is established as a
convention refugee, but because of the way we treat convention
refugees she and her kids cannot access post-secondary education.
Those are illustrations and examples of what it means to live
with the kinds of policies and procedures we have had in place.
Having the bill before the House is an opportunity to redress
some of those situations and to look at the real experience of
what happens to refugees in the country and to say that we will
not put up more barriers.
I think the real tragedy of the situation is that there is abuse
in the system, as we heard yesterday. There is abuse in every
system in the country, but in this area the abuse becomes the
reason for setting up very punitive barriers and rules that then
deny the vast majority of convention refugees full status in
Canada.
That is the wrong way to do business and to approach the issue.
We should recognize that the vast majority of convention refugees
are here as positive contributors to the local communities in
terms of work, in terms of enrichment, in terms of volunteerism,
and in terms of all the things we would characterize as being a
part of society. To place barriers before people and make it
more difficult for them to become fully participating members of
the community seems a very negative attitude and something that
definitely should be changed.
We in the NDP have very strong concerns about the bill. We want
to be constructive in the way we approach the bill. It is a very
significant piece of legislation. It was long overdue for
changes, but those changes and how they impact on Canadian
residents who are here now in terms of bringing over family
members from another country, or on people who wish to immigrate
to Canada, are obviously of great significance.
1050
We should take the time to be thoughtful about the bill. We
should make sure it is not just a response to what is being
fuelled in the media in a very negative way in terms of
characterizing refugee claimants and to some extent immigration
generally.
As members of the House we should have the courage to stand and
say that we want Canada to be a place that welcomes people. We
want the system to work fairly. We want to be able to find ways
to provide family reunification. More than that, we want to look
at some of the historical wrongs that have been done.
One of the flashpoints of our history in immigration has been
the head tax. There has been an ongoing campaign. People in my
riding of Vancouver East have been very involved in trying to
eliminate the head tax. They also want recognition of the
historical wrong that was done and to seek redress for it in
terms of community contribution and compensation.
Unless we can do that I have grave concerns about what the new
bill will be and whether we will be repeating the kinds of
policies we have had in the past. Our history is based on racism
and fear of others. Somehow we must change that.
The bill is very important. We have very serious concerns about
it. We want the bill to be a positive instrument that will
support and strengthen Canada's immigration policies in a way
that is fair and equitable and does not further stigmatize or set
up barriers against refugee claimants. We want it to send a
message that Canada is a welcoming place that truly works for
diversity and cross cultural understanding.
[Translation]
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if you will
permit, I would like to make a few remarks in order to correct
the comments my NDP colleague has just made on the immigration
and refugee status bill.
Canada, it is true, has a long tradition of immigration, which
built our country, which also built the riding I represent in
the House, Laval West, where a large proportion of the people
came to Canada as immigrants and then brought their families here.
The Government of Canada has for generations recognized the
importance of family reunification here in Canada. This bill the
government has introduced in the House continues this tradition.
We have inherited a responsibility toward those who have come
here to help them to reunite their family, to build a family
unit here in Canada.
The bill provides that children 22 years of age will now be
permitted to be included in the family and therefore to be
reunited with their parents here in Canada. It also provides
that persons who are the last members of this family and remain
in their country of origin may come to Canada as well. This
often means that an older mother or father living elsewhere,
alone in an apartment, in a house or in a village, may now join
the family.
I wanted to make this correction, because we are maintaining a
very strong Canadian tradition, which is to continue, in a
humanitarian and family spirit, to rebuild families here.
I would also like to make another correction about the hon.
member's comment to the effect that Canada has not been meeting
its own immigration levels.
1055
This was indeed the case for several years. However, this year,
much to the satisfaction of everyone, the government has met its
immigration levels.
Under our new approach to immigration, which includes the new
bill before the House and the regulations that will follow, we
are now opening the door wider, so that an increasing number of
immigrants can come to Canada and settle here.
Finally, I want to point out that this bill perpetuates a great
Canadian tradition, which is to maintain a society governed by
the rule of law.
For this reason, those who want to come here as either refugees
or immigrants must meet certain criteria.
As a government, our role is to open the door to those who want
to settle here, but also to protect Canadian citizens, including
against certain immigrants who break the law.
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I certainly welcome the
comments of the hon. member across the way.
I acknowledge that some provisions of the legislation before us,
Bill C-11, are an improvement over the existing legislation. The
provision that allows for family reunification for children based
on a wider age limit is certainly an improvement.
The point I was making and the concern we have in the NDP is one
that has been expressed to me by many organizations that deal
with immigration rules and policies on a day to day basis.
People in such organizations really see the system as it is.
They are concerned that the overall definition of family class is
still very restrictive in terms of the kinds of family members
who can be sponsored.
The whole idea of once in a lifetime was generated because we
had restrictions on how we define family class. There was and
still is a great momentum within the community to see a broader
definition that would allow for family reunification.
Some say that we must have some definition, that we must be able
to define the family in some way. That is very true. However,
in western society we tend to make such definitions very narrow
and very linear, whereas in many cultures where immigrants come
from the definition of family is much broader. We really need to
look at that.
I will respond to the other point very briefly in terms of the
quotas. It is true, because I saw the announcement and the press
release and so on, that this year, for the first time in many
years, Canada met its target in terms of applications that came
to Canada. If one looks at it in a longer term, overall we have
done a very poor job.
I hope there is a real commitment from the government to not
only meet the targets but to look at the targets. If we read any
study about immigration we will see that it contributes to our
economic activity, to our economic strength and to the strength
of the community. When we say that we should open the doors
wider, I hope the member would agree that we should look at the
target and say that it should be increased. However, if we look
at it over a number of years we have not been meeting the target, even
though we might have last year.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Vancouver East for her
comments and her warnings to Canadians in terms of how the media
reports issues dealing with immigrants and refugees.
I agree with her wholeheartedly, because one thing we do not want
to do in this country is reignite any kind of anti-immigrant
fervour.
1100
The member began her speech by saying that there are possibly 25
Chinese boat people—I guess that is the term we use—still being
detained. The fact of the matter is, as indicated in the debate
yesterday on this bill, that only about 600 out of a total
population of about 24,000 immigrate to Canada. There is no
doubt that the media does not send out the facts to the Canadian
public so that Canadians could understand how many people we are
talking about. Also sometimes there tends to be a loss of
balanced reporting.
I will ask the hon. member for Vancouver East what solutions we
should put in place to help the media so they become more
informed as to how they report these instances.
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, it is very important that
we as members monitor what happens in the media. I would agree
with what the member has outlined in terms of particular
situations such as the arrival of the boat people. The amount of
media scrutiny and sensationalism it received was quite
incredible to behold.
When we as members comment on these issues we have to be very
aware of that and take the time to look beyond the headlines and
make sure we are communicating the real situation. Some of these
people are in very desperate circumstances and get set up as
targets. They get set up as scapegoats. This is an example of
the idea some have that, the whole system is failing and
we have to get tough.
I hope the hon. member, along with other members of the House,
will consider this the next time we have a flashpoint and a
situation we are asked to comment on. I hope we will be
thoughtful in our responses and not contribute to a backlash
which can easily take place when the media gets hold of the
situation.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the government is bringing
Bill C-11 before us for debate. Its title states that it is “an
act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee
protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in
danger”. This bill would replace the existing immigration act.
The minister claims that the bill would provide clearer
legislation to ensure that Canada's immigration and refugee
protection system is able to respond to international challenges.
The government's handling of immigration has not developed a lot
of confidence in our country. If we listen to talk in the local
coffee shop or on open line radio, the national mood is clear:
the government does not have a great administrative reputation.
It seems the Liberals cannot administer a system that has the
confidence of average Canadians, especially when we think of
fairness, adequate protections or a system that is well run.
Nevertheless, I am pleased that the government seems to be trying
to improve things with this bill.
The government claims some rather lofty things in regard to the
bill. The minister says that the bill provides for objectives
that reflect the values of Canadian society. That is a big one
to swallow.
The next claim is that there will be effective reporting to
parliament through a complete consolidated annual report. There
will also be agreements that facilitate co-operation with the
provinces and foreign states.
The bill outlines a description of the major classes of foreign
nationals: economic class, family class, convention refugees and
persons in similar circumstances. There is a recognition of
Canada's commitment to the principle of the best interests of the
child.
There is an attempt at a clear, objective residency requirement
for permanent residents.
There is the objective of a strong refugee protection program
that incorporates the protection grounds of the Geneva
convention, the convention against torture and the grounds of
risk to life or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
There is talk of a more efficient refugee determination process
through greater use of single member panels. Additionally, a
refugee appeal division within the immigration and refugee board
is described, to enhance fairness and consistency in decision
making.
There are supposed to be tightened ineligibility provisions for
serious criminals, security threats and repeat claimants who seek
access to the refugee protection process of the immigration and
refugee board.
1105
There is a formalization of a pre-removal risk assessment to
review changed circumstances related to risk of return.
The bill also outlines inadmissibility provisions for criminals,
persons who constitute security threats, violators of human
rights, and persons who should not be allowed into Canada because
of fraud, misrepresentation, financial reasons or health
concerns. The bill attempts a clear detention criterion with
authority to further clarify detention grounds in regulations.
There are also enhanced procedures for dealing with security
threats through admissibility hearings and the security
certificate process.
There are offences for human smuggling and trafficking, with a
maximum penalty of life in prison. There are penalties for
assisting in obtaining immigration status by fraud or
misrepresentation. There is also an immigration appeal system
that is supposed to enhance effectiveness while maintaining
fairness and legal safeguards.
These are all big claims. Unfortunately, the House has heard
those things before from the government and in past parliaments.
However, here we are again, trying to improve the legislative
base for a system that has a poor reputation across the country.
Indeed, we must try to do better as a nation. We have some
suggestions for how the bill can be improved, for we come at this
problem from a principled base. The Canadian Alliance affirms
that it supports genuine refugees and immigration where it is a
positive source for economic growth. We in the Canadian Alliance
see Canada as a land built by immigrants and we will continue to
welcome new immigrants.
We support sponsorship for immediate family members. Our
immigration policy takes into account Canada's economic needs. We
have promised to introduce greater fairness and security into the
system, including enforcement of sponsorship obligations.
We are on record to work co-operatively with the provinces on
the settlement of immigrants. We also want to protect the
integrity of the valuable contribution made to the fabric of
Canada by millions of law abiding immigrants.
Therefore, greater attention must be paid to realistic,
enforceable processes so the average immigrant's good reputation
will not be jeopardized by non-citizens who engage in criminal
activity. We are committed to solving the legal and logistical
problems to speedily deport offenders and perpetrators of fraud.
We affirm Canada's humanitarian obligation to welcome genuine
refugees and are proud that our country has offered a safe haven
for distressed people from across the world. However, to ensure
fairness and end queue jumping, we have been saying for a long
time that Canada must do better at deporting bogus refugees and
other illegal entrants and there must be enhanced deterrent
penalties for those who organize abuse of the system.
We would also ensure that refugee status is arbitrated
expeditiously, consistently and professionally. That requires an
improved legal base and sufficient resources. We are committed
to ending the abuse of refugee claims as a fast track to gaining
the benefits of landed immigrant status.
Canada needs a system in which we can all have confidence. That
will only happen when there is a good legislative base for wise
administration, one that is thoroughly professional rather than
political.
Bill C-11 claims to make these things more efficient, reduce
lineups and provide more security, both for residents of Canada
and for immigrants. However, without a more accountable system
and a far more communicative department, none of this will ever
be a reality.
For example, there are no real measurable and accountable
standards for the operation of our overseas offices. The
standard health tests need to be updated and the credibility of
reports needs to be thoroughly background checked. Visa officers
need better training in order to be equipped to spot fraudulent
applications and criminals and also themselves in regard to being
beyond local corruption.
The overwhelming fact of the department is the lack of staff to
operate at a functional level. Perhaps a full departmental audit
is needed for classification structure, employee supervision and
promotion and the appropriateness of overall staffing levels.
The Canadian Alliance is supportive of current immigration
levels, but we would like to see immigrants more fully in the
careers they were trained to do in their countries of origin.
Medical doctors should not be driving taxicabs to make a living
in Canada.
We would like to see Canada attract the best and the brightest,
not just those who show up at Canada's door. Can we not change
general operations from being reactive to becoming more
proactive?
1110
We support the expedient reunification of family members. We
support and reaffirm our policy of taking in our fair share of
genuine refugees. We would work with the provinces for policies
on the settlement of immigrants, whereby settlement money should
follow the person rather than government.
The Canadian Alliance supports deportation of undesirable
individuals without delay in the cases of criminal activity and
non-compliance with the Immigration Act. Bill C-11 purports to
do this, but the recent supreme court decision complicates
Canada's immigration defences. There is no indication in this
legislation to deal with the supreme court ruling.
No matter what the Liberal government tries to sell about the
new legislation, the lofty goals are an impossibility without
better enforcement, accountability and management. Staffing
levels needed to fulfil mandates seem completely inadequate. As
well, there are problems operationally. We have seen a stream of
people coming into our constituency office because of
immigration. The immigration hotline does not work, as it is
overloaded. My office has to communicate to our embassies around
the world since the department is not doing its job on basic
information requests. Local immigration offices are not
responsive and they are not giving the service needed in
community relationships.
An MP's office should be involved in only very special
circumstances and should not be an extension of the immigration
department. I also suspect the department is heavy with Ottawa
mandarins who do not spend sufficient time in the field
throughout Canada or abroad to fully appreciate the operational
problems.
We engaged this immigration debate to be constructive because
Canadians have asked us to do so. It must be noted that when we
as a party began to seriously reflect the national mood in the
House years ago, specifically about the incredulity and apparent
ineptness of the government in managing the immigration system,
we were attacked as being racist. However, despite the lies
about us, we persisted and now it is socially acceptable in the
House to point out the administrative foul-ups by the department.
Formerly it was a taboo subject.
The problems were so grave and monumental that we took the abuse
and kept raising the issues we were being asked to raise. Now it
is acceptable to require the minister and the department to
justify to Canadians their mandate and performance, without being
called racist, at least by those who are honourable. The auditor
general certainly has been critical of the immigration
department. Consequently we have continued to bring the voice of
the community to this Chamber. The government has slowly
recognized that legislative improvements are needed, and the
voice of the community is at least recognized.
Nevertheless we must be very careful to assess the motives and
the honour of anyone who would dare to say about the Alliance
that there is any whiff or nuance of xenophobia in our party
policy or from our members of parliament. Sadly the pejorative
term xenophobic hysteria was directly ascribed to us by a member
of the NDP yesterday in the House. That term means having a
morbid dislike of foreigners. It reminds me of the outrageous
meanspiritedness of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
directed at my party during the last election.
However, beyond the finger pointing, we can observe, with our
counterparts from the U.S., Australia, China and Europe, that
there is indeed a real desire to move together toward solutions
such as a United Nations agreement to fight against human
smuggling. We cannot allow those who traffic in human beings to
succeed by misusing our refugee protection programs. Under law,
legitimate refugees, those at risk if returned, should be allowed
to stay permanently albeit through due process. Those who are
not refugees should be removed quickly. That was not the
experience that the minister gave to British Columbia in the last
few years.
We say that it is possible to uphold the charter of rights and
freedoms, not just for some people some of the time but for
everyone in Canada all of the time, and yet still be able to
control our borders. For sadly, in the international people
trade we must admit that capacity creates its own demand.
Consequently we need streamlined procedures that are fast but
still fair.
Immigration has been a positive force in the life of the country
for centuries. It has made us who we are and it will make us who
we will be. Canada has historical accomplishments with
immigration, as we have and continue to be mostly a land of
destination rather than a land of departure for the
disadvantaged. Yet in our society, as personal accomplishment is
achieved Canada suffers a brain drain to the United States
because of the mediocrity of governance under which we suffer.
1115
Citizenship and Immigration Canada's mission is to build a
stronger Canada by deriving maximum social and economic benefit
from the global movement of people, maintaining Canada's
humanitarian tradition by protecting refugees and others in need
of humanitarian protection, defining membership in Canadian
society and supporting the settlement and integration of
newcomers.
As a result, the department must evaluate the international and
domestic events that could affect the benefits of immigration.
For example, changes in the push and pull factors for
immigration, source countries, the qualifications of prospective
immigrants and domestic labour market circumstances all have an
impact on the level and mix of immigrants seeking to enter
Canada, as well as their settlement needs.
In addition, the social and economic conditions that newcomers
encounter upon arrival can have a major effect on whether
newcomers successfully integrate into the Canadian way of life.
International migration is related in many complex ways to
basic environmental stability. The scarcity of resources such
as famine and energy sources, environmental degradation such as
pollution and deforestation, natural disasters such as
earthquakes and epidemic diseases, and severe climate changes
such as drought and flooding can displace large numbers of
people and be important push factors for international migration.
The perceptions of Canada's abundant natural resources, wide
open spaces and clean environment have also played a role in
attracting newcomers, in addition to the broader consideration of
a somewhat democratic society and an economy that offers a
measure of opportunity.
Globalization means that international travel and migration are
likely to increase. From an environmental perspective, increased
mobility increases the potential risk of new foods, plants and
organisms being introduced into sensitive ecosystems. There is
also the risk of new strains of disease spreading more quickly
between populations. Although these issues are of serious
concern and are subject to various domestic and international
screening processes, the risks must be balanced against the
benefits of globalization and the freer international movement of
goods, services and people.
For example, the recruitment of highly skilled workers means
that Canada should benefit from skills and technologies.
Similarly, international students can be agents of technology and
knowledge transfer. Immigrants also bring with them different
values and practices that offer positive and new social
perspectives.
Attaining a sustainable future requires a commitment to a
healthier environment and an economy that can enhance the social
well-being of Canadians. Only through the recognition and
consistent consideration of the web of issues that I mentioned
can we develop a beneficial legal context for immigration
make the informed choices necessary to build Canada's future.
The Canadian Alliance is pro-immigration. We hope the
government will accept our amendments for improvement in
operational accountability and transparency so that there
develops greater political legitimacy for the operations year in
and year out.
The government's lofty goals for the bill are rather great. Let
us hope that there will be more than sound and fury from the
government and that resources and professionalism will be
greatly enhanced so we have a system of which we all can be
proud.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I thank my colleague for his address. There is one
issue that keeps coming up, which I think he mentioned in his
remarks: What do we do with these smugglers of humans in the world?
I question whether some of the things that have been put in this
bill to address smuggling of humans will be effective. In order to
define a person, the person has to come into our country and we
have to be able to detain that person.
Also, what do we do with bogus refugees? How long will that
take to come to an end before we can get them out of the country?
Would the hon. member expand on some of his comments concerning
people, such as the snakeheads, as they are sometimes called, and
the leaders of people smuggling rings? Could he also comment on
what we can do to address the issue of bogus refugees and how we
can handle them more quickly to get them out of Canada.
Mr. Paul Forseth: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with an
international problem. Certainly Canada must step up to the
plate and be part of that international solution. We also must
have a proper legal base at home to be able to use due process
and still maintain our sovereignty, protect our borders and send
the appropriate message around the world that Canada will no
longer be the soft touch for human smugglers,
the principle of that being that capacity creates its own
demand If there is a loophole it will certainly be pursued by someone
who has a malevolent agenda. That has been somewhat our history.
1120
The government is struggling with it. I compliment the
government for making an effort to recognize the international
context that we need to pursue these issues with our neighbours,
but also to provide a more appropriate legal base for processing
at home.
The other side of it is simply resourcing. We need the ability
to hold various hearings and to follow our legal base. We must
not only say that we have a great system with rhetoric and
political headlines, we must also provide the people to fulfil
the mandate that we expect. It is the same as when we say that
we will do peacekeeping abroad but we do not give our soldiers
the equipment. Those defending world peace around the world and
those defending our borders here must also be given the
appropriate resources to carry out the mandate that has been
given to them.
I talked with some of the senior officials out in the regions
who were frustrated by trying to get the Ottawa mandarins to
actually come out and live and breathe the life of the
immigration world in their local offices or in the foreign
missions. There is still, very much, an old bureaucratic, top
down, executive management approach in Ottawa. The minister can
do a lot to set the tone of having a much more modern,
accountable, responsive department. Those using modern
management science, as well as properly resourcing, can then
respond to the issue and end the problem that capacity creates
its own demand.
Mr. Mark Assad (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was
listening to my colleague and I agree fully with his
comments concerning a legal base. That is very important and I
believe this bill will accomplish that. The bill will never be
perfect but it will certainly be a great advancement compared to
what we have had.
The other point he brought out is true because I have
experienced the same thing. The department is overwhelmed with
work and does have staffing problems. I hope that in the near
future the kinds of resources needed will be brought to the
department. We all agree that our immigration policy will
probably be one of the most important achievements of this
parliament. It will ensure that we have the legal base to get
things completed as fast and as soon as possible.
It is true that no matter what organization, be it government or
private enterprise, there is always an element of bureaucracy. I
am sure that as clear as we can make this bill and improve upon
it maybe we can eradicate some of these irritants.
I basically agree with what you have brought forward. I hope in
our parliamentary committee we will be able to iron out the
irritants as we go along.
The Deputy Speaker: Before I invite the hon. member to
respond, I would remind members on all sides of the House to
please make their interventions through the Chair, not directly
across the floor to one another.
Mr. Paul Forseth: Mr. Speaker, yes, my comments are about
trying to develop a more collegial approach, a cross party
approach to make a good bill that will serve Canada's needs.
I must compliment the minister for being in the House yesterday
throughout most of the debate. There were indications of a sense
of co-operativeness and a willingness to listen to suggestions
from all parties. We have many stakeholders on this issue.
Believe it or not, we even have what we call the immigration
industry. There is a whole set of hangers on, a professionalism
of people who make their living from the immigration industry.
They all have a lot to say about the bill.
Once we pass the bill at second reading it would be pretty well
unchangeable because of that second reading vote. The ability of
the committee to actually make any amendments is very limited.
I would hope that opposition amendments would be accepted and
that the minister, perhaps based on further testimony, would be
prepared to bring in his own departmental amendments that
recognize some of the deficiencies that the various stakeholders
will bring in.
1125
The other issue is the local constituency office. My office
should not be an extension of the immigration department, but I
have a heart for my constituents when they come in very upset
that they cannot seem to communicate at all with the immigration
department. We try to discourage unnecessary intervention by our
office. We try to outline the timeline of 18 months or more
before they will even hear an answer on certain things. We are
able to help some constituents in that regard but there is a
tremendous demand from the community.
The greatest workload that I have is on behalf of constituents
who come into my office with various frustrations or complaints
about the immigration department, and that should not be so. The
immigration department should be fully resourced so that it would
be only on the rare occasion that the ombudsman role of the
member of parliament in the local community would be necessary.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the hon. member
talk about immigration and our ability to protect our borders.
A lot of these people leave these third world countries because
of desperation and economic needs. There is a root to this
problem, and that is with international trade. We must ensure
that trade agreements in other countries contain proper
environmental, labour and health standards so we can build up
those standards and these people will not have to become illegal
immigrants to escape the poverty that they are facing.
Would the hon. member not agree that part of the problem should
be in our trade deals, that we should ensure that those people
have their basic human rights adhered to, as we do in this
country?
Mr. Paul Forseth: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that the tone
that is being suggested is a negative one. I think that really
does not work.
The problem for the third world is to provide a trade and
economic highway for them to earn their way out of poverty rather
than continuing to prescribe, give a loan or say that they have
to conform to certain standards. As they are able to earn and
raise their standard of living, then we are gradually able to
address those other issues. It has to be more of an open face
rather than a prescriptive, top down, negative one.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill
C-11.
I want to preface my remarks by saying that I, like many people
in the House, am an immigrant. Back in 1968 my parents moved my
brothers and me to Canada. At that time, they had a choice of
moving to a number of countries. At great personal sacrifice to
them, they chose to move to Canada. They had the option to move
to the United States, Australia and a few other countries but
they chose Canada because they wanted to give their boys a
better future. Indeed it is a debt that I could never repay.
Canada has given myself, my family and my brothers a
future that could never be surpassed anywhere in the world. It
is a debt that I could never repay to this country.
In 1993 I joined the then Reform Party with a view to doing a
number of things. One of the things that attracted me to this
party was the pragmatic view to improving our immigration system.
I think the fact that this caucus has the most ethnically diverse
caucus in the House reflects the fact that the now Canadian
Alliance strongly supports a strong, effective immigration
policy. That is something that perhaps is not widely known
because we have been accused of doing something very different.
My party believes very strongly that immigration is one of the
pillars of Canada. Waves of immigrants over the years have
ensured that Canada is a leader in so many areas. These
immigrants have contributed to Canadian society in ways that are
countless and too long to articulate in any one speech. It is
something from which we all benefit.
1130
Unfortunately over the years our immigration system has declined
so that it does not enable Canadians to have the best immigration
system they deserve. Indeed it does not enable people who wish
to come to the country to have the best opportunities to
immigrate to Canada.
We believe in an immigration system that is fair and effective;
that enables true refugees to come to the country; that believes
in true and rapid family reunification; and that believes in an
onus and emphasis upon the independent class of immigrant, the
ones that built the country.
That is what I will address in this speech, as my colleagues
have done. The member for Dauphin—Swan River has given the
government constructive and effective solutions to ensure that
Bill C-11 will do all that we ask and what the Canadian public
demands.
The first issue I want to deal with is the issue of refugees.
The riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca had the refugees who came
over from fujian province a summer ago. It was a big issue for
all of us.
Here are some ways that we could improve the system. The first
one is to try to differentiate between true and false refugees at
source. Individuals who come to the country, and indeed most of
the people who are false refugees, actually come by plane and
through our airports.
It is estimated that we have about 30,000 false refugees. They
are economic refugees, and frankly who would blame them? Many of
us would do the same if we were in their shoes. However, it is
our responsibility to differentiate between true and false
refugees. One thing we could do is to ensure that it is up to
the people who are claiming refugee status to produce their
identification. Rapid identification at entrance to Canada is
important.
The bill provides for a 90 day hearing in the IRB. That is too
long. People deserve a rapid hearing and a rapid identification
and determination to assess whether or not they are true or false
refugees.
Another issue is the independent class of refugees. We need to
put a greater emphasis on it. A little while ago I was looking
at the list of professions required by Canada. It was shocking
that it has not been updated in a long time. One profession that
is glaringly absent is nursing. Nurses are not on the list, yet
our country is faced with a crisis in nursing. We need to update
that list of professions and skills required to build what the
minister wants and what we all want: an effective skills set
within our economy.
Refugees should be assessed for that in an effective way and
those people should be expedited to come to the country. Let us
update the skills set to make sure it is equal to the needs of
our country. It has not been done for a very long time. I hope
the parliamentary secretary takes that back to the minister. It
is wanted on the ground. It is wanted in the country. It should
be done as soon as possible so that we will have a better
immigration system.
On the issue of charter of rights, when people come to the
country they are protected by our charter of rights. They have
the same protection as Canadian citizens. No other country in
the world allows that to happen. We should protect all
individuals who come to the country under the same basic norms
that protect all citizens of the world, the norms of human rights
guaranteed under the UN charter. Those basic norms of human
rights should be provided for everyone in the country,
particularly so for individuals who are immigrating to Canada.
Human smuggling is an international problem. It is linked with
international crime gangs. These people are criminals and we are
very happy that the minister put extra penalties in the bill.
There are $1 million in penalties to individuals who are
profiting from the human misery that goes with human smuggling.
The people who are engaged in this activity are organized
criminals. They are profiting from human misery. We need to
work with our partners on this matter.
I have a suggestion for the government. The summit of the
Americas is taking place from April 20 to April 22 in Quebec
City. Since this problem is an international problem, it should
be placed on the floor of the summit. Let us have a
transhemispheric approach to the trafficking of human refugees.
Let us work with our partners, work with international legal
offices such as Interpol, and use the CSIS and the RCMP. Let us
work with other nations so we can block this at source. It will
require a multinational approach to deal with these individuals.
It should be raised at the summit of the Americas. It is a good
start to expand into other countries.
1135
My colleague from the NDP asked a very good question on the
issue of dealing with a lot of the economic refugees. Economic
refugees would not be coming to our country if they had strong,
stable economies where they live.
I just returned from Colombia with the secretary of state, who
did an excellent job there representing Canada on the issue of
tariffs and the issue of freer trade. It is extraordinary that
we claim we want to improve the situation in many of these
countries abroad, and yet we engage in tariffs and blocks to the
ability of those countries to provide for themselves. We block
their ability to have a strong economy, and yet we claim we
want one.
If we were honest about trying to improve the situation in
impoverished developing countries, we would eliminate barriers to
trade for them as well as for us. We would eliminate the
tariffs. We would provide for freer trade. We would eliminate
double taxation laws which say that if a company wants to invest
in another country it is not only taxed in its country of origin
but also taxed in the country it works in.
That is absurd. That should not be allowed. If we removed
these obstacles to economic trade we would have fewer economic
refugees. Then developing countries would be able to improve
their lot at home and require less trade and less emigration from
their countries. They would be able to provide for themselves
and develop a strong economy, which would provide for regional
and international security, if they are allowed to do it.
At the summit of the Americas from April 20 to April 22 let us
show some leadership. Let Canada bring this issue to the floor
of the summit. Let us talk about freer trade. Let us talk about
a transhemispheric free trade zone. Let us remove those barriers
to trade and let us enable these countries to stand on their own
feet. That is the best thing we could do for decreasing economic
refugees that wish to come to our country.
Governance and corruption are issues of an international nature.
We have to work with our partners in dealing with issues of
corruption. My colleague from Alberta is doing innovative
groundwork on dealing with corruption. He is working
internationally, as well as with members of the government and
other parties, on putting together an integrated plan on dealing
with international corruption. We could be leaders in governance
and anti-corruption laws, which would help to improve economic
security and global security for everybody.
On the issue of CIDA and development, we should be focusing on
primary health and education in developing countries as well as
placing a greater emphasis on microcredit, small loans that
enable individual people and small groups to get up on their own
feet to provide the commerce which provides security in
impoverished areas.
My colleagues have raised the issue of criminals time and time
again. Why should criminals be allowed into the country?
Recently we have heard repeatedly of criminals who have come
through our borders because of our complete and utter lack of
ability to secure our borders and to differentiate and identify
them from those who are true refugees. We are not working with
Interpol. There is a lack of communication among CSIS, the RCMP
and Interpol. As a result individuals who are criminals are
allowed to come into our country.
The United States has legitimately criticized Canada for not
being able to secure its borders in this fashion. As a result
many of those people have gone to the U.S. It is telling Canada
to get its act in order, to secure its borders, and we will all
benefit.
When individuals who are wanted by Interpol are found at our
border we should arrest them, put them in jail and send them back
to their country of origin where they can engage in a fair trial.
Canada must not and cannot become a haven for criminals, which is
what has been happening.
On the issue of health testing, the list of diseases that we
test for is 40 years old.
It is the responsibility of the department to secure the health
and welfare of all Canadians and people who wish to come to
Canada.
1140
Immigrants and Canadian citizens do not want diseases to run
through our country. Let us make sure that people who wish to
come to our country are tested at their country of origin and
that we upgrade the list of diseases.
I also bring to the attention of the government another issue
which was raised before, the issue of listening to the hard
working people in the department. They are a wealth of
information. They are the ones in the trenches who bear the
brunt and interface with the people who want to come into Canada.
They deal with the wishes, desires and the laws of Canada. They
are getting it from both sides. They are finding it very
difficult. The good side is that they are a wealth of
constructive information.
This issue has been raised in the House before, but I ask the
secretary of state and the minister to listen to those employees.
They should not listen only to the many qualified ambassadors but
should listen in an unthreatening environment to embassy staff
who have to deal with these problems.
They have great ideas on simplifying the system. They can
provide information in a secure fashion to individuals who want
to know how they can immigrate to Canada. This is basic
information. I know there are some very good reasons it is not
provided, but by not providing it a great deal of work is created
for many MP offices across the country.
This is avoidable by simplifying the system to ensure that we
are listening to our people on the ground. The minister could
have an anonymous suggestion box. It could be sent directly to
the minister's office through normal diplomatic channels. In
that way effective simple solutions could be put forth that would
enable us to have a more effective immigration system. This would
certainly make our lives easier as MPs and make the work of hard
working staff a lot easier.
Canada is a land of opportunity. We have an obligation to work
with our partners to ensure that we have an effective immigration
system which puts a greater emphasis on the independent class of
immigrants so that we have a true refugee system. This would
also enable us to have a system that is fair to all.
One issue we are continually confronted with that I think is
grossly unfair to people who immigrate to Canada is the period of
time they cannot work. Why do we not allow people who are
immigrating to Canada to work when they get on our shores? The
best social program we could ever have for anyone is a job. These
people want to work. They want to work hard. They want to
contribute to the country they wish to be a part of. Let them
apply. Let them work.
If we were keen on dealing with true refugees we would seek them
out through sources such as Amnesty International and others that
provide effective and accurate information on people who are
truly persecuted and are in danger and wish to live their
countries of origin. We could do the humanitarian thing by
providing a safe haven for them in Canada. We could seek out
those individuals and provide them a home under our refugee
banner. If we do that, we will be saving lives.
We could also become an effective tool in improving the lot of
countries. I address issues such as tariffs and free trade. We
also need to deal with the World Trade Organization. Many
individuals and groups complain and vehemently oppose the WTO. It
is interesting to listen to what they are saying. Many
individuals who are opposed to the talks in Seattle, the Davos
talks that occurred and many others, are the ones who are
complaining about the people who are trying to do exactly what
they want. They are the ones who are talking about environmental
protection. They are talking about safe standards for workers.
They are talking about labour codes. They are talking about
improving the lot of individuals in developing countries.
However part of the reason we are seeing a lot of individuals
complaining is that there is a lack of communication and
transparency.
1145
Just a few days ago in committee we spoke about this with a
group from the Bundestag, the German elected house. It asked us
why people were complaining about the WTO and other
organizations. It wanted to know if free trade was that bad. No,
free trade and fair trade is good. The problem is that we do not
have a transparent process.
My party supported a movement by the Bloc that would have
ensured that free trade agreements would come to the House for a
transparent and public analysis of what was in these agreements.
I will go further than that. I suggest that the government could
do a lot to dispel and decrease opposition to its efforts to
improve free trade, which the Canadian Alliance supports. It
could ensure that discussions, which have taken place behind
closed doors, become publicly known. It could bring those people
who are complaining about the free trade agreement into the
decision making process. It could listen to what they were
saying and act on it. The government could make its position in
these talks public.
If we make what we do public and transparent we will have far
fewer complaints. At the end of the day many of the people who
are complaining will know that the people who are meeting behind
closed doors at the WTO, the MAI and in the Davos talks are
actually trying to pursue a common agenda.
In closing, I hope that the government listens to the
constructive suggestions that have been put forth by members
across political parties, that it listens to its own members and
acts. The bill is not good enough. There have been constructive
solutions put forward to build a strong, effective immigration
policy for all Canadians.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, after listening to that intervention I am reminded of
the questions at hand. Do we really believe in immigration?
Do we think it is an integral part of domestic and foreign policy
for our country? Do we have the proper approaches to address
immigration as an issue?
The member opposite talked in generic, general and wide
conceptual terms about the importance of immigration and how
countries can deal with it. Essentially it is divided into two.
Either we think of it as a problem on an international basis and
invest a lot of resources domestically and in foreign
development, or we receive people here out of generosity and
other good, valuable and altruistic reasons.
I do not think that is what the bill is addressing. That is a
debate for another time, perhaps in this place or another place.
The issue in this bill is how we make the procedures once a
decision has been made to open our doors to others. Presumably
we have done that. Statistically, we have been relatively
generous in keeping our doors open.
In part it is a self-serving generosity. Today's headlines in
some of the newspapers indicate that we are approaching a
shortage of one million skilled workers. Where do we go? Where
do we get them? We will raid other countries that have such
skilled labourers because domestically we have not been able to
address that. However, when we do that raiding, when we invite
people to come to make a contribution and play a role in our
country, then we have a particular procedure and a process
whereby these people are qualified.
The intent of the bill is designed to address that. I have not
heard that from members of the opposition. I want to ask a very
specific question of my colleague opposite. Will he address the
issue of criminality? Nobody but nobody that I know of wants to
deal with criminals in the country. We do not want them here. No
one wants them anywhere.
One of the definitions of criminality and illegality is that
people try to evade and avoid supervision and the vigilance of
authorities that are legitimate. In other words, they are
underground all the time and look for ways to circumvent the
system.
1150
One of the things that we do in this country, which I am a
little embarrassed by and maybe the member can address it, is
invite families to come to Canada. They bring their very young
children and their newborns. If we think in terms of what we
define as children and how we address them, most of these
children are between the ages of seven to fourteen.
These children grow up in our environment. They do not become
citizens for one reason or another. However, when they get into
their late teens or early twenties and fall afoul of the law,
they find themselves in jail. As soon as they have served their
time and paid their dues, the first people they meet when they
come out jail are the enforcement officials for the RCMP. Then
they are shipped off to wherever they came from.
The member opposite has been so eloquent in his concept of
global justice, human rights and rights of individuals anywhere
and everywhere. How he would address that particular problem?
It is a lot more common in Canada than we would care to admit.
We are exporting criminals that we have trained. Could the
member address that in a very specific way?
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thought I was specific
for the last 20 minutes on a number of issues. The hon. member
asked a whole litany of questions and addressed a number of
issues.
When he began, he spoke about allowing independent class
immigrants. We are firmly supportive of that. We need more of
them because with the demographic changes in our country, we
cannot hope to have the number of skilled workers in our
workforce that our economy requires.
I would also like to say that we are not raiding other
countries. People come in from other countries and people
leave to go to other countries.
What we need is an effective way of ensuring that these people
are allowed to come to the country. Right now, a lot of skilled
people who want to come into Canada are not allowed to, which is
shocking. I mentioned one specific example and that was nurses.
They are not even on our list of required professions and skills.
As I said to the government in my speech, it needs to update
that list of skills because it does not reflect the needs of our
economy.
On the issue of criminality, individuals who have committed
crimes in this country should be sent back to their country of
origin.
Canada, through the RCMP and CSIS, needs to work with Interpol
at the entrance to our country to ensure that people who are
wanted by Interpol are apprehended and sent back to the country
where they are wanted. We do not do that enough and we should.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I came to Canada in 1956 from
Holland with my family, as did the hon. member. We left for
purely economic reasons. This country gave our family, like is,
a tremendous uplift and a wonderful life. I too would
like to thank Canada for the opportunity it has given us, as did
the hon. member from Vancouver Island.
He talked about the aspect of trade with the third world
countries and with other countries in order to lift their
standards. He is right; trade is the way to do that. However,
when we discuss trade deals should the environment, human rights
and labour standards not be negotiated prior to any commercial
agreements on the trade deals?
He mentioned that he was in Colombia. He must know the
standards of the third world countries, especially like Colombia.
In the last 16 months 192 trade unionists have been slaughtered
there. He knows that is happening.
These are the things that the NDP has mentioned time and time
again. If we are going to have trade deals in a hemispheric kind
of way, union and labour rights must be protected and
environmental standards must be met. The people can then build
themselves up so they can stay and live in their countries and
become part of the global economic system.
Would he not agree that would be a way to go?
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I absolutely invite the
hon. member to cross the floor and join the Canadian Alliance. He
has eloquently spoken about what my party stands for. He spoke
about free trade, fair trade, environmental standards, labour
laws and labour protection. Indeed, I know the hon. member would
work shoulder to shoulder with us to ensure that free trade
agreements that come to the floor of the House will involve all
of that. That is what free trade and fair trade must be about.
1155
The failure is that a lot of these agreements are not
communicated to the public. As mentioned in my speech, the
government is not drawn into the discussion and debates
individuals who have the same kind of commitment that the hon.
member does, and indeed members from across party lines.
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was
impressed with my hon. colleague from the Canadian Alliance. I
came on my own to Canada in 1968 when I was 19. I chose this
country because of what it was and what it would be.
The hon. member made some comments about Canada taking a
leadership role among American countries meeting in Quebec. He
proposed that we should reinforce our borders. At the same time
he proposed freer and fairer trade. I agree with him but
something is bothering me.
We invited 225,000 new immigrants to Canada last year. Could
the member expand a little on what percentage of those were
smuggled into Canada? I want to remind him that in European
countries, especially within the European Union, there is freer
movement. More people are leaving countries and settling within
western Europe than in Canada.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, the current estimates are
about 30,000 individuals who come into the country as false
refugees. More than 95% are travelling through our airports,
many of whom have destroyed their identification papers at origin
and arrive here without them. That is why I said that one of the
challenges the department needs to address is that people who
come to this country claiming refugee status, the onus should be
on them to identify themselves. There are, of course, extraneous
situations that would not allow that, but that is what needs to
happen.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to speak to Bill C-11, which deals with immigration. This
is an extremely important topic for the various parties,
although differences can be seen in the speeches made so far.
I wish to add my voice to that of our immigration critic, the
member for Laval Centre. I will not make the same points she
did because, in my view, she gave an excellent speech.
I wish to speak as a member of the subcommittee on human rights.
This subcommittee has not yet begun its work, but we are
interested in the problem. The House will understand my
sensitivity to the issue, particularly the situation faced by
refugees.
Refugees are people who have involuntarily left their country
because they had no other choice in the circumstances. Often,
they do so under rather dramatic conditions. Having read on the
topic and followed the newspapers, at least since I became an
MP, I am aware of certain problems.
I wish to respond to the comments made by the member who
preceded me to the effect that some people are not even able to
produce identity papers. In some situations, when refugees
leave their country, they do so in a panic.
1200
When they are being pursued, or feel they are being pursued,
they are not always in a position to prove their identity or to
provide some document or other. Such situations must be given
careful consideration. When the person coming after you is
armed, you do not always have the time to go home looking for
the documents you need.
I am pointing this out because yesterday I was in a meeting
where people were describing the difficulties experienced by
people currently in Canada who had come as refugees and did not
have documentation they needed from their old country in
proving their identity.
This is a fairly exceptional situation which should be brought
to the attention of the House. Some people have been here for a
dozen years or so. They have refugee status, but not the
documents to prove it. This means they cannot return to their
own country obviously, because they left it after they were
persecuted or felt they were. So they cannot go back. They
obviously cannot visit family who remained there. Neither can
they have members of their family coming from their old country
visiting them here. In certain cases, they can simply not
travel abroad, even to a country that has no link with their
home country.
There is also the loss of the usual entitlements of a citizen of
Canada or of Quebec. For instance, they have greater difficulty
finding work or obtaining a work permit, as it is very complicated,
and they are not entitled to university bursaries and scholarships.
The person I referred to and with whom I spoke yesterday was a
woman whose children were of university age but, lacking
documents and unable to obtain them, did not qualify for student
loans or bursaries under the same conditions as any Canadian or
Quebecer could.
This is the situation despite the fact that, under the 1951
United Nations Convention on Refugees, countries accepting
refugees under these particular conditions must issue documents
entitling them to certain rights, restoring their rights, but
such is not the case here.
The Prime Minister of Canada often tells us we are living in the
best country in the world. I beg to differ, in this connection
at least, when this government is not capable of respecting the
international convention of the United Nations relating to
immigration that has been in place since 1951.
In this House, I have often questioned what point there was to
having laws or regulations if they are not applied. In this
case, however, what is involved is a treaty, but an
international convention. Canada is not applying the rules the
convention requires.
I would invite the committee members, including my colleague
from Laval Centre, who assured me she would bring up this kind of
case, to make sure that Canada respects international treaties.
Before passing any new legislation, or while doing so, like this bill,
which makes considerable changes to the system, this is something
we must take into consideration.
There is a second aspect. I would point out that sometimes, and not
this morning, not today, certain people speak of Quebec
sovereignists as somewhat xenophobic. I am not saying that I
have heard such a thing today. I would, however, like to
testify to the fact that Quebecers are very welcoming to
refugees. Throughout our history, we have always given a very
proper welcome to refugees, including the latest waves.
1205
As proof, yesterday I just happened to read Pierre Bourgault in
the Journal de Montréal. He is a staunch and very persuasive
separatist and makes no effort to hide the fact. He offered the
following thought. If the rules on refugees are too tough, if a
closed door attitude is adopted, will western countries such as
Canada not in fact see an increase in the numbers of illegal
immigrants crossing their borders? People wishing to flee their
country would have no choice but to use the services of
professionals and professionals means criminal organizations
and so forth. The result achieved would be the opposite of the
one sought.
As we know, and this is true with any piece of legislation, we
must always be on the lookout for the down side. Mr. Bourgault
quite rightly pointed out this risk. Furthermore, when we read
the backgrounders provided when the minister introduced the
bill, we can only be amazed at the hard line she takes. She
talks of closing the doors, of making this bill tougher in
response to the public perception in certain quarters that
Canada is a preferred point of entry for criminals.
I am not questioning whether in fact criminals manage to slip
past the IRB and are perhaps already here. In connection with
this problem, I think that what are needed are removal
provisions in the bill for the cases when this comes to our
attention. Clearly, we must not encourage this sort of activity.
At the same time, if we put too much emphasis on this aspect of
the problem and if we shut the door too much by tightening the
rules, we may get the opposite effect and prevent genuine
refugees whose lives are threatened because of their political
or religious convictions from entering Canada. Or we may prevent
people whose rights, as recognized by the Canadian Charter of
Human Rights, the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms
and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, are violated
from entering Canada.
I wish to add my comments to those made by my colleague
yesterday. I am concerned about another aspect of the bill. Many
people come to my office, to all members' offices, to bring up
immigration matters. Perhaps we see only one aspect of the
issue, namely the most problematic cases. After close to eight
years, I have come to realize that, depending on the cases
reviewed by a board member or by any other person,
interpretations may differ.
I am not saying it is necessarily the case with all those who
currently hold these positions, but if one looks at past
appointments, one wonders about the need to continue to make
such political appointments.
In my view, this is one area that requires a great deal of
skill, impartiality and training, because it involves highly
judicial and legal issues. In the future, we should make sure
that, above all, such appointments are not political ones. I add
these remarks to those of my colleague and I am sure that she
shares them with me.
The bill should deal with the appointment process. We need
a tighter process that would at least give the impression
that the system is very impartial, very fair and more effective,
particularly in light of the number of claims pending.
1210
For example, I am told that there are 400,000 people in the
world who are awaiting a response on whether they will be
accepted into Canada. Obviously, this is not just refugees, but
the whole spectrum of immigration.
There are extensive delays in obtaining a response. I wonder why
Canada—and the bill is still not clear enough in this
regard—despite the warning from the UNHCR about imprisoning
minors, continues to imprison large numbers of children and
teenagers automatically when they are refugees without
documents.
We know that there is child labour in a number of countries.
Then, when they arrive in Canada, the best country in the world
according to the Prime Minister and certain hon. members over
there, they face the possible imprisonment as refugees, just
because they are minors and because it would appear that we are
not fully prepared to take them in, because they lack documents
and we lack the staff to examine their files promptly.
Those are the points I wanted to raise. I do not want to extend
my speech needlessly. I would like to remind hon. members in
conclusion that we are amazed at the hard line attitude taken
when this bill was introduced, when it is so important for both
Canada and Quebec.
Although the Bloc Quebecois members agree with the principle
behind the bill, we feel that Quebec's authority with respect to
immigration is not clearly enough defined. This is where we
have a problem.
As the House knows, Quebec signed an agreement with the federal
government allowing it to select its own immigrants, so-called
economic immigrants. At the present time, however, authority
for refugees is left entirely to the federal government.
Once again, I repeat, we are very open to cases of this sort, if
only out of a sense of humanity. Quebec is very aware of what
is going on in certain countries and in certain circumstances.
However, the Bloc Quebecois feels that it would be a good idea
to spell out Quebec's authority under the immigration agreement.
[English]
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière for his very helpful comments.
The issues he raised are challenging to both the standing
committee and all Canadians.
The member for Vancouver East pointed out this morning that
there are apparently about 25 so-called migrants that have no
status and are therefore detained on the west coast. Canadians
do not agree that we should be detaining migrants for long
lengths of time because of lack of identification on the person.
We know that people who hop on airplanes that come to Canada must
show identification. In fact, that is the responsibility of the
carriers.
I will read the mission statement of the Immigration Refugee
Board: on behalf of all Canadians it is “to make well reasoned
decisions on immigration and refugee matters efficiently, fairly
and in accordance with the law”. Perhaps the role of the board
has to be enhanced.
1215
Does the hon. member think that the vehicles currently in place
need to be changed so that they address the issue of trying to
figure out where migrants come from and who they are?
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé: Madam Speaker, I am not an immigration expert.
My comments are influenced by what I see as an MP. I have been
here for eight years and this is not my first mandate, as I
think it is for most members of the House. As MPs, we are
obviously exposed to those having problems.
Most of the time, the people who come to see us are not
criminals. They have already settled in Canada and want to
bring in members of their family. Their concern is to reunite
their family. Often, as MPs, we are in a position to learn,
through their neighbours or others in the community, how they
are behaving. The majority of cases are entirely legitimate.
I am not telling the member that I am an expert in the rules of
immigration and I have no aspirations to become an immigration
commissioner. I trust the members of the committee from all the
parties, especially my colleague from Laval Centre, to bring up
these matters in committee.
I thank the member for giving me the opportunity to address a
point I had overlooked in my remarks, the opportunity to hear
witnesses. This is an important bill, and there are all sorts
of groups in society with opinions. There are experts in this
area. They do not come just from the world of government but
from civil society as well. They live in Canada and run into
this sort of case daily.
I would suggest the time needed be taken and no attempt be taken
to upset the various stages, since these are delicate cases.
The Immigration Act is not changed every year. We should
take the time necessary now in committee to ensure we have the
best possible legislation.
Mr. Mark Assad (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the hon. member
for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière said that a part of the bill was
tough. He is right. There is a part that is very tough.
It is the part that seeks to prevent people from illegally
entering Canada, including those who use forged documents and
criminals who want to come here. We must obviously be very
vigilant and these provisions of the act are tough, but this is
necessary, because if we truly want to ensure an immigration
process that will serve our country well, we must ensure that
those who arrive here go through the legal channels and are
properly checked and identified. The act is tough in this
regard.
There is something else which we must not forget. The hon.
member was right when he said that there are over 400,000
unprocessed claims.
This is why we introduced a new bill. It is precisely so that we
can have a system that is much more effective and efficient, a
system that will reduce delays. Indeed, the main objective is to
have a system that will adequately meet our needs and also
reduce these delays.
Mr. Antoine Dubé: Madam Speaker, when I began addressing this
bill, I said that I was adding to what my colleague for Laval
Centre had said, focusing on one point that had attracted my
attention, that is, undocumented refugees.
1220
I believe it is worth focusing particular attention on those
who come undocumented. The hon. member across the floor spoke
of those with forged papers. He is right about that: checks
must be made. I will not name any particular countries, but in
certain countries that are experiencing war or other crises—the
circumstances vary from place to place and from situation to
situation—sometimes it is pointless to ask for documents,
especially if the person belongs to a group feeling oppressed by
a rival group seen as the opposition, because no documents will
be forthcoming.
I would like to voice a caution. The lack of documents should
not make an application inadmissible. Some humanity ought to
come into it.
Take the case of guerrillas; it is not always governments that
oppress their citizens, sometimes it is parallel groups,
militias. As hon. members are aware, there are all manner of
situations.
As a member of the subcommittee on human rights, I am concerned
about people in terrible situations. When groups arrive,
families with young children, they need to be treated with some
humanity. I have pointed out in particular that they must not
be detained an unnecessarily long time, the children in
particular. This is contrary to the international rules of the
United Nations High Commission for Refugees.
For example, if the legitimacy of certain individuals' situations
is accepted, if the fact that they are undocumented is accepted,
they must not be left for ten years without any new documents
from the Government of Canada.
I have even heard someone describe feeling imprisoned, unable to
travel abroad, unable to bring other family members, who had
managed to get out of their country, here because of a status
that was in some ways that of a citizen without any rights.
I deplore such situations. No one here will be surprised at my
point of view, as a member of the subcommittee on human rights.
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Madam Speaker, I wish to
ask a brief but important question.
My colleague has barely touched on the fact that the government
has not used the great opportunity the introduction of this
immigration bill gives us all to allow the agreement to be
amended, to at least allow Quebec to have a say and decide to
have refugees instead of leaving this entirely up to the federal
government.
Mr. Antoine Dubé: Madam Speaker, I think this would be
warranted, since where do one third of refugees to Canada go?
They go to Quebec. The numbers warrant it.
[English]
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-11. Earlier
in the debate one of the members from the government side asked
for specifics. I am here to provide some. My riding is one of
the areas with the highest rates of immigration. I have helped
many individuals get into the country
I will not speak to that aspect today. I will speak to how the
refugee system has failed us and how criminals take advantage of
it. I will also talk about what can be done in legislation to
fix the situation.
1225
I have already heard from members opposite that these kinds of
things have to get fixed, but in all fairness I do not think the
government is headed toward fixing this problem. I also do not
think it has the desire to do so. I will point out several
specific cases with regard to that.
I wish to congratulate you on your appointment to the chair, Madam
Speaker. I will go back a ways on immigration and talk about how
criminals abuse the system. I choose to talk about criminals
because I spent a lot of time as justice critic and now as
solicitor general critic on these kinds of issues. I seem to be
one of the few who is fighting them. I have spent many hundreds
of hours fighting these kinds of cases on behalf of victims. Each
and every time I have been involved in them, I have been asked to
intervene on behalf of the victims.
I refer to an article that appeared in a trade magazine printed
in Central America, the United States and Mexico. I raise this
because it emphasizes in my mind how other countries think of us.
The following paid ad appeared in the magazine: “Guaranteed
immigration to Canada with the purchase of a Fleet Rent-a-Car
franchise. Total investment of $50,000 Canadian, approximately
$30,000 U.S. You are guaranteed”, and the word guaranteed is
underlined, “immigration to Canada even with a criminal
record”.
I pursued the particular ad because it gave an address on
Bathurst Street in Toronto and a phone number. I had an
organization interview these people under the auspices of being
from another country and having criminal records. Sure enough,
they validated exactly what they said in the ad. They
essentially said that they could fix it up for those with a
criminal record who wanted to get into Canada. Then they were
asked questions about how such people could get into Russia,
England, Canada and so on. The most outstanding point was:
“Just get your foot on their soil and you are in”. In fact
that is true.
I recently spent some time with police in an area well known for
its drugs. We stopped and picked up three Hondurans. They were
asked for their papers. All three individuals came to Canada
illegally. One had been here for 10 months. He had two criminal
convictions and one outstanding charge for trafficking. One was
here for something like six months. He had an outstanding charge
for trafficking. One had just arrived in Canada, I believe under
a train car from the United States.
We have a situation where these young men are selling drugs to
our kids, sending the money back home and not being deported.
Therein lies part of the problem with our refugee system. I will
go through the reasons it has to be fixed. I have no illusions
about it. I have spoken to these issues time and time again in
the House and they do not get fixed. I am putting on the record
today that the problem still exists and I do not think the
propensity is on the other side to deal with it.
A fellow from Cuba came into our country a very short time ago.
I was asked by parents to look into the situation because they
had an underage child. I should say that the child used to be
underage but both the Conservative and Liberal governments took
it upon themselves at one time to change the age of consensual
sex from 16 years to 14 years. This child, who is now legally
able to have consensual sex is 15 years old and the fellow who is
dealing is 32. The parents asked me to intervene, so I did.
1230
We are not sure how he got into the country. Nobody was ever
really sure. Once he found out that I was on the job on this
particular issue, I knew what would happen. He was advised to
apply for refugee status. Word gets out pretty fast to apply for
refugee status and get into this morass that lasts forever and
keeps a person in this country, so first of all I applied as an
intervener at the refugee hearing.
He, at his discretion, tried to keep me out of the refugee
hearing. I had to apply to the refugee board to get into the
refugee hearing. I had to fight that battle. I won that. It is
preposterous that a Canadian citizen cannot sit in a refugee
hearing at his or her own discretion and that an individual
applying for refugee status in Canada, regardless of whether he
or she is a criminal or not, has the option to kick out a
Canadian citizen. That is just preposterous.
I won the right to be in the hearing. In the refugee hearing,
since I was allowed to be there, I was my own intervener. I am
not a lawyer. I have only picked up the basics of this through
self teaching. In the hearing I was passed a document—from the
right source—that identified this fellow as being wanted by the
FBI in the United States for trafficking. He was wanted in
Nevada and California.
There he had a 15 year old child from Canada, the parents did
not want him, we did not want him, he was trafficking and the
Americans were after him. We found out that he had been living
in the United States for four years, but at his own discretion
when the heat was on in the United States he skipped across the
border to Canada to say that he was applying for refugee status,
solely to avoid the law in the United States, not as an applicant
from Cuba, although that is what his application said.
I fought this in the refugee hearing. I asked what we were
doing to ourselves and why did we not ship this fellow the next
morning over to the States and let him pay his dues, but no. We
had more than one refugee hearing. We were to have numerous
refugee hearings on this guy. The parents were beside
themselves, not quite understanding why it was that Canada was
even entertaining a refugee hearing in the first place, much less
a refugee hearing on an individual who had been living in the
United States for four years.
As time went on we actually won the battle and the refugee board
declared that he was not a genuine refugee. After the board did
so, I said to the refugee board that the guy had better be put in
holding because he was going to jump. No, the board did not want
to do that because then his rights would have been violated. So
the board told him he was not a refugee and what did he do? We
do not know where he is today because he skipped, exactly as I
told them he would and exactly the way it has happened countless
times when I have fought these issues.
A person has to wonder what bright light comes on at the
immigration and refugee hearings such that people will not listen
to reason. I recently found out as late as last week that this
person has absconded with the young girl. The parents are
wondering why we even entertained the refugee hearing in the
first place, much less not holding the guy once he was declared
deportable.
What is wrong with that philosophy?
Let us turn to more examples. There is a fellow by the name of
Chander in my riding. He arrived in 1996 as a visitor from India
and quickly got married. He beat up his wife several weeks
later, but he was married and figured he was going to stay in
Canada. I was asked by his wife to intervene. The moment I
intervened, this individual, charged with assault and in Canada
basically under false pretences, applied for refugee status.
It is just the common thing to do.
I have even heard immigration adjudicators say that if a
deportation fails the person can always apply for refugee status.
It is used for the wrong reasons by some people.
1235
This individual started to fight. He tried to kick me out of
the hearing. I had to fight to make sure I stayed in the
hearing. I did that. It was the same thing. It was the same
advice they get from all their legal aid lawyers. It was
identical.
We fought the case all the way to the refugee board and the
board found that no credible or trustworthy evidence was
available on which to base a convention refugee claim. I said he
had better be kept behind bars because I could tell the board
where he was going and that he would not be around on the day he
was to be deported. He has gone. We are not sure where he went.
However, there is a little law that says if everything fails on
the application and if a person returns to his or her country and
comes back here after 90 days, he or she can re-apply.
About six months later I got a call, from Calgary this time, not
Abbotsford, British Columbia. Guess who re-applied for refugee
status? By luck I found out. Had I not found out, it would have
been clear sailing.
So we went through it again. He applied to kick me out of the
hearing. He did not want the public involved. He had the right.
I fought that and won. We went to the refugee hearing in
Calgary, fought there and won a second time. For the second time
I advised that if the person was to be deported he should be
locked up because he would disappear and he would claim again
somewhere, maybe in Halifax next time, who knew? That could not
be done because that was against his rights. Today we again do
not know where he is. Very likely he has already had another
refugee claim that I have not heard about, or he is about to and
I may not hear about it.
The system is used and abused.
Get the logic he used. This fellow even claimed that he was a
refugee from India—a democratic country yet—because he was
being persecuted. He failed in his refugee application, then
came back and had the audacity to lie at the second refugee
hearing. He said he went to India, stayed a while and came back
in. He was asked if he was persecuted there. He was asked why
he would go back if he would be persecuted. He did not have an
answer.
This is going on every single day, time and time again every day
in our country. I cannot believe how preposterous this system is
getting. Yet when we stand up here and talk about an immigration
act, there is no mention of these difficulties.
In our sorrowful areas where we see a lot of drug use and abuse,
on the downtown east side of Vancouver, we have many individuals
trafficking in drugs who are non-Canadians. Some of them have
not 2 or 3 charges and convictions but 20, 30 and 40. I have the
records. They are not deported. They are selling drugs to our
children and they are not deported. If we try to deport them
they claim refugee status, and the deportation and refugee boards
do not talk to each other. One will say that is their business,
not ours. Then when they jump over from deportation to refugee
board application, the refugee board says yes, that is our
business and not theirs. However, it is the business and concern
of all of us.
While there are many genuine people coming into the country as
immigrants and as refugees, and we are happy for that, there are
those who are blatantly abusing the system. It must be dealt
with.
It cannot be dealt with by tabling legislation and not talking
about it. It cannot be dealt with by someone like myself
standing up and trying to defend the rights of victims who have
been abused while someone else over there is saying I must be a
racist because I am talking about the immigration system not
working.
1240
I have been asked to speak about these issues on behalf of
victims, some who have been raped by some of these individuals.
One individual, a friend of mine now, was raped by a man from El
Salvador. He was ordered deported. We shipped him out to El
Salvador on the condition that she drop the charges. She agreed
in order to get him out of the country.
After he was escorted out—we flew him to El Salvador—she was
getting gas for her car in my community six months later and
guess who was gassing up beside her? The very guy who raped her,
who we shipped out. Do members know what he did? To avoid being
deported again, he stood up with his legal aid lawyers, two of
them this time, and said he was a refugee. We went through the
whole process for two years. For two long years this girl went
through this. He was one of those individuals, by the way, who
refuse to take a test for HIV; that is her problem.
If the House wants specifics from the other side, I have them
and dozens more stories like this. I am not trying to paint a
picture of a terrible, chaotic system. I am telling the
government for the umpteenth time in the House of Commons that
there are problems that need to be fixed.
Victims are hoping that we in the House of Commons do something
about it rather than standing up and saying that all is well,
that we want everything to continue on the way it has been with a
couple of changes. There are people who need our help.
Criminals in our country and in all other countries see us as a
haven. That is not made up. All we have to do is pick up the
FBI directory or the CIA documents in the United States. They
will tell us that criminals see Canada as a haven, because once
they get here they are entitled to the charter of rights and
freedoms and they get legal aid if they get into trouble. What
is the worst that can happen in Canada? Conditional sentence,
suspended sentence, stay of proceedings, charges dropped? Even
if they do a couple of years in prison they are seldom deported.
We can look at the disgusting track record on that.
A Czechoslovakian sexually assaulted a very good friend of mine
in my riding, Joan. Joan is 63 years old. The man served time
in prison. It was only after spending three long years with
government officials and Corrections Canada that we basically
forced them to ship him back to Czechoslovakia. That should not
happen.
A person who is a non-citizen and comes into the country has to
obey the laws. For goodness' sake, that is all we ask.
[Translation]
Mr. Mark Assad (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the member
has presented the very negative down side. Undoubtedly there
were difficulties in the past. I am not denying it, but these
are extreme cases.
Last year, more than 8,600 people who entered the country
illegally were deported. The system is not perfect, but it is
working. Since 1995, not that long ago, 45,000 people have been
deported.
1245
[English]
What our colleague has brought before us, unfortunately, does
happen. They are extreme cases. Nobody in the House wants to
see people abuse the system like that. We know it can happen,
and I am sure it has happened in other countries, but we are
coming in with new legislation. We will be much more efficient
and we will try to eliminate the extreme cases, but we cannot
think that it will be done overnight and that we will have a
completely flawless system. No one in the world has a flawless
system.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, there is the answer. They
should write that down because that is all those members say.
This is not about extremes. It is about law abiding Canadian
citizens becoming victims of individuals who come into our
country. In my area it is not an extreme. I cannot dream up
those cases. Is the member saying that this case and dozens of
other cases in my immediate area are extremes or isolated
incidents? They are not.
The difficulty I have is that when legislation comes into the
House that we do not like we are called extremists, bigots
or whatever. Those kinds of comments filter out the reality of
legislation. The reality of legislation to a victim is much
different. What happens in the House of Commons is a lot
different from what happens on the street. I know because I
spend a fair amount of time on the street, and I would suggest
that perhaps the member should as well.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague from Langley—Abbotsford
for his heartfelt and passionate work on the issue and his
advocacy of victims' rights and reform of this system, which
continues to grind away with the Liberal government being utterly
indifferent to the impact it has on people's real lives. The
government says extremes, but I say that they are real people,
not extremes.
The most frequent comment we hear in the debate from members
opposite and from members of other parties on the problems in the
system and the enormous holes that exist, for instance, in the
refugee system, is to discredit all immigration and therefore to
create, they suggest, a kind of hysterical anti-immigration
attitude.
Would my colleague not agree that is a completely irresponsible
argument and that, if anything, what diminishes Canadians'
attitude of generosity and openness toward new immigrants is
precisely the abuses of the system to which he has referred?
Would he not agree that it is by correcting such injustices and
inequities in the system that we can best create an attitude of
openness and tolerance toward the many hundreds of thousands of
new Canadians who come to this place lawfully and contribute to
our prosperity?
Mr. Randy White: Madam Speaker, my colleague is
absolutely correct. The other side of the House believes that if
we do not address the issues precisely the way they do then there
is something irresponsible in the way we talk to issues.
I am reminded of the last election and the comments by the
immigration minister who basically said that people associated
with the Canadian Alliance were holocaust deniers, racists and
bigots. That would include my mother who lost her first husband
in Italy during the war.
1250
The perpetuation of that kind of thought leads to mistrust on
the part of all Canadians, not just some Canadians. I think
those words coming from the immigration minister were perhaps
even more noticeable since the individual who said them is a
minister of our country.
Mr. Jason Kenney: She should be fired.
Mr. Randy White: My colleague from Calgary states it
quite plainly. Most people in the country thought she should
have been fired or at least when cabinet was reorganized she
should not have been given the job. She represents a thought
process that should not exist but which is perpetuated by the
other side.
When we talk about real life gut issues that affect people on
the street and victims in the country, we are treated with a
wall, a barrage, like Holocaust deniers. Where the heck did that
ever come from other than from the mouth of the immigration
minister? I thought it was really disgusting.
My colleague is absolutely correct when he says that the
promotion of those kinds of words leads only to degrade our
nation not just a political party. When we talk about words like
extreme, there is nothing extreme in anything I said here today.
I guarantee my colleagues in the House that if the victims I
talked about today were in the House we would hear one heck of a
lot more from them than from me about how badly the system is
operating.
Sometimes the reflection, as my colleague says, of a whole
system gets tainted by smaller problems within the whole. I was
suggesting that to make the whole system work well, look well and
operate well, we have to fix all parts of it not just some of it.
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I just cannot resist the observation
that it really does not further the tone of this debate to have
the member opposite preach to the converted, the member who
questioned him, and repeat all these things about the unfortunate
remarks that were attributed to the minister of immigration. We
should leave that behind. Whoever brings it up, we should leave
it behind.
I would like to take the debate on to a point for the member
that perhaps puts us back on track.
Does the member see any merit in perhaps revisiting some of the
charter decisions that had such a profound effect on Canadian
immigration policy? I am thinking specifically of the Singh
decision of 1984 which, as members may not be aware, was a split
decision. Only three justices ruled that a person who lands in
this country should be entitled to all due process, ruled in
terms of the charter, and the other three justices ruled in terms
of the Human Rights Act.
So in fact there was no majority under any single legislation,
much less the charter, that supported the supreme court's
decision that was later interpreted as a fundamental charter
decision.
I wonder what the member's thoughts are on that. Is this
something that perhaps we should encourage the government to
revisit and to test before the supreme court once again?
Mr. Randy White: Madam Speaker, I am glad my colleague
brought that up because the Singh decision in 1984 was the
benchmark for immigration. To a large extent, I think it tends
to discredit the whole immigration system because of that one
aspect of it.
Individuals coming into the country should have certain rights
and privileges but not the same rights, privileges and
freedoms as Canadians. I do not think it applies.
For instance, I was sitting in an immigration office one day
when some individuals jumped ship. Without regard to their
background, and because of the Singh decision on all their rights
and privileges, a medical person was there, two lawyers jumped on
it as fast as they could, and three or four other people were
there saying that they would help them.
There was an individual there from the welfare office promising
to pay right away. I thought wait a minute, slow down a bit.
1255
The charter of rights and privileges must be revisited. I agree
with the member. I would be open to a long discussion on that
subject. It is very timely and necessary. Society has taken the
charter of rights much too far today.
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I will start by congratulating you on your appointment
to the chair. It is a real honour for me to be able to speak to
this piece of legislation, Bill C-11.
I will first talk about what Canadians want from an immigration
system. Second, I will address what they do not want. Then I
will go through the legislation and point out 28 different areas
that must be focused on and seriously looked at, at committee
level. Those areas must be examined and in many cases modified
through amendments to make the legislation something which serves
what Canadians want and helps prevent what they do not want.
What do Canadians want? They want a system that works first for
economic and independent immigrants. The current system clearly
does not work well. Any one of us as members of parliament could
point to individual cases and lots of them. In each constituency
across the country there are hundreds of cases where the system
has failed people and where it has taken them too long to work
their way through it. The result has not made sense. These are
not isolated cases. They are very common.
Our system in the past worked extremely well. I think about my
constituency. I think about the immigrants who developed the
area of Lakeland constituency. In the latter part of the 19th
century immigration to Canada began with immigrants from Britain
and then expanded to include Germany and almost every country in
western Europe.
In the late part of the 19th century we had a Lebanese
settlement which is still prominent in Lac La Biche and in parts
of our constituency. They are a well established part of the
community. They have helped build the community. In the late
19th century and in two other instances, after the first world
war and the second world war, we had Ukrainian immigration from
eastern Europe.
These immigrants have built our country. I think we all
recognize this point. Every member of parliament could point to
his or her constituency and to how immigration has worked in the
past.
Why do we not learn from what has happened and what has worked
in the past so that we can build a system that will work better
in the future? That is what Canadians want in terms of
independent categories.
Canadians also want a system which will reunite families
quickly. When families are separated, either because family
members have come as refugee claimants or have come under the
independent categories, Canadians want a system which will
reunite families quickly.
Again, every member of parliament in his or her constituency can
point to dozens of situations where a member of a family came to
the country and where a spouse or dependent children have not
been allowed to come. The process has taken months and even
years in many cases.
I can point to situations in my own constituency where husbands
and wives have been waiting to be reunited for more than three
years. Canadians want a system which will allow that to happen
much more quickly and in a fashion that is expected from a well
developed country like Canada.
Canadians also want a system which will accept genuine refugees.
There is no doubt that Canadians support accepting genuine
refugees. I have heard nothing but support for that from people
from across the country. They want it right now. They know our
system is failing genuine refugees.
1300
For example, fewer than 5,000 of the 23,000 refugees that we
accept each year are actually chosen from camps overseas where
they have been designated as refugees by the United Nations. We
bring in fewer than 5,000 of those people a year, and most of the
people we bring in are not actually from camps. They are brought
in from overseas, but they have been rejected by the system in
another country. Very few actually come in from camps each year.
Canadians want the system to focus on genuine refugees, and it is
not doing that.
Canadians do not want a system which would allow abuse of our
immigration system. Canadians do not want that. They do not
want queue jumpers abusing the goodwill of our country and
pushing aside others who would go through the system properly.
That happens all too often. We all know that and I do not think
there is any real doubt about it.
Canadians do not want people, who are not genuine refugees and
who have been rejected by the system, to be allowed to stay in
our country. Yet that happens. While our official acceptance
rate for refugees is something like 50%, which is many times
higher than the rate of most other countries, only 15% of all
people who come to Canada claiming to be refugees are ever known
to leave the country. That is what makes Canadians angry about
our system and about the way the government allowed our system to
fail. That is what Canadians do not want.
I want to read into the record the Canadian Alliance policy on
immigration. The Canadian Alliance is a new political party. We
are only slightly over a year old, so we do not have policy that
is completely fleshed out in a lot of areas. There is a lot of
work to be done. We are looking forward to our convention about
a year from now where we will have a lot of policy fleshed out in
a lot more detail.
Here is exactly what the Canadian Alliance policy book says
about immigration. I am proud of it and I want Canadians to know
about it. I do not want the misinterpretations and the false
statements made by members of other political parties, by the
media or anyone else to be allowed to stand, because they should
not stand. Here is our policy:
We see Canada as a land built by immigrants and will continue to
welcome new immigrants. We support sponsorship for immediate
family members. Our immigration policy will take into account
Canada's economic needs and we will introduce greater fairness
and security into the system, including enforcement of
sponsorship obligations. We will work co-operatively with the
provinces on the settlement of immigrants.
We want to protect the integrity of the valuable contribution
made to the fabric of Canada by millions of law abiding
immigrants. We will not allow their good reputation to be
jeopardized by non-citizens who engage in criminal activity and
will speedily deport such individuals once their sentence has
been served.
We affirm Canada's humanitarian obligation to welcome genuine
refugees and are proud that our country has provided a safe haven
for distressed people from across the world. To ensure fairness
and end queue jumping, we will immediately deport bogus refugees
and other illegal entrants, and will severely penalize those who
organize abuse of the system.
That refers to people smugglers, people traffickers and that
kind of thing. It continues:
We will ensure that refugee status is arbitrated expeditiously,
consistently and professionally. We will end the abuse of
refugee claims as a fast track to gain the benefits of landed
immigrant status.
That is the Canadian Alliance policy on immigration, and I am
proud of it. This policy came from the membership and all our
members support it. I think we had the support of roughly three
million Canadians in the last election. I am not sure of the
numbers but 25% of all Canadians supported us in the last
election. I think every one of them would be proud of our
immigration policy. It is something we should all be proud of
and I do take pride in it.
1305
I will now get a little more specific. There are 28 areas of
the bill that I believe require careful scrutiny by the
committee. Now 28 is a large number, and every one of them is
important, but I have only targeted the ones that I feel are
important. As my time allows, I will quickly go through and
point out the areas that must be carefully scrutinized by the
committee. The committee must also have expert witnesses come in
to present their views. This information will be valuable to
make the legislation better.
First, the objective section of the bill, which is at the very
beginning, says, in general terms, that what the immigration act
is based on is new. That is one of the things that is new about
the legislation. It is important that it is carefully discussed and
scrutinized by the committee.
Some of the aspects of the new bill concern some very specific
areas while other areas are very general and cover many different
clauses of the bill. I wanted people to understand that as they
are listening to these comments.
Second, I will deal with charter considerations. Clause 33(d),
without much doubt, seems to be offering Canadian charter
protection to non-citizens. No other country in the world does
that. People who are not Canadian citizens and who do not even
live in our country would be granted protection under our
charter. How could a country do that? That protection is in the
bill and it needs to be carefully scrutinized and changed as
required. I encourage the committee to look at that.
A third very broad aspect of the legislation deals with what is
actually in the legislation and what is left to regulation. A
regulation can be changed by a minister or by department
officials who tell the minister to change it. It can also be
changed through order in council at any time without ever passing
through the House.
This piece of legislation is very general and leaves far too
much to regulation. There would be a void of accountability
resulting from the legislation. That will become very obvious as
I move ahead in my comments.
The fourth general area is the federal-provincial agreements and
the consultations with the provinces. The agreements are
referred to in the bill but there are no assurances that the
provinces will have to go along with what the federal government
proposes and what is put forth in regulation. The government
only says that it will listen to the provinces on these issues.
It will not necessarily demand the approval of the provinces. I
think that is a concern. When we have an issue such as this,
which has such a profound and direct impact on each province, the
provinces should have a real say in what is in the immigration
law.
The fifth point is the whole area of economic immigration which
is the backbone of our immigration system. The independent
categories of immigration consist of people who can very quickly
add to our economy and make our country a stronger and better
place to live. It is the guiding principle in the selection
process that I will refer to first.
I find it of great concern that the single most important and a
valuable component of Canadian immigration, the economic
category, is only dealt with by a single sentence in the bill. It
is hard to believe that there is only one sentence.
The single sentence in clause 12(1) would be the guiding
principle on which countless regulations would be developed. The
law in fact would be created through regulation. It is not in
the bill. This is a real concern to me. How can we hold
departmental officials, the minister and the cabinet accountable
if there is no assurance that changes will be made by passing
them through parliament?
I fully understand and accept that certain aspects of any
legislation have to be left to regulation, but the balance in
this legislation is way out of line.
The sixth area deals with the attempts made to streamline the
immigration process. I have listened to new immigrants from one
end of the country to the other, particularly from the greater
Toronto area. Half of all immigrants settle in the greater
Toronto area.
1310
I actually set up a task force there over the past few years and
had input from hundreds of new immigrants. Having listened to
them, I found there was a recurring theme. People said that immigrating
to Canada takes a painfully long time; the system does not work
well; it is bureaucratic; and the people they deal with just do
not seem to care. These were common sentiments. I am sure every
member has heard these sentiments from people they have met or
helped who had gone through the system.
The bill does not address in any way the effectiveness of the
immigration department. It places no legislative requirement for
setting or meeting stated immigration goals. How do we know
whether we are succeeding if we do not have the goals clearly
laid out in the legislation? It is not here and I think that
certainly creates a real problem.
Guiding principles on family class immigration is the seventh
point. The bill is excessively vague on who could be considered
family. Only clause 12 actually defines family. The details are
left to regulation through clause 14. That is the fact of the
bill. As with the economic class, there are a few guiding
principles regarding the family, which are laid out pretty much
in one sentence in the legislation. Subsequently everything else
would be left to the interpretation of the bureaucrats, the
minister and the cabinet of the day.
Relying on regulation to guide Canada's immigration policy has
failed thus far. It has failed Canadians and the people applying
to come to our country alike. We must change the system so that
we have clear principles laid out in the legislation which define
the family, and I would encourage the committee to ensure that
happens.
The eighth point is family class immigration reunification. It
is important and goes along with defining a family and family
reunification. It is important to determine whether a situation
is actually a case of family reunification. If grandparents are
brought to Canada, for example, when the majority of the family
still lives in the country of origin or in another country, is it
family reunification to bring the grandparents over to live with
one child in Canada? That question has to be examined very
carefully. It will be important for the committee to look at it
and determine that.
The ninth point is a more narrow one. It is the issue of the
common law spouse provision. In keeping with the first draft of
the bill, Bill C-23, and this is the third draft, the minister
has included a provision to define a family member as a common
law spouse. This raises more questions than it answers.
Presently the immigration department has a very difficult time
verifying a legitimate marriage. The department cannot deal with
the huge problem of verifying whether a marriage is a marriage of
convenience to accommodate immigration or whether it is a genuine
marriage. How on earth would we deal with that when we allow a
common law marriage to be used under the bill? It is an
administrative impossibility and an administrative nightmare.
The tenth point is the authorization to enter and remain in
Canada, the dual intent as it is laid out in the bill or the in
Canada landing class. The legislation outlines a provision which
would allow for that depending on the regulation. We do not know
how wide or narrow it might be. It would allow a foreign
national to enter Canada with the dual intent of visiting and
then immigrating later.
Furthermore, the same section of the bill would create an in
Canada landing class. This was taken out several years back
because when it was in place it created a nightmare. It is
exactly the same as it was 15 or 20 years ago in the old
Immigration Act. The last major situation was created about 11
years ago in 1990.
This exact situation led to a mass amnesty for anyone who came
into the country illegally by the immigration department. These
amnesties have not served us well. We are letting everyone in
those situations, no matter what their background and without
scrutiny, come into the country. This change would lead to the
need for another amnesty.
1315
I have only dealt with 10 out of 23, but I know I will have a
chance to deal with the legislation in the future. I will close
with a 30 second comment which has to do with the suitability of
the current immigration minister to remain as minister.
She made comments about three million or more Canadians who
supported the Canadian Alliance. She referred to Canadian
Alliance members as racists, bigots and Holocaust deniers. I
question whether that person has any right to remain as a
minister of the crown, particularly the minister of immigration.
I want her fired. I expect nothing less.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Madam Speaker, I have a question for the hon.
member. In his speech he mentioned immigration based on economic
requirements. I believe those were his words. Years ago his
former leader raised that issue and it caused a lot of concern
throughout the country about what it basically meant.
Could the hon. member clarify again exactly what it means when
he stands and says that immigration should be based on either
economic levels or economic requirements? I just wanted to give
him the chance to clarify. Is he saying, and I do not think he
is, that we should base immigration levels on our economic
requirements or a wider parameter?
Mr. Leon Benoit: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member
asking this question. It gives me a chance to clarify a large
misunderstanding that I left in place.
I am talking about having a system which targets people who can
add very quickly to our system and to our economy. This is one
of the stated goals of the current immigration system. It is a
stated goal in the new bill. There is nothing there to indicate
that anything would be improved.
In answering the question I refer to the ninth recommendation of
the immigration task force report. The information came from
people who came to Canada over the last 20 or 30 years and some
who came in the last year or less. They are the people who have
dealt with the system in a way that leads them to understand what
some of the problems are.
They put forth a specific recommendation which I think would be
of huge benefit. I see nothing innovative in the legislation
that reflects what these people put forth. They described the
following common problem.
Immigration consultants, be they lawyers or non-lawyer
consultants, go to Pakistan or India, two major countries from
which we accept immigrants, and put on a seminar for maybe 300 or
400 people. They tell people that Canada is a great country,
which is true, and they also say some things that are not quite
as true. They say, for example, that engineers in Pakistan or in
India can just come over to Canada and immediately become
engineers. That is simply not true.
I will never forget as long as I live an experience I had. Three
or four people told me that if they could find the consultant who
told them that, they would do serious damage to the individual
because it had made their lives hell.
It would improve the system if people coming to Canada knew what
they were coming to. They should understand the workplace in
Canada and what is expected there. The task force recommended
that as part of the immigration act there should be a requirement
that people immigrating to Canada in economic categories, not as
refugees, which is another issue, be tested on their knowledge of
the Canadian workplace.
I suggest this would save a lot of heartache and would actually
increase the economic benefits that we receive from immigrants.
This is one of the recommendations that would have a huge impact.
We would not have people coming here expecting to be engineers
and finding out that they have to work at Future Shop and, in
many cases, never becoming engineers.
1320
Many of us who have made a point of talking to cab drivers in
Ottawa and in the greater Toronto area have heard a lot of
stories about people who came to Canada expecting to take a top
end job but ended up driving cabs. There is nothing wrong with
driving a cab but when one expects to be an engineer or in
another profession and one is forced to drive a cab to make a
living, it is very painful. It often tears the family apart.
Once people have immigrated to Canada or to any other country,
there is no going home. They have cut their ties and often have
sold their properties. They have told the people around them,
their family and friends, that what they have is not good enough
and that they want better.
If we ensure that people have a clear understanding and can
accept what they are coming to then I think we will have a much
better immigration system and one which will lead to maximum
economic benefits for the country, but we need to make that one
change. There are many other innovative changes that could have
been made but none are in the legislation.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I commend my hon. colleague for his comments and the
passion with which he addressed the question. It was excellent.
He has obviously done some very serious study of the bill. He has
28 or 30 different items that should be addressed by the
committee.
Understanding that he has such a complete knowledge and an
intimate recognition of what is involved in the legislation, I
wonder if he could address three issues. He has touched on all
of them but I do not think he has gone far enough and I would
like to give him the opportunity to expand further.
One of the issues has to do with the abuse of the system by
people who immigrate to Canada. Another issue has to do with the
abuse of the loopholes in the legislation by people in our
embassies, in foreign countries or perhaps in Canada who are
abusing the consulting services they provide and the good faith
people place in them. They are supposed to have superior
knowledge and they sort of mislead people.
The final issue, which really gets to the heart of the issue, is
the question of where the accountability is in the legislation
when the minister of immigration can make the kinds of statements
that were made in the last election campaign. I would like the
member to address those three issues.
Mr. Leon Benoit: Madam Speaker, the member is too kind in
his comments but, believe me, I always appreciate that.
In terms of accountability, when the minister referred to the
three or four million people who supported the Canadian Alliance
as racists, bigots and Holocaust deniers, she lost her
credibility, and it is clear that she should not be in this
position.
In terms of the system, the auditor general made some
interesting comments less than a year ago in his report on the
immigration system. He made a lot of statements that were
profound, but I will quote from one. He said:
On the whole, we are very concerned about the Department's
ability to ensure compliance with legislative requirements in
this area. We noted serious deficiencies in the way it applies
admissibility criteria related to health, criminality and
security. It is somewhat disappointing to note the limited
progress it has made since our 1990 Report.
The auditor general made almost an identical report in many
areas back in 1990 and he noted in his 2000 report that many of
the same problems are still there.
The accountability is not there in legislation, it is not there
in practice and it is not there in the way the department
administers it. It is one my biggest concerns.
Even if it were a good piece of legislation, if the
administration does not improve and if the accountability does
not improve then our immigration system will not be any better.
That answers the first question.
1325
In terms of abuse of the system, it was interesting to hear an
NDP member refer earlier to the roughly 6,000 people who came
from China by boat the summer before last. She said they were
economic refugees, that they had come here to better their
situation. If they wanted to come as economic immigrants they
should have come through our immigration system, but she seemed
to think it was fine that they came claiming to be refugees when
they clearly were not.
The UN convention definition of a refugee says clearly that
someone coming to improve his or her economic situation is not a
refugee. I was shocked to hear the member's statement. If a
person comes here claiming to be a refugee he or she should be a
refugee as laid out in the UN convention. Canada has expanded
that quite broadly.
These people did not fall under any definition and the member
seemed to think that was fine. I have a huge problem with that.
I call that abuse of the system.
To the third question on the loopholes in our foreign offices
and so on, there was a document leaked to me about a year ago
when I was immigration critic that made it very clear that there
were many problems in our foreign offices that have to be dealt
with, and the auditor general agreed.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I will begin my speech at the point where my
colleague from Lakeland left off, and that is the comments made
by the immigration minister during the election. I do not think
they are worth repeating, but I think it is worth repeating that
the minister has done the House, the level of political discourse
and herself a disservice. I hope that not only members on this
side disavow themselves of such comments but that government
members would say publicly the things they are saying in private
about their colleague's comments.
I had the opportunity to work for approximately two years on the
citizenship and immigration committee. It was a very rewarding
experience. We did a lot of things together, had a lot of heated
debates and challenges about different things. Madam Speaker was
a part of those debates for some of that period of time. My
colleague from Lakeland was our immigration critic for a great
deal of that time and brought a lot of salient points to the
table in discussing immigration matters.
I will focus on the bill and some of the shortcomings I have
noticed in my examination of it, some of which will be expanded
upon by my colleagues and some of which have already been noted
in debate today.
Of course there are some things in the bill with which we do
agree. I give credit where credit is due. There are very few
things in any piece of legislation on which we would have
wholehearted agreement among all members in the House. In
looking at clause 3 in the overall objectives of the bill, we
support immigration and the purposes that are set out in terms of
enhancing our country and allowing individuals to come from other
countries. Canada is built upon the framework and foundation of
people coming from other countries and other jurisdictions to
make their homes here. We acknowledge that and we want to
continue in that vein.
We do notice there are some shortcomings in the bill. We are
hoping that the minister would acknowledge those shortcomings in
committee. Those of us who have been around the House for a
great deal of time are somewhat disheartened when we know from
past experience that the suggestions we bring forward have been
dismissed out of hand. In some ways we are a little discouraged
that the positive changes being presented by members of the
Alliance, by other members and perhaps even by members of the
government might simply be dismissed. That is a bad thing.
Rather than look at things through a partisan lens, we should
work together wherever we can in a non-partisan way to find
solutions to problems that are obvious to all of us.
1330
The minister has acknowledged in subclause 3(2)(a) of her bill
that the act recognizes the refugee program is in the first
instance about saving lives and offering protection to the
displaced and persecuted. We would agree with that. We would
submit to the minister and to members on the government side that
so many individuals have misused the process within the
immigration system that it desperately needs to be fixed.
Millions of refugees around the world are in need of our
protection. They are refugees and therefore do not need to go
through any kind of process. The government needs to recognize
that individuals in refugee camps are already refugees due to
something that has happened in their home nation and would
therefore be candidates for protection in Canada. I do not see
that acknowledged in the legislation. There needs to be a proper
screening process in place. We have been calling for that for a
long time.
In committee a couple of years ago I raised the idea of
eliminating the tax on refugees when they came to Canada. It is
referred to as the right of landing fee. An interesting process
occurred with respect to the idea I brought forward. We had a
debate in committee on the idea. It was generally supported by
committee members on both sides of the House until it came time
for the recorded vote. It was like somebody had taken a hatchet
and driven it directly into members of the committee on the
government side, severing the good working relationship some of
us had for up to two years.
All of a sudden accusations and disparaging remarks were being
made toward me and my colleagues for bringing the motion forward
to which they had agreed previously in committee and privately
announced their support for the elimination of the head tax for
refugees. However government members came in and voted the
motion down by a vote of eight to seven.
It was an awakening process for me to learn that is how things
work around here. A good idea, if it is proposed by members of
the opposition or even by a government backbencher, will be
trounced and never see the light of day.
Almost a year later the minister made the same change. I am
thankful she did. That is why I suggested it in committee and
brought it forward. I watched the government vote it down and
then watched the minister implement it.
We must get beyond that kind of working relationship in this
place if we are to do the people's business. We need to get past
the idea that a good idea cannot come from the opposition side
or, in the minds of opposition members, that a good idea cannot
come from the government side.
An hon. member: It rarely does.
Mr. Grant McNally: We need to find ways to work together.
My colleague says “It rarely does”. In many ways that is true
because we have had many years of dysfunctional relationship in
terms of how we do business around here. That needs to change.
The Alliance is the advocate of that change. The Alliance is
the advocate of positive change in all areas including how we
govern ourselves in relation to this bill and other bills, and
how we change the way we do business in parliament. We invite
others to join us along that journey because we are committed to
it and will continue to work hard for it.
The people of Canada are telling us it is time for change. It
is time for a change in the way the business of the nation is
done. Canadians want to see that reflected in the House of
Commons, the place where 301 representatives are sent to debate
pieces of legislation and to make the rules and guidelines that
will be set in place not only for now but for our future.
1335
There are some very serious difficulties with the bill. Another
problem I see with it is one of the principles it is built upon:
voluntary compliance.
The minister's bill is framed within the philosophy that we will
set a framework in place and encourage people to comply with it.
If they do not comply with it there are some outs for people that
are not good for the safety of our country or the well-being of
those who come here to be new citizens. There needs to be a look
at the use of discretion within the Immigration Act and at which
individuals and departments are able to use that discretion.
I will talk about discretion in a case I know about personally
regarding a man I met from Afghanistan who came to Canada. His
name is Sharif Karimzada. The secretary of state has knowledge
of the case as well. The individual came here as a refugee. He
was deemed to be part of a regime under subsection 19.1 of the
old act. There was no right of appeal for him to be able to
explain his situation. He was categorically put in that box and
determined to be inadmissible to Canada regardless of anything he
did.
The minister has attempted to address that in section 25 of the
Immigration Act. That is what I am reading between the lines. I
would like to find that out from her.
There needs to be some discretion in terms of inadmissibility
because this person demonstrates that the system is broken. We
allow people into the country who, we find out later, should not
have been allowed in and we exclude others. That is why we need
to take a close look at the bill. That is why the Alliance will
point out options for the minister, hope that she implements them
and will continue to be the voice for change not only with this
bill but throughout this parliament and for the future of our
country.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, I had not intended to speak to the
bill until I had a chance to look at the estimates for this
department that just came out today. It is quite interesting
that a department with as many problems as this one has had in
the past few years has $61 million less in its budget this year
than last year. What really scares me is the section that talks
about managing access to Canada. I will read that section:
develops policies and programs to prevent abuse of Canada's
citizenship, immigration and refugee programs and to protect the
safety of Canadians and the security of Canada;
contributes to the management of international migration and
travel by combating illegal migration, including trafficking in
people, while facilitating the movement of legitimate travellers;
admits to Canada persons who comply with the Immigration Act and
regulations; denies admission to those who do not comply,
including criminals and terrorists;
detects abuse of the citizenship, immigration and refugee
programs;
manages CIC cases before the IRB, Federal Court and other
tribunals;
detains persons who pose a serious risk to Canadians or who
would not appear for immigration proceedings; and
removes persons not legally entitled to remain in Canada.
The minister and the government have taken heat in the last few
days for a mobster who got into Canada and whom we did not find
out about for months and months. Now we have him in a jail and we are
looking after his welfare and his dental programs and all the
other things the average Canadian cannot afford. He got into the
country improperly, obviously. We should have caught him at the
border. He is one of the most wanted people in the country.
We have the number one Chinese criminal in the world sitting in
a jail in Vancouver.
He was living here for quite a while and taking the airplane
regularly down to Windsor to play in the casino and gamble his
money away. He is the number one crook in all of China. Seven
of his buddies were executed just the other day. We know he will
never leave this country because we now have a law that says we
will not deport anybody who will be put to death. There is not
much question that he will not last 24 hours if he goes back to
China, nor probably should he based on what he has done there.
1340
Now we have an 11 year old girl, somebody's daughter, smuggled
across the border in British Columbia with two men and a woman
who we knew were crooks. The police knew who they were. What do
we have in the budget? We have $61 million for defence, but that
is not the important part. The important part is going to the
managing access to Canada section of the estimates.
Last year the budget was $171,953,000. This year it is
$142,187,000, just about $30 million less for a program that is
already a failure. We will have lots of time over the next
little while to look at the estimates to see where the government
is spending more money but in a country that has a serious
problem with people getting into it illegally, the government is
spending $30 million less next year on a program that could
prevent it.
Members on this side and on the other side have sat on an
immigration committee that said we should have scanners at
different places around the world. Immigration critics on this
side have been saying that since 1993. We even got the Liberals,
the NDP and the Bloc to agree a few years ago that we should have
scanners in some countries. I think, Madam Speaker, you might
have been on that committee when we were looking at the issue.
We ran a program in Malaysia at one point with scanners and RCMP
and immigration officers. It stopped many people from coming in.
We saved millions of dollars because we stopped people at the
source instead of waiting until they got to Canada and giving
them all these rights.
It is an absolute scandal to hear the story about that 11 year
old girl. Prostitution is the most terrible thing that could
happen to any of our children. That young girl and those three
crooks should have been stopped at the border where she should
have been taken aside and handed to the proper authorities to
make sure she did not get into that life.
The Chinese Mafia hit man who was in Vancouver would never have
got into the country if we had proper checks and balances. The
hit man in Quebec City that the minister is getting into so much
trouble over would not have got into Canada if we had a proper
system of checks and balances in that area. What is the
government's solution? It wants to cut $30 million out of the
program. Canadians will be outraged.
We do not usually help that minister too much with anything but
we will try to help her now to get some money back in her
department and get the program fixed. Canadians should not have
to put up with this program. They should not have to put up with
crooks and criminals coming into the country on a daily basis.
Canadians are sick and tired of it. When they hear the news
today they will be outraged, and so they should be.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The question is on
the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The division on the
motion is deferred.
* * *
1345
SPECIES AT RISK ACT
The House resumed from February 21 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-5, an act respecting the protection of wildlife
species at risk in Canada, be read the second time and referred
to a committee.
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Madam
Speaker, although I have addressed the House on a few occasions
and have asked some questions, this is the first opportunity I
feel I have had to recognize the results of the November
election: the support and confidence that was placed in me by the
constituents of Windsor—St. Clair.
I acknowledge their support and all of the work my supporters
did for me, the canvassing and phone calling. It is difficult to
put that into words. There are certain specific groups I would
like to acknowledge as well. I will start with my family, my
wife of 31 years and my three children who were very active in my
campaign and have been strong supporters of mine both in this
past election and in the two previous times that I ran. I
acknowledge that publicly.
A couple of other groups were of particular support to me. The
labour movement in the city of Windsor is very strong and a great
deal of those members came out and supported me, both on election
day and in the campaign leading up to the vote.
There is another group I specifically want to mention. I
promised that I would give it credit as one of the significant
groups that made the difference in the outcome in my winning or
losing since the results were very close in my riding. That
group is the citizens who at one time worked in the United States
but then came back to live in Canada in their retirement years.
They were faced with a significant change in the tax regime put
in place by the government. They feel very keenly about this
travesty of justice and intend to pursue it. I will also pursue
it on their behalf until that travesty of justice is remedied. I
wish to acknowledge those people who supported me throughout the
campaign and voted for me on election day.
I rise today to speak to Bill C-5, which in common parlance has
become known as the endangered species legislation. This is not
the first time the legislation has been before the House. In
fact the original bill was put before the House in 1994. The
government in both its red books and throne speeches has
constantly promised the legislation. Here we are seven years
down the road, in fact eight years from the time it was first
elected, and we still do not have the legislation.
This procrastination and inaction unfortunately is all too
typical of the government's record on the environment. It is not
a good record whatsoever. We have not seen any new environmental
legislation since 1993. There have been some amendments but no
dramatic changes in the regime governing and protecting our
environment.
We have absolutely no legislation right now that in any
meaningful way protects our endangered species. That is
interesting. If we look at the polling the government has done,
there is extremely strong support in Canada for legislation to
protect our endangered specifies. A recent poll conducted by
Pollara, which was commissioned by the federal government, found
that 94% of Canadians in all regions support federal endangered
species legislation. More important, one should note that 74% of
people living in rural communities support mandatory, not
discretionary, habitat protection legislation.
In spite of the fact that we have broadly based support from
environmental groups, labour unions, scientists and industry
spokespeople calling for strong and effective endangered species
legislation, we still have none as of right now.
1350
The bill before us in the form of Bill C-5 is basically, with
minor changes, the same bill that was before the last parliament
as Bill C-33. Interestingly both Bill C-5 and Bill C-33 are
substantially weaker than Bill C-65 which was introduced by the
government back in 1996.
Based on good, solid scientific evidence at the present time we
have 354 endangered species. It is a stark reminder that our
natural heritage is under threat. The rate at which species
disappear is historically at an all time high.
Worldwide we are experiencing more extinctions of natural
species at any time in our history since the disappearance of
dinosaurs. The current extinction rate is over 10,000 times the
natural rate. To put it another way, historically an average of
two to three species per year became extinct due to natural
causes. Currently this year and in the previous few years about
two to three species disappear every hour, all because of human
causes. At the present rate scientists are telling us that we
could lose 25% of the earth's species in the next 30 years.
Let us take a look at Canada. We have our own problems. In the
past 150 years 27 species have become extinct. Let us compare
that to the figure I gave earlier. At present 354 endangered
species or at risk of extinction are on our list. The list is
growing every year. An additional 40 species have been added in
the last two years, since 1999.
As a country we have been waiting for almost a decade for the
legislation. In 1992 at the earth summit, Canada committed to
establishing legislation that was specifically aimed at
protecting our vulnerable species. Canada was one of the first
signatories to that accord. Yet here we are in 2001 and we are
still reviewing the legislation.
In addition, the bill before the House is fundamentally weak.
Let me turn to one of the major weaknesses of the legislation. We
were promised by the Liberal Party and by the government that the
legislation would protect the species at risk. What we have now
is not a shall bill, that is we shall protect, but a maybe bill,
that is we may protect them.
The bill contains rampant discretion in favour of the minister
and the cabinet. All that it requires the government to do is to
consult and report. It does not require it to protect when push
comes to shove even one species. They could take these
consultations from the scientific community, from the rest of the
country, and could ignore them. Given their history, that is
likely what they will do.
Bill C-5 is much weaker than the legislation of our partners in
the United States and even in Mexico.
1355
I will go back again to some of the public surveys on what the
country is prepared to accept in the legislation. Most Canadians
have told us that they are prepared to accept economic
consequences in order to protect our natural species. Eight out
of ten Canadians advocated placing restrictions on industries
that pose a threat to endangered species and they are willing to
accept the limitation of activities, such as forestry, mining and
even tourism.
I will digress for a moment and talk about my own region. In
the riding beside mine we have the smallest national park. About
10 years ago it became obvious that we had to limit the number of
people allowed into that park. We had to cut the number in half
because of the danger it posed to some of the fauna in the park.
The public accepted that. There was an educational process and
the general community understood the risk the park was at and
they accepted the fact that they would have to curtail their
activities in the park and the number of times they could go
there. It was not easy for them to do but they did accept it. I
suggest that is true for the rest of the country. We are
prepared to take those losses.
I will now go to the three points that I wish to cover in terms
of the weakness of the legislation. The first and foremost
weakness is the lack of habitat protection. It is estimated that
humans are responsible for almost all the species extinctions
that occur, but that within that framework habitat loss is
responsible for over 80% of the species' decline in Canada.
If this legislation is passed it will not protect habitat at
all. I will compare that situation to the United States and
Mexico. In both cases they have passed legislation that not only
protects the species but also protects their habitat. Our
legislation is simply proposing to make that protection
discretionary in the hands of the minister and the government. If
species are deemed worthy of protection then we should be
protecting them.
The Speaker: When consideration of the bill is resumed
the hon. member for Windsor—St. Clair will have approximately
seven minutes remaining in the time allotted for his remarks.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
ORDER OF CANADA
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to recognize two distinguished people from
my community who will be receiving the Order of Canada tomorrow.
They are Mr. Howard Dyck and Professor John English.
Howard Dyck is the conductor and artistic director of the
Kitchener-Waterloo philharmonic choir. He is in demand as a
clinician, lecturer and adjudicator. As host of CBC Radio's
Saturday afternoon at the opera and Choral concerts,
he ignites in his fellow Canadians enthusiasm and curiosity about
the broad spectrum of vocal music.
John English is a professor of history and political science and
director of the Centre on Foreign Policy and Federalism at the
University of Waterloo. He has, through his writings,
contributed to the knowledge and understanding of our rich
cultural heritage.
Besides reporting on history, Professor English was an excellent
member of parliament for Kitchener from 1993 to 1997. His
contributions and collegiality are greatly missed by his former
constituents and those of us who worked with him.
On behalf of this House, I congratulate Howard Dyck and John English
on their induction into the Order of Canada.
* * *
REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, later this year Dr. Severino Antinori and his team
of American and Japanese surgeons will proceed with the first
human cloning experiment, the first of a planned batch of 200.
1400
These experiments and the results will have serious,
far-reaching implications for humanity. The question of human
cloning raises some fundamental scientific and ethical questions
for us as human beings in general and as citizens of Canada in
particular.
Canada simply does not have the necessary regulatory framework
to establish parameters for this type of research. It has been
eight years since the royal commission on reproductive and
genetic technologies recommended the establishment of a national
framework for the support and regulation of these technologies.
It has been five years since the Liberal government attempted to
introduce poorly drafted legislation on this subject and was
obliged to withdraw it.
I call upon the government to introduce legislation immediately
to deal with issues of human cloning and other reproductive and
genetic technologies.
* * *
BIBI ZAMAN
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to stand in the House to recognize an outstanding
Canadian and a constituent of mine, Ms. Bibi Zaman. Ms. Zaman
founded the Canadian Centre for Women's Education and
Development. With the help of 10 volunteers, the centre offers a
range of services that assist women in getting back on their
feet, including helping them escape abusive relationships.
Bibi says “I want to empower women to take their lives into
their own hands for the benefit of their children. This is my
life”. Bibi has run this organization on a volunteer basis
since 1990 and has spent thousands of dollars over the years to
cover the expenses of this organization, which also offers a
medical clinic. The clinic is also staffed by volunteer doctors.
She also hopes to set up a free legal clinic in March. Bibi has
been chosen, along with 59 other Canadians, to be recognized by
the Governor General with the Governor General's Caring Canadian
Award. As Bibi's member of parliament, and more important her
friend, I wish to congratulate her.
* * *
AQUATIC HALL OF FAME
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I take this opportunity to invite all members of the
House and indeed all Canadians to the Aquatic Hall of Fame and
Museum of Canada. It is located at the PanAm Pool, one of North
America's finest, on the rather appropriately named Poseidon Bay
within my riding.
Vaughan Baird, the chairman of the museum, recently reintroduced
me to the facility. Over the years he has thoughtfully acquired
a variety of objects depicting the art and history of aquatics in
Canada and around the world. The collection includes items
ranging from the celebrated Cutty Sark collection of sailing
ships and nautical memorabilia to the swim trunks of Olympic gold
medallist Mark Tewkesbury and even those of the late Right Hon.
Pierre Elliot Trudeau.
Items of interest from all aquatic sports can be found there:
swimming, water polo, synchronized swimming, and of course Mr.
Trudeau's favourite, diving. The total of all exhibits is valued
at nearly $4 million.
I congratulate Mr. Baird and his team at the Aquatic Hall of
Fame on assembling and maintaining such a singular collection.
* * *
URBAN TRANSIT
Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the number of automobiles and trucks on Canadian roads has
doubled in the past two decades. The Canadian public is becoming
increasing alarmed at the deterioration of air quality and the
quality of water and the relentless urban sprawl that is causing
higher levels of congestion and road rage and is seriously
eroding the quality of environmental and economic life.
Public transit not only provides a cost effective means of
transportation but also plays a crucial role in sustainable
development for all communities, urban and rural.
The Canadian Urban Transit Association serves as a
representative of urban transit service providers, industry
suppliers, government agencies and related Canadian
transportation organizations. Its endeavour is to promote the
pivotal role that urban transit plays in enhancing mobility and
contributing to a more sustainable environment for all Canadians.
Members of the Canadian Urban Transit Association have come to
Ottawa today to meet with members of parliament to address the
issues of the public transit crisis and to facilitate discussions
on potential solutions. I rise in the House to commend and
congratulate CUTA.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister was in
Washington to talk about trade issues with one month to go until
the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber agreement expires.
Naturally the rhetoric is turned up and the American lumber
coalition is acting aggressively in opposition to Canadian lumber
exports. The Americans are threatening countervail and
anti-dumping measures.
The Canadian industry has worked diligently to develop a
solidified position in favour of a return to free trade in
lumber.
1405
Lumber producers in the signatory provinces of B.C., Quebec,
Ontario and Alberta have largely learned to accommodate each
other's significant differences. This consensus has benefited
Canada.
Everyone's resolve will be tested in the difficult days ahead. I
appeal to all political parties and all provinces to pursue what
is best for Canada: free trade for all.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, every
MP in the House knows or should know how often people walk into a
member's constituency office and ask for assistance on
immigration matters. It happens every day. It is part of an
MP's job.
Riding offices in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver easily receive
2,000 to 3,000 requests per year. It is a well known fact that
constituency offices of ministers of the crown receive even more
requests than ordinary MPs, often from neighbouring ridings.
It is also well known that inquiries with a MP's constituency
office on the status of an immigrant file are processed as a
routine matter and hardly ever brought to the attention of the
MP, who is usually busy in Ottawa.
It is therefore most unfortunate that some opposition members'
lack of familiarity with this aspect of a MP's regular
constituency function has led to a smear campaign against the
Minister of Public Works and Government Services who, as we all
know, is a hard working parliamentarian, deeply committed to his
constituents.
* * *
[Translation]
BAY OF BEAUPORT
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, recently, we were delighted to discover that three
Liberal MPs from the Quebec City region supported the position of
the Bloc Quebecois in the matter of Beauport Bay.
No doubt, rather embarrassed at failing to block the municipal
amalgamations, an important plank in their election platform,
they are supporting the position of the Bloc Quebecois. Big
deal, welcome to the side of common sense.
The Quebec City port authority has for the past 20 years blocked
the development of an exceptional site for recreational and
tourism purposes, one of the rare places Quebecers still have
access to the St. Lawrence, Beauport Bay.
Worse yet, in December, this agency stated quite seriously that
it wanted to turn the existing beach into a terminal for bulk
carriers and recreate the beach a little further along by
encroaching on the river. This announcement caused a public
outcry and mobilized public opinion.
The port authority will reveal its final plan for the use of the
land soon. Let us hope that it will note the regional consensus
over the future of Beauport Bay.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the national Liberal rural caucus is
meeting with farmers and farm organizations from across the
country to discuss the serious challenges facing family farmers
today.
As chair of rural caucus I would like to express my appreciation
of, support for and commitment to Canada's agricultural
producers.
As a government we need to focus our attention on agriculture,
particularly now that our producers are experiencing difficult
times. Canada's future food security depends on the action that
we take today.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is clear from the evidence that the problems of
inadequate housing, poor water supply, crumbling infrastructure,
economic underdevelopment and substandard education are causing
aboriginal people across Canada unneeded pain and suffering.
Now the auditor general confirms what band members and the
official opposition have been saying for years. I quote:
Regardless of program devolution, the department remains
accountable for the way federal funds are used and for ensuring
the results are acceptable.
He goes on to say that this minister and his department have a
wide variety of problems including poor accountability and
unacceptable results.
Why does the Sagkeeng Band not have a decent school for its
children? Why cannot members of the Sturgeon Lake Cree have
their education and health needs met? Why do the Kanesatake
Mohawks question the validity of recent votes on the reserve? All
of these issues are without adequate responses from the
department.
I call upon the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development to listen to these band members and be accountable.
The auditor general has made it clear that these issues need to
be resolved. I join with the auditor general and call for the
government to clean up this mess.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
on my feet again today to remind each member of the House that we
are less than three months from this spring's planting and our
farmers are in trouble. In many cases, without immediate and
substantial help there will be no seeds planted in the soil this
year.
At the risk of sounding repetitive, I would again point out that
years of unfair subsidies from the United States and Europe have
placed Canada's agricultural sector at a severe economic
disadvantage. When we couple that reality with an increasingly
high cost of production and ever shrinking commodity prices, our
once flourishing industry is failing fast.
1410
Canada is a nation that was and is built firmly upon our rural
and agricultural sectors. Farming is our foundation and that
foundation is crumbling around us.
A temporary fix is no longer an option. We need to act
immediately to repair the existing damage and to take the steps
necessary to ensure a prosperous tomorrow for our farmers.
Support delayed is support denied.
* * *
VERSATILE TRACTORS
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today in solidarity with the 250 Canadian auto workers at
Versatile manufacturing in Winnipeg, who have been on strike for
almost four months, in support of their efforts to keep open
Canada's last agricultural tractor facility.
Since Versatile Tractors was taken over by John Buhler, 350
workers have been laid off and the remaining 250 employees have
been on a bitter strike over basic job security issues. Worse
than that, Buhler now threatens to relocate the plant to Fargo,
North Dakota, taking with it a $32 million loan from the federal
government.
Why would the government allow a company to assume such a loan
without requiring repayment if the company leaves the country?
Are we to stand idly by and allow $32 million of Canadian
taxpayer money to create jobs for Americans in Fargo, North
Dakota?
I call it economic treason to abandon Canadian workers in this
way. I demand that the government recall the loan before John
Buhler steps across the border to Fargo, North Dakota, and save
those jobs at Versatile Tractors for Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
WOMEN
Ms. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
International Women's Day will be celebrated on March 8 under
the banner, in Quebec, of “Clicking on our powers”. On this
occasion, we must all recognize the very dynamic contribution
women make to the economic development of Quebec and Canada.
Women have always worked, regardless of their origin, their age,
their culture or their status.
In Quebec, like everywhere else, they have headed schools and
hospitals, when they were not heading very large families. They
have worked in the fields, cared for the animals, taken over in
factories during wartime and done a thousand jobs, well.
To all these women, who still today, are fighting for equality
and social justice, the Bloc Quebecois promises its
unconditional support.
* * *
[English]
TRADE
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the cavalier attitude of the department of international trade is
causing great concern and grief to Canadian businesses.
The softwood lumber issue is drifting like a barrel heading for
Niagara Falls. The government has not even established consensus
across this country, much less made a deal with the Americans.
Instead, we will be in crisis on April 1 when the Americans will
surely apply countervail and anti-dumping charges to Canadian
softwood lumber.
P.E.I.'s potatoes are being banned from the U.S., its major
market. The government has failed to even begin to address this
issue, and coming soon will be negotiations regarding energy
issues, dairy and wheat.
Going back to softwood lumber, I ask the trade minister to start
gaining consensus now across the country and to especially
consider the request of the four Atlantic premiers to renew the
maritime accord.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
the victims of tainted blood continue to get tainted justice.
After a three year investigation into the destruction of
government records, the RCMP has decided there is not enough
evidence to lay charges. It is the latest sad chapter in this
story.
Government negligence mortally harmed tens of thousands of
innocent Canadians, and how those Canadians have struggled
tirelessly to get justice. Despite the obvious moral obligation,
the government still refuses to do what is right and follow
Ontario Premier Mike Harris' compensation of all those victims
who were infected.
The Liberal government should not count those victims out yet. I
have been able to work closely with them for five years. I know
they will continue to fight for what they and all Canadians know
is right: full compensation for their plight and justice for
their cause so that such a tragedy can never happen again.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday Atlantic Canada took
another slap in the face from the federal government in a
response from the finance minister.
Atlantic Canadians want to advance their provinces from have not
to have status, but the finance minister is intent on holding
Atlantic Canadians back by not allowing them to go ahead, and by
continuing to claw back the natural resource revenues at close to
100% rates.
Yesterday he told the three Atlantic ministers that there would
not be any changes to this transfer payment until 2004.
1415
Why is the finance minister making Atlantic Canada wait almost
four more years for economic growth?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is mixing apples and oranges. I suspect
he probably does not realize it so rather than go into the
details I would be delighted if he would speak to the government
of Alberta and ask it if it is prepared to treat natural
resources in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland differently than in
Alberta. I would appreciate it very much if he would speak to
the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and indeed the
province of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, and ask them
if they are prepared to do the same thing.
We are very open regarding this but it requires provincial
consensus. I can tell the member that consensus does not exist
and did not exist when he was the provincial treasurer of
Alberta.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, he needs to talk with his own
Minister of Industry who, when he was premier of Newfoundland,
wanted the discussion opened on this. That is who he should be
talking to.
Has the minister asked these other provinces individually if
they are willing to have a discussion about economic hope and
opportunity for Atlantic Canada? He may be surprised with the
response. Has he done that, will he do that or has he decided on
his own that the future economic hope of Atlantic Canada will
just be based on the whim of federal Liberals?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yes, I have done that with the other provinces. Again,
as the hon. member knows from his previous incarnation as
treasurer of Alberta, I did it at a federal-provincial finance
ministers meeting when he was there. He knows I have done it and
I am certainly open to doing it.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, is he saying that he has polled each
one of the provinces and they have said, no, that they do not
want to reopen discussions? Is that what he is saying?
Let us hear clearly today what the result was when he asked each
and every one of the provinces, as he has said he did. Which
provinces said no to discussions, absolutely ruled them out, and
which ones said yes?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have raised with the other provinces the absolute
necessity of giving Atlantic Canada the kind of headstart that it
requires, and indeed the other regions of the country that have
sought it.
I have discussed this with the provinces over a number of
federal-provincial meetings. It is in that context that the
federal government, following the concept developed by the
Atlantic caucus of this government, put $700 million last year
into the Atlantic strategy. We are not just talking about it, we
have done it.
* * *
ORGANIZED CRIME
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, Alfonso Caruana is a senior member of organized
crime. He is serving an 18 year sentence for shipping massive
amounts of cocaine into Canada.
After one year he is living in comfort at the condo style
Fenbrook prison dubbed club fed. His two brothers have also
been cascaded to the low level Bath prison only a year after
their sentences. In fact the nephew is out on parole after one
year of his four year sentence.
Would the solicitor general mind telling the House how moving
these inmates to lower levels so fast is achieving his goal of
getting tough on organized crime?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague has stated quite
clearly, the government has got strong on organized crime.
When offenders commit crimes they are evaluated. They could
serve time in a maximum security institution and then a medium or
a minimum security institution.
What happens in this country is that those who commit a crime
must pay for the crime but must also be rehabilitated.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I do not know what to say to this. I guess it is
how fast they go down.
The Caruana family has been given no reason to discontinue its
extensive operations in Canada. As a matter of fact, a hit man
from this same crime family was let into Canada while his wife's
immigration file was given the special attention of the public
works minister. Now several family members are being cascaded
down as fast as it can possibly be done.
Why did the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration insist on
open borders for these criminals in the first place, allowing
them to come into Canada?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to assure all Canadians that our
borders in fact are well secure and our frontline officers are
doing their jobs.
Over 100 million people came into Canada last year. In fact
there were over 200 million border crossings.
1420
I would say to the member opposite, and to all Canadians, that
over 100 million people entered Canada. What we attempt to do is
ensure that those who have legitimate business enter as hassle
free as possible. We also want Canadians to have access to the
world because this is a trading country.
* * *
[Translation]
LUMBER
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Minister for International Trade seemed
exasperated by the answers of his American counterpart on the
lumber issue.
The situation is serious, because in Quebec there are 30,000 jobs
that depend on the softwood lumber industry.
Can the Minister of Industry confirm that Canada's position has
not changed, will not change and will continue to exclude any
transitional measure?
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister was
quite clear yesterday following his meeting in Washington. He
stated very clearly to the Americans that Canada's ultimate goal
in softwood lumber is free trade.
The government understands and appreciates that this is a very
complex and sensitive issue. Discussions are ongoing now with
senior officials. The ultimate goal of the government is clear:
free trade in softwood lumber.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, just
this morning, the president of the B.C. lumber manufacturers'
association said that producers in that province, just like
those in Quebec, are prepared to fight to have the free trade
rules apply immediately, not as the ultimate or long term goal
along with transitional measures, but immediately.
Would the government not be better advised to develop a strategy
to support the lumber industry, instead of a strategy to
negotiate transitional measures and possibly quotas? We are not
talking about a long term or ultimate goal, we are talking about
now, about the end of March.
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with all due
respect, I think my colleague muddies the water when he talks
about a quota based system. The government has absolutely no
interest in a quota based system. The minister has said that
repeatedly.
Discussions are ongoing throughout the country with the people
and the different sectors involved in softwood lumber. The
federal-provincial ministers have been meeting on this in the
past, as my colleague knows, and senior officials will be meeting
in the very near future on this. This is a very high priority
for the government.
May I remind the leader of the Bloc Quebecois that the agreement
does not expire until March 31.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, recent
statements made by the Minister for International Trade are not
at all reassuring, particularly since the parliamentary
secretary told the House, yesterday and Friday, about a long
term goal regarding free trade.
Will the government confirm today that a return to free trade in
the short term, that is when the current agreement expires, is
the only objective being sought in the negotiations with the
Americans?
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as my colleague
knows, the agreement is in force until the end of March.
The minister has made his position and the government's position
very clear on what our ultimate goal is. There are serious high
level discussions going on right now. The minister was in
Washington yesterday. He made the government's position
perfectly clear, and there is no intention to change it. The
ultimate goal is: free trade in softwood lumber.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, based on the
statements made by the minister and the parliamentary secretary,
can we be assured that Quebec will not be used as a bargaining
chip in the upcoming negotiations?
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister has
made it very clear that the government governs for the whole
country and that the concerns of the whole country and all
regions of the country have been considered and will be
considered in the ongoing negotiations.
My colleague knows that the Minister for International Trade and
the provincial trade minister of Quebec met on this subject very
recently. There is every intention to come up with a regime in
trade that serves the entire country, which is free trade in
softwood lumber.
* * *
1425
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Secretary of State for Latin America has just returned from
Colombia. He must now realize that paramilitary death squads in
Colombia backed by $1 billion worth of U.S. military aid are
committing political killings and kidnappings with impunity. The
U.S. Plan Colombia, far from being a solution, will aggravate the
conflict and the violence.
Will the Secretary of State for Latin America make it clear that
Canada, together with the European Union and many others, does
not support the total war strategy of Plan Colombia? Will he do
that today?
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was not listening. Please
repeat the question.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, that is
exactly the problem, the government is not listening.
Fundamental human rights are being trampled in Colombia. Human
lives are being trampled. In the interest of trade, the
government seems absolutely indifferent to the human rights
atrocities and the cold blooded assassinations occurring within
Colombia's borders. At least 20,000 civilians have been murdered
since 1996. Thirty-five trade unionists alone have been murdered
since I raised this issue in the House last June.
Again I ask the minister: Why is Canada not condemning Plan
Colombia's military approach—
The Speaker: The hon. Secretary of State for Latin
America and Africa.
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. leader of the New
Democratic Party would ask me questions more often, I would
listen very carefully.
She is absolutely right. There have been catastrophic losses of
life in Colombia. On average, 71 people die violently in
Colombia each day. Canada has not supported Plan Colombia. We
are providing aid separate and apart from Plan Colombia.
As the hon. member from B.C., who went to Colombia with me last
week, knows, there is 20% to 30% unemployment in Colombia. People
there desperately want access to Canadian markets. There are 40
million people in Colombia—
The Speaker: The right hon. member for Calgary Centre.
* * *
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
We know that Yvon Duhaime sent this very peremptory letter to
the Prime Minister just prior to the 1997 election. We know that
the regional branch manager of the BDC said in July of 1997 that
the auberge loan did not meet the normal policies and criteria of
the bank. We know the Prime Minister intervened at least three
times on behalf of Mr. Duhaime.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us what happened between
July 1997 and September 1997 to cause the bank to ignore its
own—
The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the bank did agree to provide a loan in a certain
amount. I would like to ask the hon. member what happened to
cause the local caisse populaire and the Quebec solidarity fund
to join in that loan. Who talked to them? Why is he
not alleging that there is something wrong with them? If he
cannot allege and prove that, then there is nothing wrong with
the interventions of the Prime Minister as local MP for the area.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the bank changed its position and we want to know why it changed
in those two months.
Since the Deputy Prime Minister talks about documents, we have
here the document in which the regional manager of the bank said
that the auberge loan did not meet the bank's criteria.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister table in the House the documents
and the arguments that caused the bank to ignore the advice of
its own regional manager and accede to the directives of Yvon
Duhaime and the Prime Minister to approve a loan that did not
meet the bank's own criteria?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is very clear that the leader of the Conservative
Party is making representations either as a result of direct
dialogue with the former president of the bank or indirect
dialogue with the former president of the bank.
1430
This president is now before the courts with BDC sorting out a
dispute involving millions of dollars. Is it appropriate for the
leader of the Conservative Party to stand there and attempt to
take that case before parliament when it ought to be adjudicated
before the courts?
* * *
GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today the Prime Minister's spin
doctor wrote a lengthy letter giving her version of the Prime
Minister's sorry record of interference in government programs in
his riding. Her story contradicts or ignores the facts given by
her own boss, the auditor general and the ethics counsellor.
With four different versions of the same story, who is right:
the Prime Minister, the auditor general, the ethics counsellor or
the government spin doctor?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I read the letter carefully just before coming into the
House. It supports completely in a clear and factual way the
position of the Prime Minister.
The hon. member better get her eyes checked and read the letter
again because there is no contradiction. It clearly supports the
position of the Prime Minister, which in turn has been supported
by the ethics counsellor.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister was
able to work at lightning speed to get Yvon Duhaime his business
development loan, it was nothing compared to speed of getting him
the TJF loan.
The TJF grant was announced at a press conference on May 28,
more than two months before it was even approved. Why did the
Prime Minister override the department's approval process?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is incorrect in her
assertion. Let me just review the facts.
The facts are that the project met the terms and conditions of
the program. The facts are that $164,000 were invested in the
project. The facts are that 19 jobs were created. There were
other partners, the caisse populaire and the FDQ solidarity fund,
and the project was fully supported by the provincial PQ
government.
* * *
[Translation]
SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, 34 heads of
state will soon be gathering in Quebec City at the summit of the
Americas and, as is only fitting, the premier of Quebec would
like to be able to welcome them to his province.
Will the federal government, which is perfectly aware of this
legitimate request by the premier of Quebec, finally authorize
the premier to address the heads of state, as all Quebecers
would like him to?
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada
and the government of Quebec are in frequent communication in
connection with the summit of the Americas. I am confident that
together we will find a modus operandi with respect to the role
of the government of Quebec at the summit.
The Prime Minister's personal representative, Marc Lortie, meets
regularly with the representatives of the government of Quebec.
These meetings, I am told, are very cordial and productive.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is true
that if Quebec were sovereign, we would not have to beg for a
place at the Summit of the Americas.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Ms. Francine Lalonde: It would go without saying, as it does for
the states which will be represented by their prime ministers
around the table.
Since the right of the premier of Quebec to address the 34 heads
of state is subject to the agreement of the federal government,
would it not show a minimum of respect for the people of Quebec—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Ms. Francine Lalonde: —to allow the political leader of Quebecers
to welcome the 34 heads of state to our province?
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is the same old broken
record.
Discussions are being held with the government of Quebec on a
wide range of topics to do with the summit. I think that the
dialogue at this point is very constructive. We on the
government side expect this dialogue to continue.
* * *
[English]
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the facts are that on April 21, 1997, Yvon Duhaime wrote
a letter to the Prime Minister asking for help in getting a
Business Development Bank loan.
HRD found out just two weeks later. It was amazing that funding
was assured.
1435
Shortly thereafter, just four days before the 1997 election was
called, HRD funding was publicly announced. The fact is that was
two months before it was even approved by the minister.
What was it: vote buying, protecting financial interest or both?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this was about assisting an area of
extraordinarily high unemployment. This was a program that was
put in place to recognize the importance of tourism in an area of
Quebec that needed help.
This was an undertaking that has been discussed many times in
the House, an undertaking that has provided employment for
citizens in a very high area of unemployment in Quebec. It is a
project that we continue to support.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, in fact it was extraordinary; that is for sure. On
July 15, just a short while later, the Business Development Bank
branch at Trois-Rivières wrote a letter to senior bank executives
saying that the auberge was a “high global risk outside the
normal policy and criteria of the bank”.
The loan had been approved and announced two months earlier,
strangely enough during the 1997 election. How did grants and
loans in the Prime Minister's riding get political approval prior
to departmental approval?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a couple of very important things. First,
in his report last fall the auditor general concluded “In our
view the project met the TJF criteria”.
Second, and perhaps most important, it may have been a risky
project but today 74 people are working who would not have been
working otherwise.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of National Defence is treating the military personnel who served
in the Balkans and may be victims of depleted uranium munitions
with unimaginable insensitivity.
As countries such as Portugal, Norway and Greece have done, does
the government intend to have all soldiers—and I mean all
soldiers—who served in the Balkans undergo a complete medical?
[English]
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we are co-operating with NATO in studies that are
being done. We have been involved in our own studies and we have
certainly received studies from other countries. There has been
no link, scientifically proven, between depleted uranium and any
of the illnesses that Canadian soldiers have. Nor is there any
indication that any rubble would cause disease.
However, to help our forces personnel with peace of mind, we
have given them the opportunity to have testing done by
independent laboratories, and we intend to continue on that
course.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, some of the
more courageous countries have called for a moratorium on the use
of depleted uranium. Others are even threatening not to
participate in peacekeeping missions. Once again, Canada is
silent.
When does the minister intend to announce a clear position on
depleted uranium?
[English]
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we are not silent at all. It would be premature at
best to agree to a ban on depleted uranium, given that there is
no scientific evidence that links it.
We will certainly make sure that we continue to study this
matter. We will continue to work with our allies to get to the
bottom of what is causing the problems, the diseases that are
being experienced by our forces personnel.
* * *
GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, earlier today the government announced that it would
spend $165 billion this coming year. The auditor general
testified this morning that financial management has not been a
priority for the government. He suggested that average Canadians
run their budgets better than the Government of Canada.
Canadians have to put up with a $1 billion boondoggle, a
shakedown at Shawinigan, Caribbean cruises and so on. Now we
find that $26 million will be spent on the millennium bureau. The
millennium is long gone.
Will the Minister of Finance tell us if there is a competition
over there on who can waste the money the most?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member ought to read the documents carefully.
What he is talking about is funding carried over to complete
projects under way during the millennium year or that had to be
postponed past the millennium year because it was necessary to
finish federal environmental evaluations.
1440
If the hon. member is not interested in having the environmental
rules followed, if he is not interested in the facts of this
matter, he ought to go back to the drawing board.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am very interested in the facts. One of the other
facts is that there is a crisis on our farms today and while
every other department gets a raise—HRDC is getting another $2.5
billion—grants and contributions to the farmers are going down
by $470 million.
There is a crisis on the farm. Why do they have to put up with
less when everyone else gets more?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member understood the numbers
that he looked at as well as he claims he does, he would realize
and see that the liability was created in the same year as other
payments were made.
It shows up on the books as being double in one year, but the
liability was created then. That is where the liability has to
be booked. That is the proper bookkeeping method of doing it. I
am sure that is what the hon. member wants us to do and we will
do it.
* * *
HEALTH
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians living in rural or remote areas face many
challenges, including access to health care. Could the Secretary
of State for Rural Development tell the House what the federal
government is doing to support health care in rural communities?
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Rural
Development)(Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern
Ontario), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the delivery of health care in
rural Canada is a priority for the government. We recognize that
the challenges that rural Canadians face are unique and that the
solutions that we come up with must be unique as well.
This is why I was pleased to announce yesterday, on behalf of
the Minister of Health, $1.5 million to help nurse practitioners
have the tools to deliver health care in rural and remote
Ontario. This is part of the government's 1999 budget commitment
of $50 million being committed to rural and community health. The
government cares about rural Canada and rural Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
FISHERIES
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, following
the Marshall decision in 1999, the government bought back fishing
licences in order to distribute them within the reserves, and it
continues to buy them.
The licence buybacks mean lost jobs for dockhands working on the
boats and, in addition, move the resource out of the region, thus
causing job losses in the local fish plants.
I would like the Liberal government to tell us how it plans to
remedy this situation, which it created itself.
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am troubled by the hon. member's misunderstanding
of the situation. The situation is very clearly a voluntary
program where people have the right to sell something that they
own to the government for the purposes that he described.
I think it would be most unfortunate if he wishes to give the
impression that his party would prevent a voluntary sale by a
willing seller to a willing buyer.
* * *
ENERGY
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the minister of natural resources was in Washington
discussing a confidential energy policy with the U.S. and eagerly
promoting the massive expansion of oil and gas production in
Canada to help the U.S. meet its energy needs.
Instead of encouraging policies that promote renewable energy
resources and energy efficiency, the government is on a course to
greatly increase the burning of fossil fuels and production of
harmful emissions.
Why is the government putting the energy demands of the U.S.
ahead of our environmental and our international commitments to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. gentleman has totally misunderstood the
discussions yesterday in Washington.
I am happy to tell him that in the time I spent with Secretary
Abraham, the United States secretary of energy, at least equal
time in that conversation was devoted to topics about energy
conservation, energy efficiency, renewables, alternative sources
of energy and new technology, as compared to the conventional
sources of fuels.
I would also remind him that in our budgetary plans from last
year we have booked a total of $1.1 billion for the advancement
of Canada's climate change objectives.
* * *
1445
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House the Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration boasted that a criminal on Interpol's 500 most
wanted list was arrested three weeks after the government learned
it had let him in the country.
The minister referred to the 100 million people who entered
Canada last year. Does she or her colleague, the solicitor
general, have any idea how many more of those let into the
country by her department were criminals?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the overwhelming majority of the people
who come to Canada come here for legitimate reasons. I want to
inform the House that last year frontline officers at our ports
of entry actually questioned 65,000 people. Of that estimate,
7,300 people were stopped because of concerns of criminality.
Canada is a world leader in removals. We removed 8,600 people
last year and of those 1,700 were criminals. Criminal removals
are a priority of the government.
* * *
LUMBER INDUSTRY
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. On February 7 four
Atlantic premiers signed a letter to the Prime Minister entitled
“Softwood Lumber—Atlantic Canada Premiers' Request for renewal
of the Maritime Accord”. In that letter they said that failure
to continue the current agreement would have a devastating impact
on the region's softwood lumber industry.
On February 22 the Minister for International Trade said in the
House that no one in the country wanted the sort of agreement we
had in the last five years.
Would the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledge the request of the
four Atlantic premiers to renew the agreement? Would he also
acknowledge that by failing to get consensus they have now pitted
the east against—
The Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister for International Trade.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may
be interested in pitting one region of the country against
another but the government is clearly not interested in that.
As I said in response to this question yesterday, the concerns
of all regions of Canada will be taken into consideration in
developing the Canadian position.
Our ultimate goal is very clear. The minister was in Washington
yesterday. He made the position of the Canadian government very
clear. For the third time today, the ultimate goal is free trade
in softwood lumber. The views of all Canadians will be
considered in that regard.
* * *
MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, February is Black History Month. The
multiculturalism minister has published a list of outstanding
Canadians of African descent and it looks like a Liberal Party
roll call.
The Hon. Lincoln Alexander did not make the cut. He was
Canada's first black MP, our first black cabinet minister and our
first black lieutenant governor of a province. Even a major
highway is named after him in the heritage minister's riding.
Why does the minister stereotype them? If they are not
Liberals they are struck off the list.
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we got the list which we set
up to recognize Black History Month and to pay tribute to all of
the things that black Canadians have contributed to this nation
from a book printed by the black community on the who's who of
the black community.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, that is what is called stereotyping. Five years ago
the Prime Minister asked Lincoln Alexander to chair the Canadian
Race Relations Foundation. He reports directly to the minister
of multiculturalism.
Mr. Alexander is the most outstanding Canadian of African
descent in our political history. Why would she make a mockery
of this list by playing politics with it and ignoring him?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find the line of questioning
from that political party really interesting. It does not
believe in special interest recognition at all.
We are recognizing in Black History Month black Canadians and
the contribution they made. This is a fitting thing to do. This
is part of removing the systemic barriers to racism in Canada.
I would also like to say that it was this government that
appointed Lincoln Alexander as chair of the Canadian Race
Relations Foundation.
* * *
1450
[Translation]
SHRIMPING INDUSTRY
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Neigette-et-la-Mitis, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, by rushing to the rescue of Newfoundland, and its
then premier, Captain Canada, and allocating to it in one fell
swoop 50,351 tonnes of Northern shrimp, the Minister of Fisheries
and Oceans ought to have realized he would be creating a problem
for the entire shrimping industry.
Predictably, the Newfoundland mega-industry has completely
unbalanced the market.
Can the minister tell us whether he is now prepared to
re-establish a degree of fairness by giving Quebec a new quota of
6,000 tonnes?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the process of assigning quotas is a difficult one
because obviously there are many more fishermen than available
quotas. I recognize there are many people could be disappointed
when quotas are assigned.
That said, the problem does not warrant the solution being
proposed by the hon. member. It will have no impact on the
market per se.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Neigette-et-la-Mitis, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and his
provincial counterparts will be meeting at St. Andrews on March
30, can the minister tell us whether he is prepared to respond to
the note written to him by his Quebec counterpart requesting
6,000 tonnes of shrimp for Quebec?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has many
requests from many areas for many tonnes of shrimp.
I must confess that I do not have this voluminous correspondence
in front of me. I do not know which particular letters he has
responded to at any one time. However I will say that he will be
making a decision on shrimp quotas appropriately in accordance
with the criteria that were established. When that is done, the
people who have requested quotas will be informed.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, last week the minister for multiculturalism tried to
justify a Correctional Service Canada job advertisement that
accepted applications from Indians only. Other races were not
even eligible to apply.
I have an advertisement here from the human resources
development department that also uses discriminatory policies
which exclude certain races.
What does the minister say to people who are denied the right to
even apply for a job because they have the wrong skin colour?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, time and again members of that party talk
about racism. They talk about reverse discrimination.
We believe special measures are necessary. It is not about
reverse discrimination. It is about reversing discrimination. We
want to ensure that all Canadians can see themselves in the
public sector because that is good for the country.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the minister does not understand
that it is not possible to discriminate in favour of someone on
the basis of race without discriminating against someone else on
the basis of his or her race.
I have the ad right here. It specifically says that people who
are aboriginal are excluded, as are non-Caucasian people or
people who are non-white.
Since Indians are prohibited from applying for the job, what
does the minister say to qualified Indians who were denied the
opportunity to even apply for the job because they were—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Human Resources
Development.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to think that it is
acceptable for Canadians not to be fully represented in the
Government of Canada and its public service.
On this side of the House we categorically reject it. We will
not rest until all Canadians, as I said, see themselves as part
of this government and its public service.
* * *
LATIN AMERICA
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, earlier
this afternoon the Secretary of State for Latin America, once we
got his attention, indicated that Canada does not support Plan
Colombia. It is not the unequivocal, clear condemnation that
Colombians deserve, given the horrendous human rights violations
occurring there, but at least it is progress beyond Canada's
silence.
My question is for the hon. secretary of state. Could he give
absolute assurances that Canada is not and will not sell any
equipment to the Colombian military in view of the atrocious
human rights violations, the killings and kidnappings going on
there today?
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Plan Colombia has a very large
social assistance program and a number of features to it which
are not military.
1455
Canada is not participating in any of the military side of Plan
Colombia, as the Minister of National Defence knows. Canada will
not be providing any military equipment as we would be violating
our non-involvement in the war in Colombia.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are concerned about foreign and domestic hazardous and
toxic waste.
Could the Minister of the Environment tell us what actions his
department is taking to ensure that there is no illegal dumping
of hazardous and toxic waste in Canada?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada has ratified the United Nations Basel
convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous
waste, and we take it seriously.
The new Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, which came
into force on April 1 last year, provides my department's
enforcement officers, who incidentally have been substantially
increased in numbers, with new tools to combat the illegal
disposition of hazardous waste, such as new regulations to
control certain waste, requirements for disposal plans by
exporters and new criteria for permits.
* * *
HEATING FUEL REBATE
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, when the finance minister
was asked why students, renters, prisoners and even the deceased
received heating fuel rebates he told the House “The purpose of
the program was to help the needy with a cheque of $125”.
In the last election the NDP leader told Canadians that people
earning more than $60,000 a year were rich. As an MP, I earn
more than $60,000. To my great surprise, this weekend when I
went back to my constituency a cheque from the finance minister
was sitting in my mailbox for the home heating fuel rebate.
Will the finance minister admit to the House that his program of
handing out cash is fatally flawed and wrong?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the fact is that over 99% of the cheques which have gone
out have gone to the needy and to those who actually need it. We
said there would be flaws. I did not realize the flaw would be
quite this big.
The only reason I can give for the hon. member having received a
cheque is that it was given to him before he was a member of
parliament and he has obviously got a heck of a raise.
Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve a better
answer than that. In British Columbia the government is
crediting home heating rebates but not handing out flawed cheques
like this finance minister. There are better ways to do this.
The finance minister is ignoring the truth.
The inefficiency in this is astonishing. The cheque sent to me
is dated January 31, 2001, more than two months after I was
elected to the House of Commons. This kind of inefficiency
drives Canadians insane because it is totally unjust.
Will the finance minister commit today to creating a better
system that gives the appropriate money to the appropriate
Canadians who truly deserve it?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we adopted a procedure, the same procedure that was
adopted by the government of Alberta and a number of other
provinces.
What the hon. member ought to know is that it was based on his
1999 tax return, which I have not seen. If the hon. member would
show it to me, I would be delighted to go through it with him.
* * *
[Translation]
SOCIAL HOUSING
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
during the World March of Women, women asked that the portion of
the global budget earmarked for social housing be increased by
1%.
The commitments made by the government in the election campaign,
including affordable housing, are far from meeting the demands
made by women and the need for social housing.
Will the federal government take action to change the commitment
made during the election campaign, so as to truly do its share
regarding social housing, as requested by women?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, we
announced in our red book a program to build affordable rental
housing units.
We are currently negotiating with the provinces to reach an
agreement on a joint initiative to build or assist in building a
number of units for the needy.
We are co-operating with the provinces. As soon as the
consultations are completed, and the discussions with my cabinet
colleagues as well, I will be in a position to announce a new
program.
* * *
1500
[English]
DISASTER ASSISTANCE
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today a delegation is in Ottawa from
southwest Manitoba. The delegation includes bipartisan
representation from the Manitoba legislature through MLAs John
Gerrard and Larry Maguire, as well as various reeves, businessmen
and farmers. They are here because they have still not received
any help from Ottawa for disastrous flooding in the spring of
1999.
In Manitoba alone it is estimated that uncompensated losses are
as high as $85 million. Reeve Moior put it bluntly when he
stated that “we are in a state of quiet desperation”. Will the
Prime Minister acknowledge the validity of this delegation's
concerns and finally initiate a disaster relief program?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we have the disaster financial assistance program.
It contributed to the restoration in 1999 as a result of the
floods that occurred. Some $12 million of federal money went
into that.
I indicated to the delegation yesterday that we would be
reviewing the DFAA. I agreed with them wholeheartedly when they
said we needed a mitigation strategy. That is something the
government is presently looking into.
* * *
[Translation]
MUNICIPALITIES
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Transport indicated that the federal
government might consider giving large municipalities in Canada
increased powers through a constitutional reform.
Does the government share the view of the Minister of Transport,
considering that municipalities are created by provincial
governments and that their powers have nothing to do with federal
responsibilities?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the article was somewhat misleading. I correctly stated
that the federal government had pledged $2 billion in the
infrastructure fund for municipalities to identify projects in
transportation and elsewhere. That is a major commitment of the
government.
I also said that with growing urbanization in the country,
governments will have to work together to try to assist those
people living in cities and that I hoped the constitution would
be flexible to allow those kinds of programs to be developed.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The
opposition parties rarely make it clear which projects they are
referring to when they ask questions in the House.
Just for the clarity of the House I would like to confirm that
when I am speaking about a grant that went to the Auberge
Grand-Mère I am talking about 19 jobs that are sustained there
and for the Auberge des Gouverneurs it is 74 jobs.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During question period
I referred to an ad that specifically excludes Indians from
applying for a job in the human resources development department.
For what I think will become historical reasons I would like to
table this ad in the House of Commons.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent
of the House to table the document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1505
[English]
STANDING ORDERS
MOTION THAT DEBATE BE NOT FURTHER ADJOURNED
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to Government
Business No. 2, I move:
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
1540
Before the taking of the vote:
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I just received information on what we are voting on. Is
this the 70th time we will have closure in the House?
The Speaker: I am afraid the Speaker does not keep count
so I cannot answer the hon. member. I think this is the first
time when I have been in the chair as Speaker that this has
happened, if that helps the hon. member.
1550
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bagnell
|
Baker
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Castonguay
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| Cuzner
| DeVillers
|
Dion
| Dromisky
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Eyking
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Hubbard
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Marcil
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Matthews
| McCallum
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murphy
|
Myers
| Neville
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Regan
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Savoy
|
Scott
| Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
|
Tirabassi
| Tobin
| Tonks
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Whelan
– 140
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Bourgeois
|
Breitkreuz
| Brien
| Brison
| Burton
|
Cadman
| Cardin
| Casey
| Casson
|
Clark
| Comartin
| Crête
| Cummins
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| Day
| Desrochers
|
Dubé
| Duceppe
| Duncan
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Gallant
|
Gauthier
| Godin
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Harris
| Hearn
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hinton
| Johnston
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laframboise
| Lalonde
|
Lanctôt
| Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Meredith
| Merrifield
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Moore
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Paquette
| Penson
| Peschisolido
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Proctor
| Rajotte
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Robinson
| Roy
|
Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Skelton
| Solberg
|
Sorenson
| Spencer
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Vellacott
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Williams
| Yelich
– 106
|
PAIRED
Members
Discepola
| Fournier
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Girard - Bujold
|
McLellan
| Reed
(Halton)
| Rocheleau
| Rock
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
1555
[Translation]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order. As discussed at the parliamentary leaders'
meeting, I would like to request the unanimous consent of this
House to move the following motion:
That Bill C-209,
An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (Public
Transportation Costs), be referred after second reading to
the Standing Committee on Finance as opposed to the
Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations.
An error occurred when the bill was added to the order paper,
and I believe I would have the consent of the House to correct
it.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. If you seek it, I believe you would find unanimous
consent that the vote on Bill C-11, deferred earlier this day
until the end of government orders tomorrow, instead be
considered at the end of government orders today.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to change the
time as indicated by the chief government whip?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[Translation]
STANDING ORDERS
The House resumed from Febuary 26 consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is my
intention in the three minutes that I have to prove the
odiousness of the situation this government is forcing upon us in
the House of Commons.
It has just forced us into something unacceptable, closure on
closure. Here we are debating a motion whose aim is essentially
to reduce the role of the opposition in this House and to prevent
us from tabling amendments to bills under consideration, as we
have done in the past.
And so, after three hours of debate on this important issue—the
amendment of the standing orders, a change in the balance of the
parliamentary powers of the two sides of this House—the
government invokes closure. Three hours of debate on a matter of
such importance, a change to the standing orders, and the
government decides we have talked too much.
How else should we understand this approach other than to assume that
the government is now on a very slippery slope? Not only are we
seeing the government's arrogance following the election, an
election no one could justify holding in any case, in a sort of
mandate the government has drawn for itself from the public to
support all of its initiatives, not only have we had over the
past few days meaningless responses during oral question period,
but now we do not even have any ministers present in the House
to answer questions.
I have only one minute left, but how can I say in the space of
one minute how awful a situation the government has put us in?
The government does not want to debate any more. It is refusing
to debate with the opposition. It sees itself as the calm centre
of truth. It refuses to remove its blinders to see what the
people we represent want. It has decided to impose closure in
the most awful way possible, that is, by forcing us to play a
partisan role and rule on the merits of the amendments we put
forward.
1600
I would invite you, Mr. Speaker, to turn your attention first
and foremost to the 200 amendments the government itself has put
forward in respect of its own bill on young offenders. Perhaps
you will find some of them useless.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I am glad to be able to finally get a few words in edgewise on
this particular motion, although I understand the passion of the
hon. member for Elk Island when it comes to these things and the
fact that he had at his disposal what I have never had in the
House, that is, the temptation of unlimited time. He used it
well in going after the government for the perfidy of this
motion.
I was particularly struck myself by the way in which the
government House leader attempted to use, or misuse shall we say,
the McGrath committee report of 1985 to justify what he was doing
yesterday when he moved Motion No. 2.
For the benefit of those who do not know what we are debating
and do not know what we just imposed closure on, and because I
actually had some Liberal members ask me prior to the vote what
it was they were voting on, let me just say that this is a motion
that would enable the Speaker to select amendments which would
come to a vote at report stage rather than having, as is the
practice that has developed, all the amendments that are
submitted by members put to a vote.
Motion No. 2, which would have the effect of eliminating the
strategy used both by the Bloc and the Reform in the last
parliament, is a motion which comes forward by itself without any
other parliamentary reform and is a measure that is designed to
address only the government's concerns in this regard. It is one
of the reasons why I find it so offensive. It is not
parliamentary reform when only the concerns of the government are
addressed.
Motion No. 2 would correct a problem that the government sees as
a problem, and a problem that I think we all see as a problem.
However, the problem is that this is not the only problem and it
cannot be solved all by itself without creating a whole lot of
other problems.
Let me just quote from the McGrath committee. The government
House leader referenced the fact that I am the only surviving
member in the House of that special committee on reform of the
House of Commons, the only one left on the parliamentary reform
island. It says this on page 38 of the McGrath report:
We believe that the report stage is not used constructively. The
report stage was introduced into the legislative process as part
of the procedural reforms implemented in 1968. One of the
results of those reforms was the reference of the majority of
bills to standing committees following second reading. The
report stage was designed to provide opportunities to members not
involved in the committee stage of a bill to propose amendments
when the committee reported the bill back to the House. Thus, an
MP that was not a member of the committee dealing with the bill
would not be deprived of the right to propose amendments. It was
also designed to enable the government to introduce last-minute
technical amendments. It was not envisioned, however, that the
report stage should provide a means of reopening the entire
committee proceedings.
So far so good. I would say the government and the opposition
are literally and metaphorically on the same page here when it
comes to report stage, but then the committee report goes on to
say:
This is something which the government objects to and has now
moved to address as a result of the report stage becoming an even
more obstructive tactic than it was when the McGrath committee
reported, because when the McGrath committee reported we had not
had the experience of hundreds and hundreds, or indeed thousands,
of amendments being moved. Rather, we had only experienced
report stage with perhaps 150 to 200 amendments.
1605
Going back to the report:
—has developed because of the frustration of the opposition
parties with the manner in which controversial bills are
frequently dealt with at the committee stage. The report stage
has become, in the words of one member, a vehicle for vengeance,
a method of retaliation against what is seen as a stubborn
refusal by government to make any concessions to opposition views
when amendments are proposed in committee.
The recommendations we propose regarding the report stage should
be seen in the overall context of reform of the legislative
process.
There are the key words: the recommendations we propose. They
went on to propose something like what the government House
leader has put before the House, saying that the recommendations
However, what we have here is one recommendation, isolated from
the overall legislative context the McGrath committee talked
about, and proposed as a measure adequate in and of itself.
My argument today with the government is that this is totally
out of keeping with the recommendations of the McGrath report,
because what was the overall context of reform of the legislative
process that we find in this report and in the context of which
the McGrath committee said it would be okay for the Speaker to
resume the power of selecting amendments for voting at report
stage? The context was part of an overall package of
parliamentary reform in which the committee process, particularly
that process having to do with dealing with legislation, was to
be de-partisanized as much as possible.
In fact, legislation would not go to standing committees at all.
Legislation would go to special legislative committees which were
to be chaired by chairpersons who were selected from a panel of
chairpersons selected from all parties. We actually tried that
for a while. That system was in place here for a number of years
and a number of opposition members developed good reputations as
good and fair chairs of committees.
It was that context of sending legislation off to committees
that would be chaired in some cases by opposition members, but in
all cases by people selected because of their known reputation
for fairness. That is why they were selected to be chairs of
these special legislative committees, instead of having been
selected as standing committee chairs often are now, that is,
because of their loyalty to the government.
These would be committees on which we would not have
parliamentary secretaries acting as coaches to the government
members, telling them what to do and playing the role of thought
police and reporting back to the minister in case anyone had an
independent thought. These were to be entirely different sorts
of committees. They were to be committees that were seen as a
departure from the very kind of system we now have and which we
returned to at a certain point in the eighties as a result of the
fact that the Mulroney government got tired of parliamentary
reform and took back some of the reforms that it had been willing
to try in the early years of its mandate.
The current prime minister suffers no such idealism, either
early or late in his mandate. He is not even willing to give
things a try. What we have here is an attempt by the government
House leader to do exactly the wrong thing when it comes to
parliamentary reform, to address only those things that are of
concern to the government and to dress it up as if it is a
concern of all parliamentarians.
Of course it is a concern of all parliamentarians that we should
be reduced to the spectacle of voting throughout 24 hours or 48
hours. I do not think any of us felt good about that, either
physically or in terms of how we thought the Canadian public
viewed that particular exercise.
1610
However, it remains the case that this does arise out of
legitimate frustration on the part of the opposition, even though
I did not agree with the Reform Party's position on Nisga'a and I
did not agree with the Bloc Quebecois when it came to Bill C-20,
the clarity bill. That is beside the point as far as I am
concerned. The fact is that the government was not willing to
permit the kind of debate that both these parties thought was
appropriate to the significance of those particular issues.
I recall that when it came to Bill C-20, the clarity bill, the
way in which the government conducted itself on that particular
issue was particularly abhorrent. We not only suffered closure
here in the House, but we suffered closure in committee. We were
given only a couple of weeks to consider a tremendously
significant piece of legislation with respect to how our country
might some day be negotiated away, God forbid. Yet this was all
supposed to happen within a very short time framework. Witnesses
who should have been heard were not. Members of committee from
the government side were openly lamenting the fact that they
could not do their job properly.
It is in response to all this that from time to time the
opposition decides it is going to use whatever procedural
loopholes exist to wreak a certain kind of parliamentary and
political vengeance on the government. It is not that effective.
It is not something that yielded the Bloc a whole lot more votes
in Quebec, as far as I can make out, in the election on November
27. Nor did it did lead to a breakthrough on the part of the
reform-alliance party. These things do not have any great
political virtue in the big picture.
However, here we are talking about parliamentary reform. We are
talking about parliamentary culture. It is wrong for the
government to insist that only its problems, only its
frustrations with the current set-up, are the ones that must
receive immediate attention. I am disappointed that the
government House leader did not try to craft even a small
package. It would not have had to cover the whole gamut of
parliamentary reform and all the things that we could properly be
considering if we were trying to put together the package on
parliamentary reform. However, it could have addressed some of
the concerns members of the opposition have, for instance, with
respect to time allocation.
In the dying days of the last parliament there were discussions
about creating some kind of mechanism whereby if the government
wanted to move time allocation on a particular motion, at least
the minister responsible for that piece of legislation would be
answerable to the House for a couple of hours as to why it was so
important that this legislation had to go through right away.
That might have been one thing the government could have done.
There are others.
One of the things we find is that in some respects not much has
changed, because I am using the language of the McGrath committee
of 16 years ago all over again. Significant legislation is not
dealt with properly in the House. In fact, there seems to be a
kind of inverse relationship. The more significant the
legislation is, the less properly it is dealt with.
If legislation dealing with dog licences were in our
jurisdiction, we would take all kinds of time with that. The
legislation would be given to a committee which would take its
time, call witnesses, hear from dogs, whatever. The committee
would travel around the country. However, if it is something
like the clarity bill or the Nisga'a agreement or the Canada
pension plan reform, and the list goes on, if we have two days of
debate, wow. Imagine two days of debate in parliament. We would
have two days of debate on something significant, but four days
of debate on something insignificant.
That is the record of the government. The more significant it
is, the more the government wants to whisk it off, get it off the
floor of the House of Commons, get it into committee and turn it
over to the trained seals. The government will not be open and
will not listen to amendments. Then it will bring back the
legislation and expect the opposition to be in a good mood when
we get to report stage.
1615
We are not in a good mood by the time we get to report stage, if
we have had time allocation on second reading and if we have had
a committee process that has been time allocated itself, as it
was with Bill C-20. We are not in a good mood by the time we get
to report stage and we should not be. We have a right not to be
because we do not feel that things have been dealt with properly.
Sometimes we see the kind of tactics the government is moving now
to address.
I am not against, in principle, the Chair having the power to
select amendments. I never have been. I signed the McGrath
report. I have cited other instances. On other occasions I have
argued that the Speaker should have this power. I have also
argued, Mr. Speaker, that you, the Chair, should have the power
to do something about the abuses against parliament committed by
the government, not just by the opposition. The Chair should
have the power to refuse time allocations, if that time
allocation comes at a time when there has not been sufficient
debate.
If the motion had some balance to it, if it had given the
Speaker discretion over government abuse, government tactics,
government misuse of procedural loopholes, at the same time as it
did the same for the opposition, then maybe members might have
heard a different speech from me today. Instead we have this
lopsided thing.
This along with electronic voting is supposed to be
parliamentary reform. Close a major loophole for the opposition,
bring in electronic voting as pursuant to what was promised in
the throne speech and the government has its package. I hope
that is not all there is to it. I have some feeling from the
government House leader that that is not all there is to it.
However, it would be hard to come to any other conclusion on the
evidence at this point.
That is why the NDP is very much opposed to this particular
motion and we hope others members of parliament are as well.
Perhaps somewhere on the government side somebody will decide
that he or she wants to make a speech in favour of balanced
parliamentary reform instead of just defending this one-sided,
unilateral, dictatorial, measure which has been introduced by the
government House leader.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I would very much like to attach my own remarks to
those of the previous speaker, the hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona, as a dean of the House and as a member of
the McGrath committee which he referred to in his remarks. He
certainly has the moral authority to speak on this particular
issue and does so with great insight.
The leader of the government in the House is seeking to alter
the standing orders of the House, and do so with an instrumental
note to the House and to the Speaker, by banning what he calls
repetitive and vexatious amendments at the report stage. As was
alluded to, this is but one approach and one attempt to deal with
an issue that arose in the last parliament over flooding the
order paper with amendments, amendments that the government House
leader has chosen to describe as frivolous and vexatious.
However, when I reviewed the remarks of the hon. government
House leader, I noted that in the text he referred to
consultation. We in the opposition have become somewhat
accustomed, unfortunately, to token consultation, wherein we are
advised after the fact that the government has taken a certain
position on an issue and then receive a perfunctory phone call
simply to inform us that this has happened. This is the type of
consultation that occurred in this particular instance. This is
why, as is certainly evident from the tone of most speakers on
this side of the House, there has been particular offence taken
to the manner in which the government has chosen to proceed on
this.
There are obviously other avenues the government could have
pursued, not the least of which was real consultation. I find it
passing strange and the worst type of irony when we talk about
the use of closure on this issue. I point out with great
emphasis that time allocation was brought in on the very first
piece of legislation which came before the House upon the
resumption of this the 37th parliament.
That in and of itself puts a very clear shot over the bow of the
opposition about the government's intentions on parliamentary
reform, let alone co-operation.
1620
The remarks by the previous speaker on this issue as they
pertain to the government's future goodwill is very much in
jeopardy, particularly with respect to what remaining powers
there are for members of opposition and members of the government
side to express their concern, let alone their opposition to what
the government has chosen to do.
I will briefly review what took place that led to the point
where we are now at. As a new member of the House of Commons, it
certainly was not one of my proudest moments to stand here and
vote repetitively for hours on end. To draw the broader analogy,
it is fair to say that it was not a proud moment for parliament
at all. However, it is what led to that point that is very much
at the heart of the debate.
It is the sheer and utter frustration that members of the
Chamber feel in their ability to not only express their concern
and their opposition but to even interact with members of the
government, particularly cabinet. The government has chosen to
go about this in a fashion that essentially cherry-picks from the
Westminster tradition; that is to borrow a single example that
suits its cause. I am talking about the specific motion that is
before us which is very much borrowed from the British tradition.
Reviewing it in its broader context, it ignores, and the
government House leader certainly ignores, the fact that there
are other powers that exist in the parliament of Great Britain
that allow the Speaker of the House to deny the government's use
of closure or a motion for time allocation. Similarly, the
Speaker has within his powers the ability to order cabinet
ministers to come before the parliament, to be accountable not
only to the House and the members but also to the country. We
have rarely, if ever, seen that particular exercise.
Sadly, what we have become accustomed to is important government
announcements being made across the street in the press gallery.
We hear about them again after the fact. Yet the press and the
Canadian people wonder aloud why it is that parliament's role is
being diminished and its relevance questioned. It is very much
attributable to the actions of this administration, the
government, by choking and cutting off the ability of the
opposition to question what it does. Even members in its own
party do not have the ability to question its policy decisions
and its legislative initiatives. The government has cut that
off.
At the risk of being repetitive, we saw in the Speech from the
Throne the government's vague reference to modernizing parliament
through the use of electronic voting. We know the result of
that. There will be less interaction with government, less
direct accountability and certainly less direct democracy. There
will be no ability to give and take on the floor of the House.
Further evidence of modernization is to take away one of the last
remaining instruments that the opposition had to hold up the
government and at least slow down its rapid move to bring in new
legislation.
I will interrupt my own remarks to indicate that I will be
splitting my time with the right hon. member for Calgary Centre.
The practices of government are extremely bizarre when looked at
in terms of the encodified manner in which it has presented the
motion. The government is unable to put this motion before the
House in both official languages. It is not possible for a
committee of this House to draft a report and have it brought
back to the floor of the House of Commons to declare what this
House wants to do and what the rules will be when it is borrowed
from the Westminster practice. As we know, those particular
rules of practice are not available in both official languages to
this Chamber.
It also troubles us greatly to think that the government appears
to be foisting upon the Parliament of Canada unstated and foreign
guidelines that come from another chamber. That is to say, are
we to take our direction from Great Britain now, as in the past?
1625
It is certainly ironic that the oldest parliamentary democracy
in the free world will dictate how we modernize our particular
rules of procedure. This is something surely, as a sovereign
country, we should be pursuing on our own. Does the Minister of
Justice rely upon the criminal code of Ireland? Does the
Minister of National Defence look favourably upon other countries
to decide upon his own?
It is fair to say that the government did have other options
available to it. It could have pursued this in a different
fashion. It chose not to. The minister in bringing forward the
motion speaks for cabinet. Did the cabinet agree to surrender
our entire independence on this? If it did, it should resign.
This is a matter that should be decided by all members of the
House, not the executive branch alone. To suggest otherwise,
runs contrary to the basic tenets of democracy. To suggest that
the cabinet alone decides how this place should function is
offensive.
The government has a problem. The House leader has a problem.
The House itself has a problem. If there is to be a repetition
of the destruction of our report stage process, as this motion
could potentially do, we have to deal with it in unity. We have
to deal with it collectively. This is not the solution, to bring
it in and to impose closure. It is certainly not the language
that the House should understand or tolerate.
The House has already given its Speaker full power to select the
amendments at report stage. That power currently exists.
Restating it is a way to skirt around the real issue. If there
is any doubt that this is the accepted way to alter the
jurisprudence and preserve our national self-respect, then we
should be engaging in a far more involved process than that which
we have seen. The House can do better than say that we just do
it because Great Britain does it. We need a made in Canada
solution. The standing committee should get on with the work
necessary to bring that about.
I suggest again that the reason behind this has very much to do
with the government's desire to avoid any kind of delay in the
reintroduction of the youth criminal justice bill. It is doing
this because it feels that it might be embarrassed again by not
being able to introduce one of its top ten priorities.
I will turn the floor over to my hon. colleague, the right hon.
member for Calgary Centre, to conclude our remarks and our
position on the motion.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
want to express my appreciation to the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for sharing his time with me.
He talked about a made in Canada solution. This should also be
a made in parliament solution and it is not. It is one that is
made by the government and imposed upon the House of Commons.
That is not the way we will achieve change in this institution
that bears the stamp of legitimacy.
I am taking part in the debate because there is an extraordinary
opportunity now for us in the House to make changes that will
make this a much more effective parliament. It requires some
leadership on the part of the government. Unfortunately, these
early actions indicate that it is not prepared to undertake the
kinds of changes that are necessary.
The government House leader characterizes this as a single, very
confined issue. It is not. It is part of a pattern of driving
democracy out of the House of Commons and of turning this
parliament and, I regret to say, turning the Speaker into a
simple servant of the government. It reverses the whole history
and the whole idea of parliament. It reduces the accountability
of the government. More seriously perhaps, it reduces the
independence of the Speaker of the House of Commons.
There is no doubt that some means must be found to ensure that
parliament can act. However, there is also no doubt that the
opposition must be able to delay actions which it thinks is
wrong. That is what parliament is about. There ought to be
limits on the power of government. That is why we established
the rules of parliament.
Obviously, the tactics of the Alliance Party on the Nisga'a bill
and the tactics of the Bloc Quebecois on the clarity bill have
caused legitimate concern on the part of the government. They do
to all parliamentarians. It is not the first time these issues
have arisen.
1630
In the last parliament the Speaker was never asked for a ruling
on the correctness of the tactics that were followed. I suspect
that the government was fearful of an unfavourable ruling by the
Speaker and therefore remained silent.
Now there is no risk of an unfavourable ruling by the Speaker
because the government, by this motion, is telling the Speaker
what it is that he is supposed to decide.
Instead of discussing the issue as a whole parliament, as we
should be, the government is moving now to instruct the Speaker
not to accept amendments that the government considers to be
frivolous. It does that, just so it is clear, without the
support of any other party in the House.
[Translation]
When parliaments change their rules, the problem is to ensure
that the changes are perceived as legitimate.
The traditional way of reaching a consensus is through
committees made up of representatives from all parties. This is
definitely not what happened here.
This is a change imposed by closure. There was no consultation,
no attempt to arrive at an agreement. The result is that the
House now finds itself with a rule that will not be perceived as
legitimate, for decades to come. This change to the Standing
Orders of the House of Commons is all the more difficult to
accept because it concerns directions given to the Speaker of the
House, in spite of the objections raised by minority parties
here, and because it imposes restrictions on these minority
parties.
There is no longer anything to prevent the Prime Minister's
office from asking the Liberals to muzzle the bothersome House of
Commons.
The House has just elected its Speaker, a Speaker in whom we
have put all our hopes that he would honour this House. But the
first thing that the Prime Minister of Canada does is to tell the
Speaker how to perform his duties. The Prime Minister's action
grossly undermines the authority of the Speaker of the House of
Commons.
[English]
There are better solutions than rule changes by closure. The
Chair could be asked for a ruling or rulings on the basis of
existing procedure. If necessary, a committee could be asked to
devise new guidelines written for the House and known to the
membership of the House. Members who are not part of the
leadership struggle and not part of the everyday battles in the
House could be asked, as parliament has asked them before, to
address the situation.
None of these options have been examined, nor was there an
attempt to find a solution by consensus. Instead, change is
imposed by closure on the House.
As my colleague said, the government is cherry-picking U.K.
procedures. I, by the way, find it very ironic that a government
that made such a to-do about repatriating the constitution should
now be down on its knees bowing and genuflecting to the house at
Westminster.
Are we not an independent nation able to establish our own
rules? The government in the U.K., in its rules, is much more
balanced than this government is proposing to be here. What the
government is doing is choosing U.K. rules that suppress members
of parliament without having any of the counterbalances, such as
the power of the speaker in the United Kingdom to refuse a motion
for closure or time allocation.
It is fairly certain that a British speaker would have refused
to put the present closure motion on a change to the rules after
just two hours of debate.
The speaker in the U.K. also has the opportunity to insist that
ministers attend the house and make statements there and not run
off to the press gallery. The speaker can extend or restrict
debates.
Those are the rules of the house of commons in Britain, if we
want to look at the whole picture rather than simply cherry-pick
the rules that limit the powers of the opposition.
What is most serious about this is the government's attack on
the Speaker. By adopting this course of action, it is giving the
impression that the Speaker is to be a tool of the government.
It treats the Speaker as though he is still a backbench Liberal
member of parliament. It tells the Speaker what to do.
Let us be realistic. It is not the whole House that is denying
the Speaker's right to exercise his own judgment, it is the
cabinet that is issuing the order and using its power of
discipline and fear to bring its backbench members into line.
There was, Mr. Speaker, as you would know, to the great regret
of all of us, an infamous speaker in the House 40 years ago, René
Beaudoin, during the pipeline debate.
He lost the confidence of the opposition and of the Canadian
public because he seemed to be taking direction from the
government.
1635
This motion raises the risk that every subsequent Speaker of the
House could become a René Beaudoin. It creates the possibility
that every subsequent Speaker of the House could become a simple
servant of the government of the day instead of a servant and
defender of the whole House of Commons. It corrodes the
impartiality which is at the heart of the authority and the
legitimacy of the Speaker of the House of Commons. It makes the
House of Commons of Canada a simple subcommittee of the Liberal
Party of Canada. That is simply unacceptable.
The government asks us in this motion to accept its definition of
what is frivolous. This request is from a government whose
definition of propriety allows the Prime Minister to lobby a
crown corporation to give money to one of his friends.
The St. Laurent government, let me make the point, could have
dismissed as frivolous the objections that led to the historic
pipeline debate in the House.
The Trudeau government could have dismissed as frivolous the
amendments that ultimately forced its patriation package to the
Supreme Court of Canada where the Supreme Court judged that the
package broke the constitutional conventions of the country.
The Mulroney government could have dismissed as frivolous the
amendments to the Patent Act.
The present government could dismiss as frivolous amendments
that would make the ethics counsellor report to the whole House
of Commons.
The government's definition of frivolous will naturally differ
from that of the opposition. Who should decide in an unfettered
way in a case like this? The Speaker of the House of Commons
should decide, using the Speaker's discretion and the Speaker's
judgment, but that will no longer be possible after this rule is
changed by closure.
This weakens the whole House of Commons. It weakens the
parliamentary system. It is a step backwards and it should be
opposed.
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
purpose of the debate on this motion is very specific, and that
is what we must look at.
After everything that has been heard in the House recently, I
think we have reached the point where the record really needs to
be set straight. We must really dot the i's and cross the t's,
because the impression is being given that the House, at some
point, is being used by certain people not to improve the work
of MPs in the House or in parliamentary committees, but to
prevent debate.
I interpret this as the result of the fact that certain people
often talk just to hear themselves speak, but no attempt is made
to let others say how they think a bill could be improved. These
people take advantage of a loophole in the Standing Orders to
block debate.
I think that the House should allow all members to express their
views in order to improve a bill.
The problem right now is that members keep accusing the
government of wanting to gag the House, but there is no doubt
in my mind that the House is run not by the government but by a
Speaker elected by all members of the House.
The present government House leader, the leader of the
government party and the leader of the MPs who are in the
majority in this House, speaks on behalf of his members, as the
leaders of all opposition parties in this House speak for
theirs.
When the leader of the Liberal majority in this House rises and
tables a motion, he does so on behalf of all members and not on
behalf of the government, as there is a tendency to believe.
When ministers are in this House, they are answerable to the
House. They are across the way from the members of the
opposition, who can question them. It is not, however, the
ministers of the government who run this House.
This House is, in fact, independent. It is run by a Speaker
elected by all members of this House. There is, however, a
standing order which establishes the framework of intervention
for the entire deputation of this House.
1640
We must ask ourselves: Is the House leader of the majority
bringing in a motion to amend the Standing Orders of the House
of Commons? No sooner asked than answered, and the answer is
no.
The purpose of the motion is not to amend the Standing Orders of
the House of Commons. It is to enable the Speaker to use the
power vested in him, specifically to make a choice of
motions, which has not been done for some time, a number of years,
nearly thirty in fact, in the name of tradition.
The motion we are debating today has a purpose. It is not to
contest, not to speak of closure and not to say that the House
leader of the party with the majority wants to amend the
standing orders. There is a reason this motion was introduced.
The role of an MP is to take part in a debate, to improve a
bill. We have established a procedure in the House and in all
legislative assemblies in the provinces and the different
governments for the very purpose of enabling members to
intervene, to debate a bill or a motion tabled in a House.
The procedure is as follows. A bill is introduced, sent to a
committee, a standing committee or the appropriate committee
considers the bills clause by clause, motions are made and then
a vote is taken in committee.
When the bill is brought back to the House at report stage, we
should not try to do what is indirectly impossible, because the
amendments are to be moved in committee. The amendments
rejected in committee must not be introduced in the House as
well at report stage. In other words, we cannot do indirectly
what we are not entitled to do directly.
This is when the Speaker can intervene to choose to permit or
reject motions, to group motions. When we see, because the House
has been around for a number of decades, what is being done today
with the legislation on young offenders, for instance, we get to
the point where we say “Enough, already”.
We can talk about the 3,133 motions in amendment that were
brought in, 400 of which, namely Motions Nos. 2,646 to 3,029,
were aimed at changing the date of the coming into effect of the
act. These motions were moved by 44 MPs. At some point, given my
age and my experience, I tell myself that I do not want to spend
my time, and that is not what I was sent to this place to do, voting
all night long, night after night, on trivialities.
We can talk about the motions moved by former MP Jean-Paul
Marchand, Motions Nos. 2,657 and 2,658, proposing different
dates for the coming into effect of the same provision of the
act.
This is an abuse of time. I could go on. There are about 100
motions on the duration of a provision of the act. That is how
things went during that whole debate. When we reach report stage
and motions are brought in that have already been rejected in
committee, someone must put his foot down.
That is when the Speaker must use the discretionary power that
was vested in him upon the recommendation of a committee which
reviewed the Standing Orders of the House of Commons back in
1968.
Since then—there had probably not been any abuse at that
time—things have slipped. The sole purpose of today's motion
is to reconfirm the power of the Speaker of the House to select
the motions that will be debated at report stage. What we are
asking today is that the Speaker proceed as he was expected to
when the current parliamentary procedure was adopted, some 32 years ago.
The purpose of the motion is not to gag the opposition or to
change the rules of the House.
It only seeks to support the application, by the Speaker, of a
custom, a tradition or at least an amendment to the rules
intended at the time to allow the Speaker to keep things under
control, to prevent debates from getting out of hand and to
avoid having motions dealing only with punctuation symbols such
as commas, semicolons, exclamation marks, question marks and
periods.
1645
This is what this motion is all about. In addition, motions must
seek to improve the bill or to amend it to make it easier to
implement, and not merely to interfere with procedure. For these
reasons, I will support the motion of the government House
leader.
[English]
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I want to explain some of the problems with the
particular motion. It is interesting that the government
suggests that the Speaker would not select for debate a motion or
series of motions of a repetitive, frivolous or vexatious nature.
Seldom can one suggest in the House of Commons that an amendment
or motion is not repetitive, frivolous or vexatious in nature.
Much of what is said in the House of Commons is repetitive for a
reason, that 301 members have a right to choose what they talk
about. It is my right to talk about the same thing as any one of
my colleagues here. It is the right of any one of my colleagues,
regardless of party, to table an amendment that is similar to any
amendment I table. After all, that is what they were elected
for.
The government once again is showing that it wants to manage the
affairs of the nation from the Liberal Party's point of view and
not from any other party's point of view. I would be surprised
if government members in the House, and backbenchers in
particular, are even willing to go along with this issue.
The government talks about making changes to reform parliament.
It suggests that this is maybe one of those reforms because the
House of Commons in England does something similar. The
government does not have its act right on parliamentary reform.
It cannot pick and choose a cafeteria style selection of what
would be in its favour and deem it to be parliamentary reform.
That is just not the way it is done. It has to look at
parliament as a whole and select all the things that need change,
not just some of them.
By the way, I will be splitting my time with the member for
Dewdney—Alouette. We should understand that we have made many
attempts in the House to bring about parliamentary change. We
have asked, for instance, about questions and comments after
speeches. Rather than somebody standing and taking five to seven
minutes to pose a question, why could it not be done like
question period? Why could the allocations not be made like
that? What is wrong with looking at that? The government says
it is not necessarily in its favour so it will not do it.
Perhaps we should allocate total speaking time in the House of
Commons based on the number of seats of each party. The
government says it has not done that before. Why do we not have
sanctions or penalties for those who leak reports from
committees? The government says it has not thought about that.
It is a problem but it does not want to do that. Why do we not
have all committee business in public rather than hidden behind
closed doors? The government says maybe we should talk about
that.
Maybe the chairs of committees should be allocated on the size
of the parties involved in the House of Commons rather than the
awkward approach of having a majority of Liberal members on the
committees. Of course they select their own chairs so committees
are biased at the very least.
1650
Government members say that it might negatively affect them as
the government but that they will bring it in anyway because it
is something that is done in England. They say that the Speaker
should not select for debate a motion or series of motions of a
repetitive, frivolous or vexatious nature.
We asked why we did not have people on committees for longer
assignment periods. The government responded that it had not
done that before. We said that maybe the committees should be
televised so they would be open to the public. It said that even
though the house of commons in London and other areas like the
United States do that, it did not know if that could be done
here.
What about papers and reports coming from committees? Maybe
they should be debated in the House of Commons. The Liberals
say that they do not want to do that because it may bother them a
bit.
What about the parliamentary calendar? Perhaps we should change
that. Everyone knows that Friday is a useless day in this place,
but we are not supposed to say that. The government does not
want to make a change there. However, it says that it does one
little change, it does not want this frivolous nature stuff that
may modernize the House of Commons. It says that it will make
that change today.
What about making all private members' motions and bills
votable? If it is good enough to come to the House of Commons
for debate then why is it not votable? It is in other
jurisdictions, like the British house of commons. Why do we not
bring that in here?
The reason these things are not brought to the House of Commons
as changes is that it does not suit the government members. It
does not allow them to commandeer the issues and to control
debate. It does not work to be in the House of Commons and come
from a region like mine and want changes in here unless one is a
part of the government.
If the government wants something changed it can do it and it
can say that it is doing it because it wants parliamentary
reform. That is hogwash. The government does not want
parliamentary reform at all. It wants what is good for
government. That is what it is looking for.
The government says that all we are trying to do with our
amendments is to hold up debate time because the time will be
spent voting. That too is hogwash. Voting time is done after
debate time. What this does is allow probably one of the best
uses we could make of our time. Rather than voting time,
standing for hour after hour, we would have debate time. However
we cannot have debate time in the House of Commons any longer
than the government sees fit or it calls time allocation, which
shortens debate time.
The House of Commons is largely dysfunctional. It is still way
back in the 1950s and 1960s on some of these issues. The
government is even whining about televised committees. It is
whining about electronic voting that is all over the world. It
says that with electronic voting, which means pushing a button,
the whip will not be able to see who is voting for them and who
is voting against them in their own caucus. That is hogwash.
The motion reconfirms in my mind that the government has no
initiative and no desire whatsoever to reform parliament. This
is all about government control in a House of Commons that is
very largely dysfunctional and will not change until the
government changes.
1655
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing that we are having this debate
today, so early into the new parliament. We are talking about a
closure motion. We are talking about the government using its
majority to change the standing orders so that it might have more
power, more control over the way debate occurs in this place.
I will tell a quick story as a member of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The Alliance, with
colleagues from other parties, suggested that we try having a
secret ballot vote for committee chairmanships in this
parliament. It is a fairly minor step toward changing the tone
and inserting a bit of democracy into the committee structure
where we spend so much time doing parliamentary work. The
government voted that motion down and said that it could not
proceed in this piecemeal approach, that it would not be right,
and that we need to look at a parliamentary reform package.
There is no parliamentary reform package coming from the
government side. It is using the argument it used to defeat our
motion. It is proceeding in a piecemeal fashion today with this
motion and it is truly disappointing. It shows the government's
arrogance. It uses its large majority to stifle what it does not
like to get what it wants, and that is unfortunate.
The motion is one that should be defeated by members.
Unfortunately I do not think it will be. Over the last eight
years the government has used its majority to reduce the
opposition's role in debate and stifle debate on dissension in
its own ranks among caucus members. It has everything to do with
consolidating power and more power for the government.
The government is supposed to be the keepers of this place, the
ones who would move forward in a way that would protect democracy
and establish the framework for rules of debate in the House, not
only for now but for the future. Yet the government is going
down the opposite road. It is forgetting the lessons it learned
in opposition when it spoke about such moves by a majority
government. It is forgetting that one day it will no longer be
the government, some day in the future, hopefully sooner rather
than later.
l guarantee government members will look back on this day of
debate and ask what they did. They took away an opportunity for
opposition members to raise legitimate concerns and in effect
they will be railing against the motion one day. It is
unfortunate that they are not moving in a non-partisan way to
make the House a better place, a place where debate is meaningful
and individuals can bring forward ideas and suggestions.
Government backbenchers will be severely limited in the
amendments they can bring forward to their own legislation. There
are few tools available right now for government backbenchers.
This is one more that is being removed from them in their ability
to table amendments to government legislation. I expected
government members would be bringing forward this point in debate
today and not supporting the motion.
In the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs meeting
today the member for Mississauga Centre, a respected member who
does good work in the House, said that there should be a review
of the entire workings of the House of Commons. She said that it
was time for parliamentary reform. I agree with her, as do other
members on this side.
We have put forward some positive proposals. I know my
colleague from Langley—Abbotsford worked long and hard for many
years on the topic of parliamentary reform. It is something we
are continuing to work on.
1700
When our House leader brought forward these proposals, the
government's response was that they were half-baked and not even
worth considering. What does that say about the government's
real intention when it comes to parliamentary reform? Its
actions speak louder than its words. The government's actions
here today show that it is not interested in and not concerned
about structuring a framework that would make this place work
better so we could work together on issues we agree on.
Yes, we will disagree on some things, but there must be a way
for us to signal to Canadians that we will move forward in a way
which demonstrates we are more concerned about what happens in
the country and in the framework we put in place for our citizens
than we are about our own political careers. We want to
structure the framework for today and for tomorrow in Canada and
we have that opportunity. I believe Canadians are telling us
that it is time for us to move on parliamentary reform. Much to
our disappointment, the government's reluctance in this matter
demonstrates to Canadians that it has no will to do that.
We in the Canadian Alliance have put forward 12 concrete
proposals in our “Building Trust” document, some of which I
would like to highlight briefly and some of which have been
mentioned by my colleagues.
The first one would be to allow more free votes in the House of
Commons. We have put in place this motion:
That the House shall not consider the vote on any motion to be a
question of confidence in the government unless the motion is
directly related to the government's budget or the motion is
explicitly worded as a question of confidence.
We could put that in place. It is a concrete proposal that we
are suggesting.
The second one is one which we have brought forward. We
borrowed some phraseology from the Liberal red book having to do
with the ethics counsellor. We brought that motion forward and
it was defeated by the government. It was part of our proposals
for parliamentary reform that the ethics counsellor report
directly to the House. We know what happened. The Liberals
voted down their own red book promise on that particular item.
The third item is to create a new standing committee on privacy,
access and ethics:
To facilitate the work of the House and to increase the
accountability process of government, an additional standing
committee should be created and chaired by the opposition, whose
mandate would be to review and report to the House on all aspect
of the Acts and Reports of the Privacy and Access Commissioners
and Ethics Counsellor.
That is something we could do. We could put that in place.
The fourth item is the introduction of candidates for the
election of the Speaker. The rules should be amended to allow
and require candidates to speak in an open forum before the
election of the Speaker begins. That is something that actually
did happen this time, but not as a convention of the House or as
a change to the standing orders, which is what needs to happen.
My colleague from Langley—Abbotsford was instrumental in putting
that process in place.
The fifth point in our plan is the appointment of the Clerk of
the House through a non-partisan committee. That appointment
would be ratified and approved by all members of the House.
The sixth point in our plan is in regard to the appointment of
officers of parliament. We think the standing orders should be
changed to require the government to subject all candidates under
consideration for these high offices to a committee review. The
committee would also be free to recommend candidates of its own.
As is the practice now, the ultimate decision would be made by
the House and would be decided by the adoption of a motion.
The seventh point deals with the election of standing committee
officers by secret ballot. As I mentioned, this was brought
forward and voted down already. It is disappointing because this
is a concrete proposal.
The eighth proposal in our plan is for less government control
over standing committees. This would allow for a more
independent standing committee process.
The ninth point deals with order in council appointments. We
believe that a committee should have the authority to cause a
vote to take place in the House ratifying or removing an
appointment made by the government. A committee report
recommending the removal of an appointment would cause the
appointment to be withdrawn unless the government responded by
introducing a motion reinstating the appointee.
The tenth point is one which we are discussing today and that is
time allocation and closure. We are actually discussing closure
and we think there need to be changes in that process, one of
which would be to allow for a question period prior to a minister
moving closure or time allocation. We think that is fair. The
Speaker should only allow time allocation motions to be put
forward if he or she is satisfied that the motion does not
infringe on the rights of the minority.
1705
As my time is growing short, I will briefly mention the eleventh
and twelfth points. The eleventh point is about spending
accountability. We need to make sure we have accountability in
the way the government spends money. Lastly, we need to improve
debate in this place.
We have put forward some concrete solutions in a concrete plan
for change in this place. We hope there is a will among
government members to do this, government members who are afraid
that their actions are speaking louder than their words.
However, we will stand in this place and advocate for positive
change time and again because we believe the will of the people
in the country is for us to do so. We will do that.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
On such an important precedent setting motion such as this, is
there no way under standing orders that I could get the Chair to
acknowledge the lack of numbers of Liberals in the House when we
are debating such an issue?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I will take a moment to
think about this one.
The hon. member knows that he cannot allude to the fact that
some members are absent, therefore this is not a point of order.
[Translation]
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, before making my comments and observations, I would
simply like to reread the motion, because we have heard many
things, particularly from members of the opposition parties.
The motion introduced by the government House leader has been
somewhat distorted. This motion reads as follows:
For greater clarity, the Speaker will not select for debate a
motion or series of motions of a repetitive, frivolous or
vexatious nature or of a nature that would serve merely to
prolong unnecessarily proceedings at the report stage and, in
exercising this power of selection, the Speaker shall be guided
by the practice followed in the House of Commons of the United
Kingdom.
Our job today is to limit your role but to increase
your responsibilities, but the amendment moved should also
considerably speed up the work of the House and thus improve its
effectiveness for the general well-being of the public, which we
are all here to serve.
It is a question of correcting a flaw in our parliamentary
procedure which arose over the years in the course of daily
practice, rather than through any rule. We are all familiar
with the practice of delaying as long as possible the passage of
a bill which, for various reasons, does not meet with the
approval of our own constituents.
When I say our own constituents, I am speaking from the point
of view of individual members and sometimes of a particular
party.
As I said, we are very familiar with this practice, the purpose
of which is simply to delay passage of a bill as long as
possible.
1710
In all honesty, we have to acknowledge that there are many among
us, on both sides of the House, I have to say, who use this
practice and not simply to abuse procedure. We are not laying
blame on anyone here. Our actions in this House are all
motivated by the mission we have been given: to serve our
electors.
Whatever the aims of a given political strategy, they are in
accordance with the hopes of those who chose us to defend their
interests to the best of our ability.
Nevertheless, the end does not always justify the means, because
in order to look after the interests of one, we sometimes, even
often, neglect those of others. We necessarily impinge on
precious time that should belong to the House as a whole in
order to administer the affairs of the nation.
Certainly, the major parliamentary reform of 1968 provided for
this eventuality and gave the Chair the authority to strike it.
However, your predecessors, Mr. Speaker, have tended bit by bit
to give way to the expression of democracy to the point that,
over the years, this trend has become a parliamentary tradition
and the practice has taken root. It is clear that in many cases
it has been nothing more than an abuse of the practice. I
repeat: it is clear that in many cases it has been nothing more
than an abuse of the practice.
Earlier, the minister mentioned that the proposed amendment was
not the result of a unilateral decision. After consulting with
parliamentary leaders, we recognized the situation and the need
to correct it. However, the way to correct it remains
problematic. There were a number of options, but they did not
allow for targeted solutions on other rules that had to be
changed. Therefore, the minister simply chose to go back to the
comprehensive reform of 1968, which offers the best solution in
that it allows us to solve the problem without having to amend
other rules that have proven their effectiveness.
Indeed, it is simply a matter of reaffirming the powers that the
Chair already has, but that it no longer exercises to better
protect freedom of expression. I really want to emphasize this
point.
The opposition claims that, through this motion, the powers of
the Chair will be restricted and even constricted. That is not
so. In fact, the motion strengthens the powers and the authority
of the Chair. This is at the core of the issue.
Under the standing orders, once a standing committee of the
House has completed its review of a bill, a process that already
includes amendments, the bill goes back to the House for what is
called report stage. In other words, the standing committee
submits a report on its review of the bill in question.
We all know that when a bill is reviewed in committee, public
consultations take place and any committee member can propose
amendments or changes which, in his or her opinion, will improve
the bill.
1715
This applies equally to a government bill and to a private
member's bill that has succeeded in getting through the House for
referral to a standing committee.
This is the appropriate time for members, particularly those who
were not on the committee, to express their opinion on the bill
and propose amendments they would like to see made, provided of
course that they have given written notice of them. The only
exception to this rule is bills relating to supply or ways and
means motions.
Since the reform in 1968, there have been a variety of
amendments in the standing orders relating to the report stage,
on the length of speeches in particular. However, if the original
intent of this report stage was mainly to broaden the debate, it
was not in any way intended as reconsideration of what has
already been considered by the committee. Yet that is exactly
what is happening at present, and has been for some time.
As we are well aware, the present strategy consists precisely in
repeating in the House the arguments that have already been
raised in committee, and that have already been the subject of
discussion, exchanges of views, debates and comments in the
committee. It even happens that certain arguments are knowingly
advanced before the standing committee responsible for
considering the bill as a means of bringing them before the House
as a whole.
The last major procedural reform had taken that into account.
The standing orders conferred upon the Chair the power to group
together the amendments proposed in order to avoid repetition and
also to judge the merits of the amendments and thus their
admissibility.
In practice, however, our Speaker's predecessors bowed to the
benefit of the doubt and, gradually, out of concerns about
limiting freedom of expression, they delegated their decision
making power to the House as a whole, with the negative results
we are today attempting to correct with this amendment.
This power comprises all the rights necessary for the solution
we seek. The Speaker therefore has the right to reject a motion
the committee has already declared inadmissible, unless he
personally believes that it merits attention. If he deems it
appropriate he can call upon the motion's sponsor for sufficient
explanations to facilitate his decision.
He must retain only those amendments which, for a variety of
reasons, could not be debated in committee.
Finally, to shorten debate, he may group together motions which
concern the same topic or are in some way similar.
At this point, two criteria come into play: the content of the
proposed amendment, and where it fits in the bill. It should be
pointed out, however, that the Speaker is not required to voice
an opinion on the purpose or substance of the proposed amendment,
or even comment on whether it merits discussion. His sole task
is to decide whether or not the amendment is in order according
to the rules of procedure on admissibility.
In connection with this aspect of the rules of procedure, the
British parliament has an imposing jurisprudence, built up over
many long years of experience, which, I am sure, would serve as a
very valuable guide to our Speaker. The responsibility is heavy,
however, I agree. It presupposes what are sometimes some very
difficult situations.
1720
We must bear in mind the fundamental
reason for the existence of this chamber: to serve, to the best
of our abilities, the public, which has put its trust in us to
improve its living conditions.
It is also a question of a responsibility we must all assume for
the collective good of society. I think that this proposed
amendment to our parliamentary procedure will make our job and
the Speaker's easier and will enable us to exercise the
responsibility falling to us with greater rigour.
Were we to do so, I think that the general effectiveness of this
parliament would benefit and, ultimately, the esteem in which
Canadian politicians are held.
[English]
We have heard many claims from members of opposition parties.
One of them was that the amendment will actually restrict the
ability of backbenchers and simple members of parliament to bring
amendments to the legislation and that it will actually restrict
the Speaker's authority. The authority is already there. What
has happened is that through the years, from 1968 until quite
recently, preceding speakers chose not to use that authority. We
are talking over 30 years ago.
I would defy members of the opposition to name one court,
whether it be judicial or administrative, where frivolous actions
can be brought in and where the judge, whether a judicial judge
or an administrative judge, does not have the authority to
dismiss out of hand on the face of the evidence or the file, a
frivolous or an abusive action.
One only has to look at some of our commissions, for instance,
both at the federal and at the provincial level, whether it be
governance or civilian oversight of law enforcement agencies,
where there is that authority. It is a well established practice
and concept that frivolous, abusive and repetitive actions have
no place in proceedings.
It is already part of your authority, Mr. Speaker. This
amendment simply re-establishes that it is within the Speaker's
authority to deem motions, which been brought before the House
and which are frivolous, abusive or vexatious, out of order. In
many cases, the sole objective of these motions is simply to
delay the proceedings of the House.
There are members on the opposite who claimed that this was
somehow limiting democratic expression of members. I fail to see
how being forced to vote for hours on end on frivolous or in some
cases vexatious motions, or changing a comma from here to there,
allows me as a member of parliament to express the views of my
constituents. It does not.
1725
In fact, it actually limits the amount of time that I or any
other member of the House have to actually debate issues. It
reduces the amount of time that the House has in order to deal
with the substantive issues and to deal with them in a
substantive way.
[Translation]
Returning to my point, this amendment does not
in any way limit, constrain or lessen the powers of the Speaker
of the House. On the contrary, it reinforces his powers which,
while already in existence, have been affected by a practice which
has set in and prevented him, in a way, from exercising them and
putting them into application.
I believe that this amendment would provide not just the
government but the House as a whole with more facility and more
means for the democratic expression of the points of view of
their constituents.
This would, I believe, also give more time. We are always
hearing complaints about insufficient time for private members'
business. If we are not tied up, if our time is not taken up,
with votes about changing a comma we get more time. The sole
objective of such motions, which often originate with the
opposition and let us hide nothing here, is merely to hold up,
to block, the legitimate work of the House, the legitimate
work of the members.
It is all very well to speak of the government, but there are
members of parliament here. We too have work we want to get done,
whether through bills or through motions. Procedures and
amendments which are, in my opinion and that of many others,
frivolous or vexatious ought to be declared inadmissible. The
Speaker has the power. This amendment reinforces that power. It
hearkens back to the source.
In closing, therefore, I call upon all colleagues on both sides
of the House to support this motion by the government.
[English]
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, thank you
for the chance to speak on the motion which seeks to reaffirm the
traditional power of the Speaker to select motions for debate and
reject those which are repetitive, frivolous and designed solely
to delay report stage proceedings.
This is a particular honour for me since it touches on issues at
the very heart of Canadian democracy, namely the dignity of
parliamentary debate.
Canadians believe in the country. They are committed to its
values of fairness and compassion. They are dedicated to
safeguarding those freedoms which are our birthright. It is
because of this that they hold institutions such as the debating
procedures in parliament in great esteem. They see them as
living symbols of the values and freedoms we hold so dear.
Recognizing this, members of the House have traditionally sought
to improve the debating procedure of the parliament in order to
increase the dignity of the institution in the eyes of Canadians.
That is, for instance, why we are involved in so many
parliamentary co-operative institutions around the world to see
how it is done in other places and how we might improve what we
do.
Unfortunately, we have not always proved equal to the challenge.
In recent years some believe there have been early and worrying
signs that some Canadians do not always hold the institution of
parliament in the high esteem they once did.
While some of this may be just a result of general suspicion in
all institutions, some responsibility for this disillusionment
may lie closer to home with us in the House. For example—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I am sorry to interrupt
the hon. member. We have to deal with private members' business.
Once we are done with this, the hon. member will have 18 minutes
left for his speech.
It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of private members' business as listed on today's
order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1730
[English]
CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP) moved that Bill
C-213, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to begin
the debate on my private member's bill to enfranchise 16 and 17
year old Canadians. As many members of the House will know, the
bill was originally introduced in the last parliament by our
former colleague, Nelson Riis, who represented the people of
Kamloops, Fraser and Highland Valleys and the surrounding area
very well for the last 20 years.
Nelson Riis was an MP who was respected on all sides of the
House for his insight, his strong grasp of the issues, his
mastery of parliamentary procedures, his flair for the dramatic
and, most of all, his unwavering commitment to serving both his
own constituents and all Canadians. His legacy of service to the
country through his work in the House is one that few
parliamentarians can ever hope to match.
I am pleased to have been able to pick up the bill introduced in
the last parliament by Mr. Riis and lead off the debate today in
the House of Commons. I admit that when Nelson first talked
about the bill and introduced it I was quite skeptical. I
wondered whether 16 year olds were mature enough to vote.
Therefore I understand if members taking part in the debate today
are also skeptical.
After carefully looking into the matter and speaking with
literally hundreds of young adults in my riding, I am convinced
that enfranchising 16 and 17 year old Canadians would
reinvigorate and strengthen democracy in Canada. Right now
Canadian democracy needs a shot in the arm. Voter turnout in the
last election was down to 58%. That is the lowest in the modern
era. More than four out of ten Canadians stayed home rather than
exercise their right to vote.
How would enfranchising 16 and 17 year olds improve voter
turnout? Some people say it would actually lower voter turnout,
which is already lowest among voters between the ages of 18 and
25. That argument only scratches the surface of the issue. If we
look carefully at voting behaviour we see that exercising
citizenship through voting, like many life values, is something
most Canadians learn from their families at a young age.
Statistically speaking, we are more likely to vote if our
parents vote than if they do not. People who vote do so because
they value their rights and responsibilities as citizens in a
democracy. Values like this are most often learned in the home.
The problem with setting the voting age at 18 is that by the
time young Canadians are old enough to vote, which may be 19 or
20 depending on the electoral cycle, they have already left home.
By that age most young adults have either gone away to pursue
post-secondary education or, if they are fortunate, they have
found a job and moved out. We do not do this with most other
things.
Most young adults get their first part time job while they still
live at home. When young adults get their first job it is
usually their parents who teach them about important life values
such as the work ethic. Even if young adults do not get part
time jobs, parents often teach them about the work ethic by
making sure they do their homework or giving them chores to do
around the house in exchange for an allowance.
The point is that most young adults learn their important life
values before they leave home and begin living as independent
adults. Parents are most often the ones who teach about the work
ethic, the sense of right and wrong, and even things like how to
drive or fold clothes. By the time young adults leave home we
expect them to have all the tools they need to be able to live
and function in society, with one exception: voting.
It does not make sense that we expect young adults to learn
other life skills and values at home but not voting. We make
them wait until an age when most have already left home before
allowing them to exercise their right to vote. No wonder there
is such a drop off in voting among young people. Even young
adults whose parents do vote are less likely to vote than their
parents.
The biggest tragedy of all is that if people do not vote when
they are young they probably never will.
They do not magically become interested in politics when they
turn 30. Most remain non-voters their whole lives. That is why
we have had a steady downward trend in voter turnout for decades.
1735
There is no question that all of us as parliamentarians should
seek a way to improve it. Canadian citizens do not appear to
have faith in our system. One of the major factors, quite
frankly, is that they do not trust politicians.
A few years back there was a study done. The most trusted
professionals were nurses. The least trusted professionals were
lawyers. The second least trusted were politicians. That should
tell us there is a problem out there. We as parliamentarians
must work very hard to improve that image whether or not it is
justified. We must work and do whatever we can to restore
people's faith in the democratic system. Otherwise we risk
losing democracy, something we as Canadians have valued for a
hundred years plus.
Enfranchising 16 and 17 year olds would go a long way toward
stopping the downward trend. Most young adults would have their
first opportunity to vote while they were still at home. It
would give families a chance to talk about politics. Young
adults would have a chance to learn from their parents about the
values of citizenship and voting, just as they learned other life
values from their parents. Instilling such values would make
young adults voters for life.
This would encourage parents who at present do not vote to have
an additional interest in it if their young adults are home with
them and asking what is happening in an election. It would
encourage that kind of discussion in the home. Maybe we could
get some of those parents and older adults once again to be part
of the electoral system. Extending the franchise to 16 and 17
year olds would also have positive side effects for parents.
With voter turnout in Canada down to 58%, many parents are
obviously non-voters and therefore would not be teaching their
sons and daughters the values of citizenship and voting. Many
young adults could still learn about voting by talking to other
mentors like teachers, or even their friends at school.
I have been increasingly surprised at the well informed
discussions I hear from young adults in the schools in my riding.
Seeing their sons and daughters become engaged in politics would,
I truly believe, influence many parents who would otherwise not
vote to get involved once again.
I have addressed how enfranchising 16 and 17 year olds would
help invigorate democracy. That is the main positive outcome of
the proposal. I will now turn my attention to the main criticism
of the idea, namely the view that 16 and 17 year olds are not
mature enough to vote. When I talk to older people about the
issue that is the main criticism I hear. In my experience
nothing could be further from the truth.
As a member of parliament I make a point of visiting schools
throughout my riding. I always make myself available to go in
and talk to school classes or assemblies about the job of an MP
and about the Canadian parliamentary system in general. I work
extremely hard within the school system to be non-partisan. There
has been no criticism from teachers, parents, school trustees or
anyone about it because it is a matter of getting young people
involved in the political process.
I have talked to many classes since I was first elected in 1997.
Most of those young adults are no less intelligent or mature than
18 or 19 year olds. Very often the political discussions I have
had with high school classes I visit are just as intense as the
ones on the doorsteps, on the main streets or in the chambers of
commerce.
The issues we discuss may be different but they are no less
important. Many young adults are interested in issues with which
we deal as members of parliament that affect them directly. Young
adults have a vested interest in the skyrocketing cost of
post-secondary education or in the economy as they look for their
first jobs and think about their future careers.
They are interested in what happens when they go into the
workplace. It may not be a safe workplace. We hear year after
year of the increase in the number of accidents and deaths of
young people in the workplace. It is crucial that they be
allowed the opportunity to be part of the legislative process in
laws that affect them and in health and safety regulations which
affect them.
1740
One recent accident in particular still sits in my mind. A 14
year old construction worker in Alberta was killed on the job and
charges have been laid against the employer. I can tell the
House that the 14 year old did not have an opportunity to be
involved in the discussion of workplace safety.
Young adults have been affected very negatively by the Liberal
government's cuts to colleges and universities, by cuts to
employment insurance and by the overall mismanagement of the
economy. Every day the government makes decisions without the
slightest consideration for young adults, even though many of
them have jobs and contribute to society both as citizens and as
taxpayers. It is as though they do not exist until they turn 18,
and that is not right. They deserve to be heard.
Another issue that affects young adults directly is the Young
Offenders Act. Right now the government is talking about
changing the Young Offenders Act to make it easier to put 16 year
olds in adult court. If parliamentarians and the government feel
that 16 year olds should be treated like adults by the criminal
justice system, then they should also be treated like adults in
the electoral system.
I conclude my remarks by noting that I am glad the issue has
finally made it to the floor of the House of Commons for debate.
It is unfortunate that the bill was not deemed votable but at
least we had the opportunity to debate the issue.
Changing the electoral system is not an easy thing to do. A
hundred years ago women did not have the right to vote in Canada.
It took many years of persistent effort for women to win that
right. It took even longer for aboriginal people to win the
right to vote. They were not enfranchised until just 40 years
ago.
A few other democracies around the world have already
enfranchised 16 and 17 year olds. Most are newer developing
democracies like Nicaragua and some of the former Yugoslav
republics. The newer democracies started off with a clean slate
so it was easier for them to set the voting age at whatever
seemed appropriate.
In Canada we have more historical baggage. People are used to
the voting age being 18 and there is an understandable reluctance
to change it. I believe in the saying “If it ain't broke, don't
fix it”, but the fact is that our electoral system is broken. It
is obvious from the fact that 42% of Canadians do not vote any
more. We need to fix it, and enfranchising 16 and 17 year olds is
one of the ways we can do that.
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
happy to have the opportunity to speak on the private member's
initiative just described by the hon. member. The bill would
lower the federal voting age to 16.
This is a special pleasure since all of us in the House share
the same commitment to making sure all Canadians can participate
fully in our electoral system and express their views on issues
of the day. This is particularly true of our young people who
are, after all, the very future of our country.
For that reason, I want to commend the hon. member for her
concern for Canadian young people and for her commitment to
safeguarding their democratic rights, a commitment shared fully
by the government and, I am sure, by every member in the House.
I must confess that there is something very appealing about the
idea of expanding the franchise to allow more young people to
vote. As we all know, our youth care passionately about Canada
and are committed to making it even better. That is demonstrated
by the number of young people who get involved in the political
life of the country both during and between elections. Like
other members, I have been very impressed by their hard work,
commitment and dedication to our great country, and I agree that
we need to look at how we can involve young Canadians more in our
political system.
However, as the saying goes, the devil may be in the details. We
need to take a closer look at this to see what problems there
might be in lowering the voting age and whether or not it is the
right time for such a move.
It is important to note that the bill, while a leading
initiative, does not open new ground. Canadian parliamentarians
have revisited this issue many times over the last two decades,
and just recently, as the member mentioned, on a bill brought
forward by a former parliamentarian, Mr. Riis. For example,
parliament lowered the minimum voting age to 18 in 1970.
1745
In 1991 the Lortie commission on electoral reform and party
financing investigated at some length whether we should drop the
minimum voting age to 16 or 17. While it heard from a number of
witnesses who presented strong cases for lowering the minimum
voting age, it was also given equally compelling reasons for
maintaining the status quo, such as the following: persons under
the age of 18 were not considered adults for the purpose of
criminal proceedings but were instead treated procedurally
separately under the Young Offenders Act; minors required
parental consent for many important decisions such as applying
for citizenship, getting married and seeking some medical
procedures; and all provinces had set the voting age at 18.
It was desirable to look to harmonization of the voting ages in
all jurisdictions. Based on these findings, the commission
decided not to recommend lowering the voting age but rather
suggested that parliament might wish to revisit this issue from
time to time. That is what we are doing now. If we do not make
a move now, I am quite sure we will continue to study the issue.
An all party committee studied the issue in June 1998 and
recommended retaining the current minimum voting age. There was
also a re-examination of the issue last year as part of the
parliamentary review of the Canada Elections Act, however cursory
that may have been, which kept the voting age at 18. Finally,
lowering the voting age has been the subject of a number of
private members' motions, all of which have up to now been
rejected.
The remarkable consistency of members in the House over time on
this issue is not surprising, subject of course to the various
initiatives such as the hon. member's bill at this time. There
are a number of good reasons for retaining the current minimum
voting age for the time being. To begin with, there is the
experience of the vast majority of democratic societies around
the world which have in most cases set 18 as their voting age and
do not feel under pressure to change it.
Canadian experience suggests that retaining 18 as the voting age
makes sense as well, given the important role played by the age
of majority in most areas of law. For example, most provinces
tie the voting age to the age of majority, the age of majority
being a condition for all civil and legal activities and
responsibilities.
The criminal code relies under certain circumstances on the age
of 18 by providing specific rules where persons under that age
are involved. Most social legislation takes into account the age
of majority in terms of the granting of aid or social assistance.
In most cases family allowances are paid for the support of young
people up to age 18.
Many economic statutes make reference to the age of majority, as
well, particularly those relating to business corporations which
require persons to be 18 before they can be elected to boards of
directors. Most legislation dealing with alcohol use is also
tied in many but not all cases to the age of majority.
This being the case it makes a great deal of sense to maintain
for consistency 18 years of age as the age when our federal
electoral law might permit one to vote. This ensures
harmonization and consistency across our very diverse country.
Maintaining just one age of majority in all areas of law helps
prevent overcategorization and segmentation of our civil rights
by age and increases the certainty for Canadians on this issue as
they move from one part of the country to another.
However this is not to suggest that the minimum voting age as it
is now is set in stone for all time and can never be changed.
Rather, because Canada is so dynamic, our system of governance of
electoral laws must also change from time to time to correspond
to the needs of all its citizens as they may reflect changing
social, economic and cultural realities.
Should it become clear in the future by way of an emerging
consensus that we need to reduce the minimum age due to changed
circumstances, I for one would consider endorsing and supporting
such an action.
1750
I do look for an emerging consensus. It may be that members are
on the edge of a wave here. We do not know, but barring such
clear evidence we must continue to rely on the recommendations
and insights of the previous royal and parliamentary commissions
which have told us that the time for lowering the age has not yet
arrived.
While I cannot support the bill, I nevertheless commend the hon.
member for being the flag bearer for potentially a whole
generation of young people, a rolling over, evolving generation
of young people, all of whom are old enough to think, to reason,
and to know right from wrong. Most people will accept that 16
year olds are capable of those things. All members see that our
education system has helped us greatly in that regard.
The member's commitment and the commitment of other members of
the House as reflected in this and other debates will show that.
I urge all hon. members to continue to work together, not only in
this envelope but in all of the envelopes involving our election
rights and responsibilities, to ensure that our electoral system
continues to do the best job we can possibly do of enabling
representation of Canadians.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill
C-213. I compliment my friend from the NDP for putting it
forward.
She addressed something that is extremely important, not only to
the youth of the country but to adults: why we as a nation are
disengaged from the political process in appalling numbers. We
went through a federal election last November where we saw the
lowest voter turnout in the last 60 years. Less than 60% of
Canadians voted in the federal election.
Why is that so? Canadians are not only apathetic and
disaffected but are utterly turned off by the political process
in the House and in the country today for some very good reasons.
The reason that is so is that we do not live in a democracy.
We live in a totalitarian regime. The system is controlled by a
Prime Minister and a small cabal of individuals who are
unelected, unaccountable and invisible. They tell members what
to do, what to say and when to say it. Lo and behold the member
who goes against them. It is a top down situation. Members vote
as they are told to do, not what their conscience or their
constituents tell them to do.
The committee structure is under tight government control and
that is why they start pursuing efforts and initiatives that have
very little to do with the large pressing problems of the nation
today. They deal with irrelevancies because committees and most
of the House are designed to be a make work project for MPs, not
to address the big problems that exist in the country today.
To understand why members vote this way, it is interesting to
look at an unwritten code of conduct in the House which explains
to Canadians why they see members voting clearly against their
conscience, clearly against what they want to do and in violation
of what is the right thing to do.
It goes something like this: do what the leadership tells them
to do. It is also known as the principle of blind loyalty. If
information comes to them from outside sources that is adverse to
what the leadership says, they must be ignored at all cost, even
if it goes against what the leadership says and the external
information is true. If their personal ethics and knowledge are
against what the leadership tells them to do, they must ignore
that. It creates an internal schizophrenic environment in the
brain that prevents them from doing the right thing and is very
difficult to live with.
Zealotry is rewarded; objectivity is penalized. The
consequences for living up to what their constituents want them
to do, what they feel is ethically responsible or intellectually
responsible, where it runs adverse to what the leadership wants
to do, is to be excommunicated from their party, have their
democratic rights compromised, have their ability to represent
their constituents severely restricted and be rendered
politically impotent.
1755
Indeed the landscape is littered with the political corpses of
individuals who have run afoul of their leadership and have done
the right thing. The system is weak. It lends to the political
disaffection and the disconnectiveness that Canadians have for
the House of Commons.
What should we do? Many members of the House have fought for
constructive democratic solutions to make this place a
responsible place for Canadians. We hear about free votes, but
do we have them? Absolutely not. I am talking about true free
votes for non-money bills. We need them for members of all
political parties.
Why not have all bills go in draft form to committees? If bills
went in draft form to committees then both the MPs and the public
would have constructive input into forming bills. Right now
committees basically rubber stamp the bills that come forward
which are already constructed by the Prime Minister's Office and
the department. They come from the department and go through the
sham of engaging in an analysis.
It breaks my heart, as I am sure it does of every member of the
House, to see well meaning, intelligent public individuals come
before committees with bright and intelligent solutions to deal
with problems they are studying. Yet that input is largely
ignored. It is certainly ignored by the leaders of the country.
A committee report is put forward. It gets a day of press and
then is tossed on a shelf to collect dust in some unknown
hideaway. That is what happens to all the hard work of committee
members.
Committees must be independent. Parliamentary secretaries
should be removed from committees. They do not belong there.
They are acting as mini whips of the government. They greatly
impede the ability of committees to do their work. Committees
should be independent in order to do effective work that benefits
Canadians.
Private members' business should be expanded by three hours a
week. We could have two more hours on Friday and one more hour
on Monday. The system upon which private members' business is
chosen should be changed. Right now it is a lottery. Every MP
must have one votable private member's bill and one private
member's motion at a minimum every parliament.
There is a need for more constructive debates and less
destructive action on the part of the government. Presently the
government rolls itself up in a carapace and the opposition
parties hammer away at it, often on issues that the public does
not care about.
Why are we not seeing any effective debate on how to save our
health care system? Why are we not seeing a debate on the
demographic impact on Canadian society, from pensions to social
programs? We have unsustainable pensions, an unsustainable
health care system and an unsustainable CPP. Our environment is
being polluted. There are solutions out there to address it, yet
we see no effective action to deal with these and many other
problems.
Why is that so? The reason is that this place has nothing to do
with being constructive in addressing the problems of the nation
but has everything to do with the maintenance and acquisition of
power. It is true that one has to get into power to implement
what one wants to have done, but that does not preclude the
ability of each and every member of the House to use their
talents and their skills to represent their constituents for the
betterment of Canada.
We need to create an environment in the House that will enable
the big issues of the country to be addressed. We need to create
awareness to address the issue the member has raised in her bill.
When we speak to the public and the young it is sad that they
know very little about the big issues affecting our country.
The government could work with the provinces to introduce a
civics course starting in grade school. It is easier to hardwire
people when they are younger. They need to be hardwired about
being involved and connected with their environment. A civics
course in school would enable students to be aware of what is
happening in their environment and to get involved in their
environment. Then when they are older they would have a greater
propensity and a greater desire to get involved in the processes,
be they political or otherwise.
1800
There is a massive dearth in the interactivity of our processes
with the Canadian public. We have to regenerate that. The only
way we can do that is to ensure that the House is democratic so
that what people are saying will be listened to and acted on.
Second, we have to ensure that our youth today are aware of what
is happening. One way we can do it, and indeed the government
should do it, is to work with the provinces to introduce a civics
course into the schools across this country, starting with
children at a very early age. That way we will create
generations of children who will become the adult leaders who
will address the problems of our nation.
I have only a minute left, but I again thank the hon. member,
and I issue a plea to the government. This is not an issue that
affects only members in the opposition. This affects every
single member in the House of Commons, across all party lines. If
we fail to democratize the House and if we fail to enable the
public to have adequate input through their MPs and through the
systems of the House, we do not deserve to be here and the House
does not deserve to have a higher reputation than it has.
Listen to what has been said in this place over the years and
act on it, and we will be able to do our country proud.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased as well to intervene on this bill as introduced by
our colleague from Churchill.
I take this opportunity to congratulate her. I think it is
laudable to put this proposal before the House to enable our
young people aged 16 and 17 to vote.
However, the parliamentary secretary to the government House
leader has indicated that this is not the first time this matter
has been debated here.
We have to raise this question again periodically and debate it
from time to time simply because there a number of rather
conservative forces that are not particularly open to
considering this reform, the effect of which would be to allow
our 16 and 17 year olds to take part in the electoral process,
but are also more or less open, I would say they are in fact
totally opposed, to the in depth reform of the current electoral
system, which, it may be said in passing, gives them
considerable advantage.
Is it not odd when we had to tell our Liberal friends that they
were being conservative in electoral terms, because the system
in its current form benefits them? This is why they do not want
to change it one iota, since there is no reason for them to
change it in any way in the short term.
Members need only remember the remarks by the parliamentary
secretary to the government House leader to the effect that,
when the House worked on the reform to the Elections Act in the
last parliament, the committee, the House and the government
chose to reject the idea of giving the vote to 16 and 17 year
olds. He said they had had rejected it.
He said that, given the wisdom of our predecessors in the
previous parliament, we should not reopen this issue, since we
have just discussed it and have made a decision.
That being said, I would like to set the record straight and
explain what truly happened. I was a member of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs when it reviewed Bill
C-2. The government used its majority in committee to reject the
motion in amendment that had been proposed by the New Democratic
Party to introduce an amendment to the Elections Act that would
have allowed 16 and 17 year olds to vote.
It is inaccurate and somewhat dishonest to suggest to members of
the House and to those 16 and 17 year olds who may be listening
to us that, in the last parliament, this assembly decided, in
its great wisdom, to close the matter, to not follow up on that
suggestion.
The government decided not to go ahead with that proposal. One
wonders about what motivates this government.
1805
To all intents and purposes, the government made cosmetic
changes to the Elections Act. In fact, some changes were useful
ones, but there was no in depth reform of the electoral system
that governs democracy in Canada.
For example, given the recommendation of the Lortie commission
and of the chief electoral officer, the government could have
changed the appointment process for returning officers.
The government always wants control over the appointment of
returning officers. Why is that? Why choose them according to
their political loyalties instead of their real and proven
abilities? It seems that the government wants to be the one
making the appointments in the hopes of gaining some advantage.
The government has also refused to look at the entire issue of
reviewing political party funding. We in the Bloc Quebecois—and
I know that the NDP is also looking at this at the present
time—have proposed introduction of party funding by the public,
based on two basic premises, the first one being a set upper
limit for allowable contributions. The government said no to
that.
The second addressed limiting contributions to only those who
have a say in the political system, i.e. the voters, those who
select the people who will represent the population in
Parliament. The government also said no to that. We must
conclude that the present funding system works in their favour
and here too they do not want to see one iota of it changed.
Now I am getting to the heart of what concerns us at this time.
I believe that the idea that we should give the right to vote to
our fellow citizens aged 16 and 17 merits consideration. More
than that, it merits adoption.
Unfortunately, as fate would have it, according to the decision
by the subcommittee on private members' business, this bill was
judged not to be a votable item.
For now, we can hardly go any further, since the government
obviously has no intention of introducing such a provision in its
own legislation, but at least the debate is continuing. The
debate is continuing and we think that we will eventually be able
to get things to evolve to the point where such a measure could
be contemplated.
It would be only normal, in a society in which a 16 year old can
hold a driver's licence, work, and therefore pay taxes. Under
the principle of no taxation without representation, we should be
able to let 16 and 17 year olds decide who will spend their tax
dollars, since they have the right to work and pay taxes at that
age.
Under the criminal code as it now stands, 16 and 17 year olds
are considered adults. What is more, the National Defence Act
allows the Canadian forces to hire 17 year olds. A youth of 17,
who has not reached the age of majority, could be called, if he
wished, to serve under the flag and even fight to defend Canada,
putting his life on the line, but we do not want to give this
17 year old the right to choose who will represent him here in
the House, who will be called upon to direct the destiny of the
country for which he is prepared to risk his life.
On the very face of it, this idea of not allowing 16 and
17 year olds the right to vote is silly.
1810
We were concerned here in the House. The chief electoral
officer and civil society in general were concerned by the
declining turnout in federal elections. Turnout in the last
election was the lowest in Canada's electoral history.
Why? Why is this so? Perhaps it is simply because we are
telling these young people in the flower of youth, who are
interested in the public events, who have become independent
thinkers and who would like to take part in the electoral
process, that they must wait longer. They must wait another two
years. They must wait another year.
What happens at the end of this year or two we have made them
wait? We make them hang around at the door, telling them they
still do not have what it takes, that they are not mature enough.
We tell them that they have not developed sufficiently
structured thought to enable them to choose judiciously on
election day.
Clearly that makes no sense. This is the effect of deliberately
keeping 16 and 17 year olds out of the electoral process.
As I am running out of time, I will conclude very quickly by
saying that this question deserves further attention and that we
should not, as the government has done for the past few years,
silence this reform of the Elections Act, as with all the other
proposed reforms of the Elections Act. If the government agreed
to consider reforms, perhaps we could increase people's interest
in public affairs.
[English]
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Madam Speaker, this
is actually the first opportunity I have to congratulate you on
your appointment. I know that it took a number of years before
the male dominated Parliament of Canada saw fit to put a female
Speaker in the chair.
I want to thank all my colleagues who were involved in the
debate today for the varying perspectives they brought to it.
Just as it took a long time to have a woman in the Speaker's
chair, it took a long time to give the vote to females and to
aboriginal Canadians.
As my colleague from the Bloc mentioned, young men and women of
17 years old, young adults, can go off to war and possibly give
their lives for our country, but they do not have the opportunity
to vote.
Many Canadians do not know that this is exactly what aboriginal
Canadians did for a number of years and through a number of wars.
They gave their lives or lost their legs or arms and came back to
our country disabled. They could not vote, they could not access
some of the same establishments and they did not get the same
rights as other veterans.
Canada is not apart from being an unjust society. We have a
history there. I think we need to move beyond that history, open
up the initiative and once again build a truly democratic, just
society.
Canadians do not have faith in this parliamentary system any
more. They do not have faith in our electoral process. We need
to work very hard as parliamentarians to again build that trust
in our system. It cannot be a matter of saying one thing prior
to an election and then coming to the House of Commons as
government or opposition members and not being true to what we
were saying out there during an election. We have to maintain a
democratic system and we must build that faith in our system
again.
Ideally the government should be bringing forth this
legislation. Then we would not have to go through the whole
process of private members' business, hoping for the luck of the
draw and then hoping beyond hope that our legislation will be
deemed votable. We should not have to be in that situation.
The legislation would be good, progressive legislative and
electoral change, and it should be coming from the government,
like so many pieces of legislation that the government should be
bringing forth to improve our country. It will not do that, so
we will.
As opposition members we will push, and I know there are some
government members out there who will push. They will take the
government kicking and screaming into the next century, and
hopefully we will see some change and some improvement in
people's faith in our democratic system.
1815
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The time provided for
the consideration of private members' business has now expired.
As the motion has not been designated a votable item, the order
is dropped from the order paper.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
STANDING ORDERS
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Madam Speaker, first, I
take this opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment.
You have been doing a wonderful job.
Before private members' business, I was talking about the
institution of parliament, the respect for the debating procedure
and how legislation is debated and decisions are reached.
Members of the House have traditionally sought to improve the
debating procedure of parliament and to increase the dignity of
the institution in the eyes of Canadians. Sadly, we have not
always proved equal to this challenge. In recent years, some
believe there have been early and worrying signs that some
Canadians do not always hold the institution of parliament in the
same high esteem that they once did.
While some of that may be a result of general suspicion of all
institutions, some responsibility for this disillusionment may
lie closer to home. For example, from time to time some of the
debating actions and statements of some members of the House can
fuel the disillusionment and cynicism felt by Canadians.
Sometimes this is a result of a misunderstanding by the public of
how parliament, with its notion of loyal opposition, works.
I still do not understand all the procedures in that huge
manual. I hope I will understand them better and make sense out
of some of the things that I would see as a member of public
watching television.
At other times some believe it is little more than a matter of
high spirits and good natured bantering on the part of some
members and perhaps a reflection of the collegiality which
permeates the history of this and other similar institutions.
However, on other occasions there are incidents which are less
positive and which suggest that some procedures in the House may
be dysfunctional and no longer work as had been originally
intended. I have noted a special sensitivity to these incidents
by new members such as myself.
In this regard we need to look further than the use in recent
years of the report stage to put forward hundreds, and even
thousands of motions, in the hopes of paralyzing the work of the
House.
Just a brief review of recent history gives a number of glaring
examples of the misuse of this stage in the legislative process.
For example, in December 1999, the House spent more than 42
consecutive hours voting on 469 report stage motions designed to
delay to the work of the House on the Nisga'a legislation.
In March 2000 there was a similar exercise involving 36
consecutive hours of voting on 411 motions on the clarity bill
In September 2000, the House was faced with the prospect of
having to deal with over 3,000 motions which would have required
more than two weeks of non-stop sitting on the youth justice
bill. Can anyone in opposition explain how this would have been
useful? After all the years of study, suggestions, expert
witnesses and procedures to come up with the best compromise and
some improvements, how could 3,000 nuisance motions be
beneficial? Clearly this would have been an abuse of
parliamentary procedure that would damage the work of the House.
Perhaps worst of all, it damages the dignity of parliamentary
debate in the eyes of Canadians.
It is a great pity, for it means we are squandering the respect
and legitimacy that democracies like ours need in order to
survive and thrive.
1820
That some Canadians should be turned off by these filibusters is
hardly surprising. During the marathon voting sessions,
Canadians are treated to images of MPs bobbing up and down like
puppets, sleeping at their desks and reading books or newspapers.
Reviewing such a spectacle, some Canadians may conclude that
parliament is not a place that takes the nation's business
seriously and that MPs are engaged in silly partisan games.
While this is clearly not the case, we nevertheless must face up
to the fact that such tactics, while perhaps justified in the
minds of those employing them, are hurting the dignity of
parliament and the respect of Canadians for the institution.
Clearly this can not continue.
The motion before us seeks to address this issue and repair some
of the damage caused by the amounts of abuse to parliamentary
procedure in the debating system. To do this, it proposes to
restore to the Speaker his or her power to select motions for
debate and filter out others which are frivolous, repetitious or
clearly intended to obstruct the business of the House at report
stage.
Returning the decision to eliminate frivolous motions to the
honoured institution of the Speaker I do not think could be
opposed by many. The Speaker we have in place has the respect of
all members of the House, as I think we could see by the very
strong acclamation achieved when he was selected in a vote by all
members of the House. Of course the Deputy Speaker and Acting
Speakers are very well received as well by the House.
To address the function, many parliamentarians have been
involved over the years in studies with other parliaments and
procedures. We can usually consider the experience of the U.K.
house of commons. Therefore, the motion calls upon the Speaker
to be guided by the practice followed in the parliament of the
U.K., in effect allowing him to draw on experience of a parliament
with the longest history in the world in determining whether to
select motions for debate at report stage.
Once in place the change would allow members on all sides of the
House to get on with the work of debating and studying
legislation, which is after all why Canadians elected us in the
first place. It would also restore the traditional functions of
the House and reinforce the role of House committees in
considering amendments to legislation.
As members are aware, many amendments which would normally be
introduced at the committee stage are now being brought forward
instead at report stage. This practice weakens the committee
system by denying members from all parties the input provided by
such amendments during their detailed study of legislation.
Finally and perhaps most important, it would remove a misuse of
House procedures which has damaged the dignity of parliament and
discredited the institution in the eyes of many Canadians. As a
result, the change would facilitate the work of parliament and
help restore the confidence of Canadians in the debates of the
House and its ability to address the issues that matter most to
Canadians. Clearly this would be good for parliament and good
for this nation as a whole.
There are a number of issues in my riding that I would like deal
with. I receive dozens of phone calls and e-mails. There are
groups that want to see me. If that time is taken up by
frivolous motions to a bill, it would not help me in my work and
I would be very frustrated by it.
As a new parliamentarian, I have been frustrated by the lack of
time to do all the things we are allowed and expected to do and
that I want to do in this role.
I have the great honour to be in this role. There are a lot of
things I would like to try to accomplish to help my constituents
and groups forward their agendas and to look at improving
legislation. However, the amount of responsibilities and
possibilities are just immense. I am sure all speakers in the
House find this.
1825
Unlike some provincial and territorial legislatures, the House
sits five days a week, most nights until 6.30 p.m. Tonight we
are sitting until maybe 11 p.m. We have a long sitting until
June 22. That is a lot of sitting time and just one function of
members of the House.
As well, there are committee meetings for detailed discussions
on bills, research and comments. If there is a lot of research,
we have binders full of material. Input from people giving
evidence before committees has to be reviewed. If we are doing a
good job, we comprehensively study the bill to make sure it is an
excellent bill. That takes a lot of time.
Just because those two items coincide in time, I find it very
frustrating. We have to take time away from one or the other,
either sitting in the House to try to understand the debate on
all legislation or narrowing the time down to our committees.
Already, without adding frivolous motions, we have limited time
for our functions.
There are various caucus meetings on specific areas which I find
very productive. For instance, I have been attending a
children's caucus, foreign affairs caucuses and regional caucuses
in different parts of the country. It is a very productive to
get into some detail in areas we would not be able to otherwise.
However, once again it has been very productive for me in moving
forward things that my constituents are interested in. On the
other hand, it is a third time constraint.
The next item is all the e-mails we get, either in our
constituency offices or in our Ottawa offices. I am sure all
members of parliament try to do their best to respond them and be
sensitive to their constituents.
In the same manner we have written submissions. Sometimes the
written submissions, at least the ones I get, have huge
backgrounds of documentation which I take on the plane with me to
try to get through them all. I still have not got through them.
There is a vast quantity of material.
Then there are individual groups that are experts in their
areas. We try to respect that. These groups can bring a
tremendous amount of research material to us. In Yukon we
have the mining association, the Yukon Tourism Association, the
British Columbia and Yukon Chamber of Mines, the Klondike Placer
Miners Association, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society,
the Yukon Grants, the Yukon Chamber of Commerce, the Whitehorse
Chamber of Commerce, the Skookum Jim Friendship Centre and the
Victoria Faulkner Women's Centre. There are all sorts of groups
that have detailed perspective they can bring to us on issues
that we have to also add to our workload.
I cannot believe I am the only one who feels that way. All
members of the House must be slightly depressed at the amount of
work they have to do and the time in which they have to do it.
Members will understand that being new, I do not always know how
to prioritize. Some nights I am in this building until three in
the morning. Members can rest assured that I would be very angry
if I was here because I was voting on 3,000 frivolous amendments
to something. Members of all parties have enough other things
they could do with that time.
I hope that would be the intent of the motion and would be the
result of its passing. I cannot believe that members on the
other side would not feel the same way too, that they would like
more time to do the things their constituents and the groups in
their ridings ask them to do and to review more of the
legislation. Obviously none of us can review all the legislation
that comes before us in detail because of all our other duties.
If we could free up some of the time from sitting here voting on
frivolous amendments, I think all of us would be happy.
1830
The bill does not give any more control to the government side,
whichever it happens to be in a given year. It does give control
to the respected institution of the Speaker to eliminate
frivolous amendments and motions. I do not think there are many
who could argue with that.
On a number of occasions opposition members have talked about
different suggested improvements, as recently as the speaker
before me. I cannot imagine not getting their support because
the motion is in line with the type of intentions they are trying
to promote.
There is a tremendous cost to operating parliament. Of course
it is not only for the 301 members but for the whole
parliamentary support that goes with it. Does anyone really
think about the cost of that to Canadian taxpayers and the cost
of taking our time away from serious debate?
Mr. Gar Knutson: Seventeen thousand bucks an hour.
Mr. Larry Bagnell: Someone said that it costs $17,000 an
hour, but I think there is a lot more in personal time as well
that could be better used than on frivolous amendments.
Members opposite, and especially my friend from Elk Island, have
years of experience and talents to bring to parliament, to their
constituents, to legislation, to committee meetings, to doing
research for committees and to Canadians in general. Do members
opposite really think it is advantageous to squander those
talents by sitting here while 3,000 frivolous amendments are
proposed and voted on?
Members of the loyal opposition in their opening addresses to
the motion used the term parlez-vous. They did not know any
French, but they thought it meant something about talking and
that the House was meant as a place for serious discussion and
debate. That would be exactly the result of the motion. If we
were to eliminate everyone standing 3,000 times on a frivolous
amendment, would there not be more time for serious debate?
[Translation]
Should we not talk just about things that are important to us
members of parliament?
[English]
In conclusion, hopefully a minor change that eliminates
frivolous amendments will allow us to get on with some of the
very important things that we do here. I personally have a great
respect for this institution and will do my best to do productive
things with my time.
1835
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
wonder if we could have unanimous consent for five minutes of
questions and comments with the member because I have some
important things I would like to say.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I am sorry, but that
is not a point of order. I think the hon. member for Elk Island
already had his question and comment.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Madam
Speaker, to say that it is a pleasure to take the floor is an
understatement. It is a pleasure to discuss issues with my
colleagues, but I am not so sure that it is a real pleasure to
address a motion like this one.
Earlier, I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Yukon say
that voting on 3,000 amendments takes a long time, that it does
not make sense. I remind the hon. member for Yukon, who was just
recently elected to the House of Commons, that this is an episode
of parliamentary history that he has yet to experience.
Therefore, he may not be in the best position to make a comment
of that nature on the 3,000 amendments and on the incidents if I
may use that word surrounding the bills on the Nisga'a and on
the so-called clarity, bill.
That being said, I want to make some kind of a connection with
what I just said concerning a possible amendment to the Elections
Act to allow 16 and 17 year olds to vote.
It is a strange coincidence that I rose to speak just a few
moments ago on the bill introduced by the member for Churchill,
and that I must now speak to Motion No. 2. I see a certain
relationship between the two and I will explain what it is.
A few moments ago, I was talking about the low voter turnout in
the last federal election, and I had occasion to do so a little
earlier in the session in connection with bills having to do with
the Canada Elections Act. I think it is appropriate to repeat
this, because it is fundamental to my point.
If the government wants to make itself feel good by saying that
it obtained an even greater majority than in the 1997 election,
and that it therefore has a mandate to govern, I might draw its
attention to the fact that it received about 40% of 60% of the
vote. That is really not much.
This points to a fundamental problem in our political system.
When members of the public lose interest in public affairs, there
is an urgent need for action. Democracy must be constantly
treasured and nurtured like a flower. Obviously, in the present
situation, democracy is ailing because, with each successive
election, the interest of the public in public affairs,
elections, and the management of the affairs of state, is slowly
but surely dwindling away.
With each successive election, voter turnout drops a little
lower. We need to give ourselves a wake-up call and take it in
that something serious is going on. There are a number of
possible explanations.
Perhaps the government's lack of ethics, which we have been
pointing out in recent weeks, is one of the explanations for
Canadians' continually declining interest in what goes on here in
Ottawa.
1840
There are two other factors I can identify, which I would like
to bring up once again. First, there is the government's
systematic refusal to consider any in depth reform of the
existing electoral system. I referred to the appointment of
returning officers a moment ago.
There is no hiding one's head in the sand. Each of us in the
House faced organizational problems during the latest election.
Perhaps we should ask ourselves a number of questions, about the
competence or incompetence of certain returning officers in the
last federal election, among other things. Obviously a number of
major problems occurred, which should be analyzed. Perhaps, as I
was saying, the competence of certain returning officers is at
issue in some instances.
The government is refusing to contemplate any change to the
system of funding political parties. The chief electoral officer
said “In democracy, it is important to know where the money goes
and where the money comes from”. It is worrisome for people to
feel or have the impression that those contributing to party
coffers, including the major corporations, which contribute huge
amounts to the coffers of the traditional parties, hold greater
sway over and have greater access to elected officials than do
they, the people who chose them.
It is no surprise that the Canadian public shows such cynicism
and lack of confidence in institutions as it does today with
respect to what is going on here in Ottawa.
There is one other factor that needs considering: parliamentary
reform. This government was elected in 1993 on its stated
desire to change things, to restore public confidence in
parliamentary institutions. What has it done since? Nothing.
Absolutely nothing, except to reinforce the power that was
already concentrated in the hands of the Prime Minister and his
cabinet. This power that was already too highly concentrated in
the hands of so few people was concentrated still further. It is
nevertheless surprising, as I pointed out to the House
earlier, that with a scant 40% of the votes close to 100% of
power could be concentrated in the hands of so few people.
Not only has the government failed in its duty and commitment
relating to parliamentary reform, but it has also, and more
importantly, gone so far as to sneak one reform past us. The
government seeks to ensure that the few powers vested in
parliament, the opposition parties and Liberal backbenchers are
taken from them and handed over to the all-powerful clique that
surrounds the Prime Minister.
It is nonetheless surprising that the cornerstones of democracy,
that is, a country's electoral and parliamentary systems, could be
modified unilaterally by the government. This is a source of
worry. I believe this can indeed add to the cynicism, the lack
of confidence Canadians, and Quebecers in particular, have in
what is going on in Ottawa.
Last time, the government took a unilateral approach to
electoral reform. It did not have the support of the opposition
parties. It even went so far as to ensure that, at third
reading, the electoral reform bill was debated only between the
government House leader and the official opposition critic.
1845
It was therefore passed or debated at third reading by only two
of the five political parties present in this parliament. That is
what is happening now with this attempt at parliamentary
reform, because that is indeed what this is about.
The government is attempting to impose on us the defunct Motions
Nos. 8 and 9, which sought to deprive the opposition of a certain
number of its powers. It is coming back to us with a reworded
motion, Motion No. 2, whose purpose is exactly the same. But this
time it does not want to be the bad guy. It wants to foist this
role off on the Speaker of the House, which is even more
unacceptable and shocking.
Once again, it is proceeding unilaterally, without the agreement
of the opposition parties, and still attempting to concentrate
all the powers in the hands of a few, making this Parliament even
more—
An hon. member: Antidemocratic.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Antidemocratic is not really the word
I was looking for, but it is still serious. Irrelevant is the
word that comes to mind. There is an increasing trend to strip
this democratic institution of its relevance by arranging things
so that all the powers are concentrated in the hands of the
government and the powers that used to belong to parliament are
being progressively taken away.
The government has invoked monetary reasons to justify moving
this motion by saying “Listen, when we vote late in the evening,
it costs taxpayers an awful lot of money”. The government House
leader indicated that it costs $27,000 an hour in overtime to
make this institution run.
I do not know where the government House leader got this figure,
but just today senior House officials told us that it was very
difficult to estimate the operating costs of the House outside
regular hours. Therefore, it is surprising to hear the government
mention the figure of $27,000 an hour.
Another argument the government used is “This is terrible. Our
members are stuck in the House where they have to vote for hours
on end. To force parliamentarians to vote for such long periods
is a real misuse of members' time and taxpayers' money”.
Is it not our job to vote? Is it not why each and every one
of us was elected? Were we not elected to pass laws and to pass
amendments to these laws? Of course that is why we were elected,
but it seems that this process costs a lot of money an hour.
Again, this government, which always tries to justify its
premise that it costs a lot of money to have the House sit
outside regular hours when there a whole slew of
amendments, asked House officials, through the chair of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and other
government members of that committee, to tell us how much a
member of parliament costs an hour. What is the hourly
remuneration of a member of parliament here in the House of
Commons?
By crunching the numbers and then using a lot of
imagination, the government tells us that a member costs about $30
an hour.
The negative effect of this type of figure juggling is that some
people at home could find it practical to have members sit longer
because their hourly rate would drop. They would be paid $25 or
$26 an hour. Some would be delighted that their MPs earn less if
they sit more often.
I think the logic, the reasoning, the argument, that the cost of
a member and of parliament must be calculated when parliament
sits outside regular hours is Byzantine. The debate is
totally as I said irrelevant and serves no purpose because it
is very harmful.
1850
I come back to what I said earlier. Democracy is a flower to be
cultivated. It is distressing to hear the government telling
Canadians that democracy costs a lot. Democracy is priceless.
At the moment, the government is trying to sell the budget to
our fellow Canadians, by saying “We must pass this motion,
because at the moment the opposition members are so out of it
they cost a lot by making the House sit outside regular hours”.
No logic or reasoning supports such an argument. I repeat the
text of the motion:
For greater clarity, the Speaker will not select for debate a
motion or series of motions of a repetitive, frivolous or
vexatious nature or of a nature that would serve merely to
prolong unnecessarily proceedings at the report stage.
I would like to say two things on this. It is basically
disgraceful and unacceptable for the government to be claiming
that what members propose to enrich parliamentary debate may be
considered repetitive, frivolous or vexatious or of a nature that
would serve merely to prolong unnecessarily proceedings at the
report stage.
The government has only itself to blame. It is primarily
responsible for this practice of the opposition parties, which
has developed over a number of years, of introducing amendments
at report stage.
Today it wants to gain public sympathy for the misuse the
opposition parties are making of the House rules. Yet it is the
one responsible. Why so? Quite simply, because this government
governs by gag orders, and as I have said, has gone so far as to
impose a reform of the House standing orders, a change to the
standing orders. It feels it is invested with the power to
impose this change to the standing orders with a gag. Yesterday,
the Bogey Man, the Muzzle Man was back, once more imposing a gag
on us so that he can change the way things are done here in the
House.
Comparing figures on the number of gag orders used by the last
Conservative government in its nine years in power, and the
record of the present Liberal government, which has logged seven
years so far, we see that the present government has considerably
raised the number of gags imposed on legislation. There has been
a considerable increase since the Liberals have been in power.
Between 1984 and 1993, under the Conservative regime, the
government imposed 49 gags, 9.4% of the total of 519 bills
introduced in the House. In its seven years in power, the
Liberal government has imposed more than 60, with a total of only
350 bills, almost twice that figure, or 17.4%.
And yet, when it was in opposition, the present government,
especially the members of the rat pack, one of whom is now the
Government House Leader, decried the dominating and dictatorial
attitude of the Conservative government. Today they are trying
to preach to us that “The opposition is not responsible”. That
argument does not hold water.
1855
If the opposition is forced to resort to such practices, it is
because this is the only way, the only means left to it in this
parliament to exercise its rights to generate a debate and to
oppose a bill. It is the only way left for us to express the
opinions of those whom we represent and who do not necessarily
share the government's point of view. It is the only way left
for us under the rules of the House, because after each reading
this government ends the debate, interrupts the proceedings and
gags the opposition. And then it is surprised to see us having
to resort to such practices.
I conclude by saying that, with this motion, the government
wants to put pressure on the Chair.
Today, Le Devoir wrote this about the government House leader
“Mr. Boudria clearly indicated that it would not be possible for
the Speaker to ignore the motion”.
The government wants to force the hand of the Speaker. I want to
refer to a comment on pages 260 and 261 of Montpetit and Marleau.
It says that the Chair has an obligation to protect opposition
members against the tyranny of the majority. Unfortunately, I
cannot read the quote, but that is the gist of it.
Even if that motion were to be passed by the government
majority, the Chair must remember, because it is the Chair that is
being pressured, that whatever happens, it must always protect
the rights of backbenchers and opposition members.
[English]
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central
to participate in the debate on the government's proposed
amendments to the standing orders of the House.
The government's motion reads as follows:
That section (5) of Standing Order 76 and section (5) of
Standing Order 76.1 be amended by adding at the conclusion of the
notes thereto the following:
For greater clarity, the Speaker will not select for debate a
motion or series of motions of a repetitive, frivolous or
vexatious nature or of a nature that would serve merely to
prolong unnecessarily proceedings at the report stage and, in
exercising this power of selection, the Speaker shall be guided
by the practice followed in the House of Commons of the United
Kingdom.
The official opposition is proposing that the government's
motion be amended by adding the following:
and for even greater clarity, the Speaker may select for debate
all motions, regardless of their nature, if in his or her opinion
the rights of the minority have been infringed upon in any way.
It is unfortunate that at a time when members on all sides of
the House agree that too much power is concentrated in the Prime
Minister's office and exercised by the Prime Minister, the
government proposes an amendment to the standing orders that
strengthens the executive branch and weakens the role of duly
elected members of the House.
The motion is an assault on the rights of Canadians' elected
representatives in the House. The government is only interested
in selectively borrowing those practices from the U.K. that
increase its power over the House of Commons. There are other
practices they could borrow from the U.K. that would strengthen
our democracy. I will speak about some of them now and later I
will speak about committees.
Let me talk about what happens in the House of Commons.
Whenever the government feels a formidable challenge or feels
that the opposition is embarrassing it, the government cuts off
debate in the House and passes whatever piece of business it is
working on.
1900
Does the government entertain changes? No. Does it listen to
what Canadians are saying? No. This brings us to the heart of
some of the procedures in the House that make little or no sense
at times.
Why will the government not allow scheduled votes to take place
immediately following question period? All members of parliament
are in the House for question period. Would it not make sense to
vote when everyone is here?
The government is not prepared to entertain good suggestions and
ideas from members of parliament on all sides of the House,
including its own backbenchers. The government is famous for its
thin soup legislative agenda. When the opposition parties try to
thicken the soup, the government refuses to allow it.
The country has not had a referendum since the one on the
Charlottetown accord, except of course the one on tearing the
country apart. The Liberals will not allow important questions
to be decided directly by the people. The Liberals are control
freaks.
Another issue is petitions. The government does not want to
allow Canadians the freedom to speak out on issues. Petitions
are good examples of that. Canadians spend a great deal of time
and effort in preparing petitions for submission to the House.
They spend gas money and go from door to door collecting
signatures, in the cold of winter and the heat of summer. The
MPs proudly present the work of their constituents in the form of
petitions and the Liberals throw them onto a shelf to gather
dust. Sometimes after a few months they issue a small token
reply using politically correct phrases. The government takes no
action on these petitions.
In regard to voting, the Liberal whip tells government MPs how
to vote or else. Where is the democracy in that? Not everything
has to be a vote of confidence in the House. There have even
been assurances from opposition members that a certain vote would
not be considered a vote of confidence. An example of this was
the vote on hepatitis C.
The government must wake up to the needs of the people in this
new millennium. The government is not expected to fall each and
every time the 301 members of parliament tell the government what
to do. If a vote goes against the government, that should start
a process whereby members of parliament work with the government
to reach a compromise or to modify the government's position or
to do a great number of other things that would allow the will of
the people to be done.
Another important aspect of this issue is how we work in
committees. The government could allow opposition members to
chair more standing committees as they do in other countries,
including the U.K. Regarding the election of committee chairs,
secret ballots are still not allowed even after insistence by the
opposition.
The voting procedure in committees is a completely partisan
exercise in which government members gang up on opposition MPs.
Even the future business of the committee is decided in a
partisan manner, with the government members taking orders from
the higher-ups. Even the decisions concerning witnesses who will
be permitted to appear before the committee are taken in a
partisan manner.
The government prevents significant issues from being dealt with
by committees. Through votes in committees where the Liberal
members hold the majority of votes, the government can ensure
that its own agenda is pursued. Any business that it does not
want to deal with never gets heard by the committees.
It is no secret that the government refuses to adopt most of the
amendments to legislation that are submitted by opposition
members from all parties. Often government members will hold
press conferences without making the reports available to
opposition members just to pre-empt them by not giving them
enough time to prepare their responses, or to not give opposition
members credit where credit is due most of the time.
1905
The government is also fighting to prevent committee hearings
from being televised. It knows that the way it runs committees
is a farce and it does not want Canadians to be able to watch the
circus that the House committees have unfortunately become under
the dictatorship of this government.
In regard to the various kinds of appointments, the power to
appoint senators, the auditor general, the ethics counsellor, the
privacy commissioner, the information commissioner and others
should not reside exclusively with the Prime Minister's office.
People in positions such as auditor general, ethics counsellor
and information commissioner can possibly, after their intensive
work, make excellent recommendations to government departments
but they are not allowed to do that. People in these positions
only report on their investigations and the government can then
throw out those reports.
Some of these reports should be considered binding on the
government. They are in fact supposed to give direction to the
government so they should not be ignored, buried, shelved or
ridiculed. The government not only covers up these things but
also ridicules and tries to tear down the integrity of the person
doing the criticizing.
In regard to parliamentary trips, many members of the House,
from all parties, go on international trips from time to time.
Whenever delegations from the Parliament of Canada travel abroad,
they should be team efforts. Opposition MPs are often denied
briefings. They are left out of some of the events and meetings
held abroad. Often the government officials will prohibit the
opposition members from talking to the media about findings or
other issues relating to the trip. They restrict the opportunity
for opposition members to express the opposition's views or
perspectives. The procedures used by the government are partisan
in nature. The Liberals cling to a mentality of exclusion that
defeats the full representation of the people of Canada to the
outside world.
In regard to special treatment, decisions on government grants,
jobs, favours, appointments and a host of others are made by the
government to benefit the governing party, the Liberals in this
case. Sometimes ministerial permits or visitor's visas are
issued to visitors to Canada upon request by government members,
even though these same visitors have been refused permits or
visas when they applied through opposition MPs.
Canadians are not being treated equally in many respects. The
government engages in favouritism based on political support and
perhaps sometimes on monetary donations. These are problems of
procedure. The process should be fixed so that these kinds of
things are not permitted.
In the House, the position of Clerk of the House is a
responsible and respectable position. The Clerk of the House is
appointed by the Prime Minister. The clerk advises the Speaker.
With due respect to the Clerk of the House, our Speaker is
elected by secret ballot and the Prime Minister's office
continues to try to have a hold on the Speaker through the
clerk's office. It defeats the purpose of the election of the
Speaker of the House. Canadians do not think it is fair for the
Prime Minister to give the clerk a job and then expect the clerk
to be neutral and impartial. I say this with great respect for
the Clerk of the House, who is a wonderful person, but I maintain
that it is not fair. It is not even fair to the clerk.
Question period in the House is another area of procedure in
which changes should be considered. Most of the time, the
ministers do not provide real answers to important non-partisan
questions.
An hon. member: That's why it's called question period.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Then they tell us that is why it is
called question period. This is not how it should operate.
Quite often ministers reject the facts and premises presented by
opposition MPs. They often ridicule opposition members when they
ask sincere questions.
The media calls question period a farce, a circus, and it is no
wonder.
1910
In regard to debates in the House, take note debates are another
farce. The procedure the government clings to is one whereby the
cabinet or the Prime Minister's office makes the decision and
then allows a debate in the House after the decision is made.
They do not listen to the debate. Nothing in the contributions
during the debate changes that already made decision. The
ministers adopt none of the recommendations made by the MPs from
any of the political parties during that debate.
Most government MPs read speeches prepared by bureaucrats.
Often, less than 10% of MPs are even in the House during debates.
I myself once gave a speech in the House when the only people in
the House were the Speaker and myself. Often there are more
pages in the House than MPs, as we see today.
The procedure prevents anyone on the government side from
attending the House with an open mind. Many of the bills we
debate here are only a couple of pages in length, yet they
sometimes have hundreds of pages of attached regulations, which
are never debated in the House.
The procedures the government clings to are giving us government
by regulation, not legislation. I call it governing through the
back door.
I was the co-chair of the House and Senate Standing Joint
Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations. That committee has
about 800 sets of regulations that are in the process or pipeline
of being modified or struck down, but the cabinet refuses to take
action on these 800 files. It stalls, it denies, it drags its
feet and it stonewalls the committee. Some of these 800 files
are 25 years old. Imagine that. Those regulations are not
supposed to be there. They have been hanging on in the system
for 25 years. It is a disgrace. It is so undemocratic that it
is anti-democratic.
The government motion we are debating today is an insult and an
assault on the rights of MPs. It is an attack on democracy. It
is a vindictive exercise in response to the Nisga'a debate in the
last parliament when the official opposition used a procedural
tool to cause a voting marathon to alert Canadians to the
anti-democratic way in which the government was running the
House.
I am told that for the Nisga'a debate the hon. member for Elk
Island, who is a very dedicated member of the House, more
dedicated than many other members of the House, and who is always
in the House listening to the debates and participating actively,
asked for an incremental cost of the Nisga'a debate, but the
reply he got was that the incremental cost was not available.
Perhaps there was no incremental cost because many staff members
traded off the hours they worked. Probably the closure motion we
are debating today will keep us up to eleven o'clock or maybe
later.
I strongly believe that the Liberals want to prevent that tool
from ever being used again, that tool we attempted to use in
order to exercise our democratic rights. Why does the government
not simply behave in a manner that would not require the
opposition to use the Nisga'a procedural tool ever again?
Be democratic and the opposition parties will not use that
procedure any more.
Another important issue is private members' business. Again, it
is another farce. Ideally, or in theory at least, private
members' business should give the elected representatives of
Canadians an opportunity for an initiative to contribute to the
formation of legislation in Canada.
It should be an opportunity to raise the voice of their
constituents in parliament.
1915
A private member's bill or motion for the production of papers
does not contribute much to the legislative process unless it is
votable. A limited number of private members' bills and motions
are made votable by the government. To make private members'
business votable is a partisan exercise. It is not supposed to
be like that, even though there are members from all parties on
the committee. I am convinced from my practical experience that
it is a partisan exercise.
It is supposed to be a non-political debate. Very few members
come to the House with an open mind. Private members' business
is like a pacifier. A pacifier is put in a baby's mouth but
there is no milk coming out of it. It is given to a baby without
telling the baby to shut up. It is so like telling someone
diplomatically to go to hell that the person is looking forward
to the trip. It is the same with private members' business. We
can write bills and motions, but these things do not cause any
change.
When was the last time a private member's bill was passed into
law? How many have been passed in the last 20 years? There have
been only a few, less than a half a dozen perhaps. Why do we
even have private members' business? The government is not
fooling us and it is not fooling Canadians.
In conclusion, the procedures the government clings to prevent
the House from dealing properly with the expenditures of the
government. The supplementary and interim supply budgets are
hardly dealt with at all. Is the scrutiny of the money spent by
the government not the real purpose for us to be here and to
debate? Even that is not allowed to be debated.
I could talk a great deal about how there is no procedure in the
House for bringing together the federal and provincial
governments. There is little co-operation between these two
levels of government and there are no changes being introduced.
The government resists change: electoral reform, Senate reform,
parliamentary reform and democratic reform. No wonder the
turnout in federal elections is decreasing and was at an all time
low in the last federal election.
The credibility of politicians is way down among different
professions in Canada. It is high time for reform when members
from all sides of the House are complaining that too much power
is exercised by the Prime Minister's Office. The government
proposes an amendment to the standing orders that strengthens the
executive branch and weakens the democracy by weakening and
trivializing the role of elected members.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a great honour to speak to the motion tonight. For
purposes of public edification I repeat what it is:
That section (5) of Standing Order 76 and section (5) of Standing
Order 76.1 be amended by adding at the conclusion of the notes
thereto the following: For greater clarity, the Speaker will not
select for debate a motion or series of motions of a repetitive,
frivolous or vexatious nature or of a nature that would serve
merely to prolong unnecessarily proceedings at the report stage
and, in exercising this power of selection, the Speaker shall be
guided by the practice followed in the House of Commons of the
United Kingdom.
I wish to say first and foremost that to listen to the member
for Surrey Central is really outrageous. I will tell hon.
members why. He raised every grievance, perceived or real, and
tried to somehow work it into the example of how we will make
parliament work better.
This institution, I can tell members from my time in this great
House, came about as a result of the founding fathers getting
together in 1867 and providing a framework, a template that works
well along the lines of the British parliamentary democracy. It
is a template that has evolved over the time we have been here.
It has worked well in a democratic fashion, to the benefit of all
Canadians as a result.
1920
To hear members opposite, in particular the one prior to my
speaking and others too for that matter, talking in terms of how
this is tearing down the pillars of democracy in Canada and
denigrating parliament is not only outrageous but pathetic in its
intent. I will tell the House why.
What we have here is something we have honed over time. We have
put in place the very pillars of democracy that we now see
bearing fruit. I believe it is something to behold and should be
something of great pride to all parliamentarians.
It hurts me to hear members, especially those of the reform
alliance, tear away at this institution. That is what they are
good at. They are good at being negative. They are good at
always trying to rip at the very fabric of this great country. It
is a shameful spectacle. It is not something we do not expect
from them because, after all, that is who they are: people who
would rather tear down than build up and people who would rather
rip it apart than make sure it works properly.
The purpose of the motion is straightforward. It is to
reconfirm the authority of the Speaker. That is you, Madam
Speaker and your colleagues. It is to reassert your ability to
select motions for debate at report stage in the manner in which
they are intended when they are presented in a legislative
process in the House.
We can follow the string all the way back to 1867. More
important, I believe our parliamentary procedure and what we are
capable of doing in the House go back 32 years as the direct
result of a committee that looked at these kinds of things.
For the benefit of the public, fearing that members would take
advantage of report stage to move similar amendments of little
importance or which were dilatory in nature, the special
committee on procedure recommended in its report in 1968 that a
rule be adopted to permit the Speaker “to select and combine the
amendments of which notice had been given”. Such a rule was
then adopted.
Why was that done? It was done to enable the business of the
House to get done in a democratically elected fashion to the
benefit of Canadians. We have committees where we listen to
witnesses. We take amendments. We massage the legislation in
front of us. With the benefit of the experience of all the
members present, at the end of the day we are able then to come
out with a piece of legislation that is workable and to the
benefit to all Canadians.
When it comes back at report stage we should not have to be
hornswoggled, that is a farmer's term I am used to saying from
time to time, by the reform alliance or the Bloc. They should
not be tying our hands and doing all kinds of outrageous things
when it comes to amendments: frivolous, vexatious and downright
terrible things to tie the hands of parliamentarians and to tie
up the workings of this great House of Commons.
The Speaker has the power to select or group motions in
amendment to be proposed at report stage. That is what we are
trying to get back to. That is exactly what was adopted 32 years
ago, and that is the way it should be. We would like the
Speaker's decision on the grouping of these motions in amendment
at report stage to be in a manner consistent with the values of
parliament.
In doing that the Speaker would address two matters. The first
would be the grouping for debate and the second would be the
voting arrangement. These are very important. The motions are
grouped according to two factors. The first is the content and
the second is the place where they would be inserted in the bill.
1925
Motions would be grouped according to content if they could form
the subject of a simple debate. Once adopted, they would have
the same effect in different places of the bill or if they relate
to the same provision or similar provisions in the same bill.
That is straightforward. That is common sense. That is simply
making parliament work effectively in the way it was intended to
work. Motions in amendment are continued according to the place
where they are to be inserted in the bill when they relate to the
same line or lines. These motions in amendment would be part of
a single scheme for voting patterns.
That seems to be something Speakers have had over time. It is
certainly something that was developed and evolved in the 1970s
and beyond. It is important that we reassert the Speaker's
ability to make those kinds of rulings.
It is fair at this stage to point out that in recent years
successive Speakers have felt less and less inclined to exercise
their authority in this matter, with the consequence that report
stage has been rendered vulnerable to unsatisfactory and
unintended use.
For example, in December 1999 the House was obliged to spend
more than 42 consecutive hours voting on 469 report stage
motions, most of which were concocted at the last minute or in
consultation with the reform alliance people and whatever
shenanigans they had in mind to hijack the House in a way that
was not only unprofessional and undemocratic but downright silly.
At the end of the day we spent enormous amounts of time doing
things that should not have been done. The reform alliance
people proceeded in a very undemocratic way.
In March 2000 the Bloc followed a similar exercise. Having
watched the reform alliance people act out their hijinks and
their shenanigans, members of the Bloc decided to get in on the
act. This was over another bill and it was an exercise that
simply spun out of control. There is no other way of putting it.
We were faced in September 2000 with having to deal with 3,000
frivolous and vexatious motions of little intent, motions that
were simply silly and downright ridiculous. The Bloc was trying
to emulate the reform alliance. I thank the opposition for not
doing its job. Its job is to oppose. It is to be constructive.
It is to do things in a manner consistent with our great
democratic principles. Those shenanigans are not in keeping with
that. Rather, they are simply to be silly for the sake of being
silly. If that was what they tried to accomplish, they
succeeded.
In the last parliament we had to vote for days on report stage
motions because of the abuse of the loophole in the standing
orders at report stage. That is exactly and precisely the
loophole we are looking to close tonight. It is one that should
not be subject to the kind of abuse we saw in 1999.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do
not think there is a quorum in the House.
And the count having been taken:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Call in the members.
1930
[English]
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I see a quorum and
debate shall continue.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Madam Speaker, as I was saying, this is
precisely the kind of loophole we want to change to ensure that
the business of this parliament works in an effective and
efficient manner.
The cost of the kind of abuse that we saw in the case of the
reform alliance people with Nisga'a and the case of the Bloc
Quebecois with respect to the youth justice initiatives bill is
totally unacceptable, not only to the House of Commons but to
Canadians as a whole.
Canadians who elected us to debate and study legislation resent
us wasting the kind of time that the reform alliance and the Bloc
members had us do. Canadians simply do not want to see the
people, who should be debating legislation and voting according
to the will and the needs of their constituents, being hog tied
by people who would rather abuse the system. It is an abuse to
taxpayers who do not like to spend the hundreds of thousands of
dollars that were spent as a result of precisely what the reform
alliance people did on the Nisga'a bill and what the Bloc did on
the youth justice initiative bill. People do not like to see the
squandering of those kinds of tax dollars.
The reform alliance always talks the high ground when it comes
to making sure that the—
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
We had a ruling by the Speaker that our party is to be called the
Canadian Alliance in the House of Commons. In respect to the
Chair, the member should comply with that previous ruling.
Mr. Lynn Myers: The taxpayers resent that kind of
frivolous frittering away of tax dollars. I suppose it is better
to give $800,000 to a law firm that would have settled for
$60,000.
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
There does not appear to be a quorum in the House.
And the count having been taken:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The Chair recognizes
quorum and debate shall continue.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Madam Speaker, it is not fair to the
House of Commons staff who do a great deal of work on our behalf
as parliamentarians. It is not fair to have the reform alliance
people and the Bloc for example—
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The ruling of the Chair was that the party should be named the
Canadian Alliance. The member is showing disrespect to the Chair
to continue to defy the Chair in this way. Madam Speaker, you
should enforce that.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The time for debate
has elapsed. Will the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington
please conclude his remarks.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Madam Speaker, it is not fair to this
great institution. This is an institution that has evolved, as I
said at the outset, over time based on the great principles of
the British model. I believe we have come to grips with a kind
of democracy that is an example to the world.
1935
It is unfair to use the kinds of abuse tactics that we have seen
taking place over time. It is better that we close the loophole
and allow you, Madam Speaker, and your colleagues to make the
appropriate judgments based on report stage amendments as they
should proceed coming from the committee to us.
[Translation]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Madam
Speaker, before beginning my speech, I would like to point out
that I am going to be splitting my time with the member for
Acadie—Bathurst.
[English]
It is an interesting position for me to be following the member
for Waterloo—Wellington who regularly encounters considerable
reaction from members of the House from all parties. He has been
known to raise the ire of other members and tonight is no
exception.
Needless to say, I disagree vehemently with the tone, tenor and
substance of the member's speech. I do not believe he has
accurately represented the true nature of the debate and the
issues at hand. I hope, in the little time remaining for us to
debate this very important issue, that we will be able to do just
that.
I am looking forward to the rest of this evening, and I hope the
member for Winnipeg South will participate in the debate. He is
one member who in the past has talked a great deal about
parliamentary reform and the need to make significant changes in
this place to ensure greater democracy and greater participation
by everyone here. I trust therefore that he, along with many
other members, is inwardly disappointed and deeply disturbed in
this initiative of the government House leader.
I cannot help but believe that some of the speeches that we have
heard this evening are a result of members in the Liberal Party
feeling that they must jump to it, listen to the direction of the
House leader and, contrary to their best wishes, say “Yes, sir;
no, sir; three bags full, sir”.
What we are seeing today is nothing more than the typical
behaviour of what we have all come to know as the model of
trained seals. I see the member for Winnipeg South is responding
appropriately.
Mr. Dick Proctor: He is practising.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: He is practising, as my
colleague from Palliser has just said, his part, which is very
much at the heart of this debate tonight.
It is very ironic that we are here today debating a motion,
which the government has put closure on, that would strip away
the powers of elected members in this place. It is ironic
because today is the day when the auditor general delivered his
farewell report to this place. He made a very clear statement at
the public accounts committee today about the importance of
preserving the traditions of parliament and ensuring that members
in this place are able to exercise their rights and
responsibilities and are able to hold the government to account,
not only in terms of financial matters but in all questions
pertaining to legislation, programs and initiatives.
I think it would be very appropriate to remind members of what
the auditor general actually said today. He said:
I also ask those who have become cynical about their government
to reconsider. Our institutions are the best defence of ordinary
citizens against adverse trends that require collective
action.... It is our duty as citizens to strengthen the
institutions of government. Those of us who are or who have been
inside the system have a duty to ensure that we remain
accountable for our actions and the vast resources and
aspirations entrusted to us.
1940
That is what we aim to do in the debate tonight. That is why we
raised such concern about the action of the government today.
We began this session with great hope and aspiration that in
fact the 37th Parliament of Canada would begin with a new
attitude and a new approach to accountability, democracy and
transparency. We held out hope because members from all sides
and from all parties in this place were talking about the need to
reform parliament. We held out great hope because there was a
reference in the Speech from the Throne about the need to reform
parliament. We held out hope because there was a tremendous
debate going on in the media and with the public about the need
to ensure that this place, the people's Chamber, was able to
execute its responsibilities according to the wishes of the
people.
Needless to say, we are off to a terrible start. This is a very
rocky beginning to an agenda that was supposed to be about
meaningful change here in parliament and in our electoral system.
It was barely a couple of weeks into this session when the
government decided to crack the whip and ensure that all members
voted against the motion to require an independent ethics
counsellor.
A day or two after that the government brought in closure on the
very first bill it had introduced in this session, the employment
insurance bill. We have tabulated it to be the 69th or 70th
time that this government has brought in closure in the last few
of years.
A couple of weeks after that the government brought in this
motion that would in effect take away the ability of
parliamentarians and opposition parties in the Chamber to amend
bills at the report stage. To top it all off, the government had
the gall to bring in closure on that motion. What in effect we
are dealing with today is closure on closure.
Members on the government side tonight are trying to defend
their position by suggesting that what they are doing is in the
best interests of parliament and of the people of Canada. They
say that they want to keep vexatious and frivolous issues away
from us. I think the arguments being used tonight by the Liberal
members in the Chamber are vexatious and frivolous. They do not
get at the heart of the matter, which is how to truly reform the
House in a fair and reasonable way involving all parties and all
players in the Chamber.
As some colleagues have said earlier in the debate, what the
government chose to do was arbitrarily bring in reform to deal
with what it considers to be an abuse of the parliamentary
process without addressing its own abuse of the system, its own
rampant use of closure, its own political manipulation of the
committees and without addressing the way this whole place is
controlled, used and abused by the executive of government.
Surely we should all be participating together in ways to reform
this place, and this is not how to do it. We need to find a way
to work together and make the necessary changes. This kind of
dictatorial, arbitrary and heavy-handed move on the part of the
government is a setback to that worthy goal, that important
aspiration of making this place more representative and more
democratic.
The auditor general's report came out today in which he stated:
For democracy to work and for government to be efficient and
effective, Parliament must be able to play its part.
There is no question that parliament is not able to play its
part now. Parliament is not able to play its part because of a
series of actions taken by the government to strip parliament of
its powers and to deny members of parliament the opportunity to
play a meaningful role in the process.
I only have to refer to the standing committees as an example of
the way in which the government has controlled that process by
prohibiting members from dealing with the serious questions of
the day, such as the future of health care in the country.
1945
The government has denied members the opportunity to participate
fully, has made decisions outside the Chamber, and has applied
the heavy hand of closure motions such as the one we are dealing
with today, to strip us of our powers and ability to represent
people as we aimed to do at the outset of getting involved in
politics.
I hope members on the Liberal side will reconsider and rethink
this position, take it off the books, and stop this nonsense so
we can all get down to the important work of seriously dealing
with parliamentary reform and ensuring this place preserves its
proud tradition and example of democracy and citizen
participation.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Madam Speaker, first
I could say that I am pleased to rise in the House this evening
to speak to this motion, but, at the same time, it is
unfortunate that we are once again taking a step backwards with
respect to democracy here in Canada. It is truly a step
backwards; we have a lovely House of Commons here so that we can
make the laws of the land, introduce bills and motions, and
govern the country.
We have the Liberal government across the way, saying “There
must be respect for the House of Commons, but we are going to
silence the opposition. We are going to take the opposition's
privileges away”. It is sad to see a party which, if I recall
correctly, around 1988-89, when it was in opposition, was glad to
be able to rise in the House of Commons and debate bills. The
Liberals were glad to be able to make amendments to bills. Back
then they did not like it one bit when the Progressive
Conservatives tried to stop them.
We all remember the GST bill. The Liberals turned up with a
whole string of amendments. Did the government of the day tell
them they were abusing the system, abusing parliament, because
they wanted to do their job? It is a disgrace that in 2001,
particularly after the 2000 election, the government says it is
going to be open to parliamentary reform.
It says it will sit down in parliament, and we are going to be
able to discuss and look at parliamentary reform together.
This evening, they turn up here with a motion. They want to
shut up the opposition again, but I believe we have a role to
play in democracy. We too are capable of shouldering our
responsibilities. If the government means to say that the
opposition is not assuming its responsibilities because there
supposedly were 100 or 200 amendments to a bill, is the
government assuming its responsibilities when it closes down
debate as it has been doing in recent years?
My colleague from Mississauga asks whether we did not want Bill
C-2 on employment insurance reform, whether we were not anxious
for it to get passed. Yes, I am anxious to see a bill on
employment insurance reform passed.
I want to see it passed, but as the member representing
Acadie—Bathurst, I would like to be able to rise in the House of
Commons and explain the problems and loopholes Bill C-2
contains.
That is why I was elected. I was elected to do that job and to
assume those responsibilities. I was elected to be able to
attend parliamentary committees, assume my responsibilities, and
bring up the problems that Bill C-2 brings us. I was elected to
be able to introduce motions in the House of Commons, to be able
to make amendments to Bill C-2, which does not go far enough. I
was elected to do all that in the House of Commons. This seat
belongs to Acadie—Bathurst. It does not belong to the member,
but to the people of Acadie—Bathurst. Because of that, I ought
to be able to stand up and be heard in committee. I ought to be
able to make amendments to government bills.
Canada does not belong to the Liberals alone. It belongs to all
Canadians. Canadians chose to send members to the House to
represent them.
1950
It is unfortunate. When the Bill C-2 was introduced into the
House, there was only one day of debate and that was it. It is
shameful.
The Liberals have just told us we abuse the system on this side
of the House. Yet, in the case of their bill on young offenders,
the Liberals had over 100 amendments, and they hold the power.
Shall we call them abusers because they drafted a bad bill and
realized they had missed the boat?
I do not think it costs the government any more if I am here
this evening debating one of its motions. That is why I was
elected. I was not elected to go home, but to be here to debate
the problems of concern to Canadians and the people of my riding.
I think the government's attitude is unfortunate. It is an
insult to watch the member for Waterloo—Wellington rise and try,
if I can put it this way, to crucify the entire opposition. They
say “You are wicked, you are not acting properly, you are
abusers”.
Are we going to call them abusers because we had to call for
quorum as the government members were not here? Each time
opposition members rise and look for what they are entitled to,
they are called abusers.
Yet the Liberals did the same thing when they were in opposition;
they tried to draw the government's attention to the fact that it
was headed in the wrong direction. That is what the opposition
wanted to do; it was trying to convince the government that it
was not going in the right direction.
With this motion, they are not acting properly. The Liberals
will not wait to undertake parliamentary reform together with us,
and debate it in committee.
I am the New Democratic Party whip. The whips and House leaders
of all the parties thought that parliamentary reform would take
place. All of sudden, the government House leader comes up with a
motion that basically says “You are a bunch of abusers, we will
pass a motion”. Whatever happened to democracy? Were we not
supposed to work together?
When you were on this side of the House—
[English]
Mr. John Harvard: You are going to have a heart attack.
Mr. Yvon Godin: I will say it again. He said that I am
going to have a heart attack. If I have a heart attack because I
am working for the people of Acadie—Bathurst, I might as well
drop now and I will be proud of it. He should not worry about
me. I will take care of myself.
[Translation]
It is important that the government stop playing these games. It
must give an opportunity to the other parties to do their job.
It is a disgrace. The Liberals' excuse is that the opposition
did not want to pass Bill C-2 on employment insurance. They came
up with a measly 5% when people back home are in the gap from
February to May. Yet they know we need to get rid of the
intensity rule. As for us, in the opposition, we will act
responsibly. We will represent our constituents.
The government has no business saying we are abusers. I will
never accept that from members opposite.
I will never accept this, because I was elected to represent the
people of Acadie—Bathurst, and I am going to represent them to
the best of my ability. I am not going to be swayed and
intimidated by the people across the way, by the Liberals, I
guarantee it.
This is a democracy. This is not the United Kingdom; this is
Canada. We do not need to follow the example of the United
Kingdom. We can build on our own experience and work together. I
am sure that if we were to sit down at the same table and try to
find solutions to certain problems, we would come up with
results.
Maybe if the opposition turns up with a string of amendments, it
is because the government's bill does not make any sense. What
can the opposition do?
I recall one tactic that was used once: one opposition party
refused to enter the House of Commons. They ignored three or
four bells. Some will say that this was perhaps not right, but
others will say that at least they made their point and that
Canadians had a chance to hear it.
The Canadian Alliance introduced 471 amendments to the Nisga'a
bill.
1955
I was happy to be able to vote against it 471 times. I thought
I had earned my paycheque. I think that, after that, the
Canadian Alliance understood that Canadians did not want these
amendments.
The thing is that we were able to put our democracy to work in
the House of Commons, and we do not need the Liberals to shut us
up. That is one thing that we will not stand for.
I appreciate whatever little time I was given by the Chair.
Hopefully, the Liberals will change their minds by 11 p.m. this
evening, restore democracy to the House of Commons, and stop
being a gang of dictators.
[English]
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
am particularly interested in this topic and I wonder if you
would inquire of the House whether there is unanimous consent to
give me unlimited time.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Reg Alcock: Madam Speaker, I will try to squeeze my
remarks into the 20 minutes that are available to me. Let me see
if I have it straight. We are gathered here to debate the right
of the opposition in this case to force the entire House of
Commons of Canada to spend hundreds of hours voting on important
motions like changing a period to a comma.
If I understand what I am listening to, that is what we are
doing right now. I have some sympathy for that debate. Some
members may not know that I was the opposition house leader in
the legislature of Manitoba. Certainly the member for Winnipeg
North Centre knows this. I have great sympathy for the
opposition and its need to have tools that allow it to force
accountability.
To that extent I listen to the debate with some sense of
concern. In every place, whether it is the legislature of
Manitoba or this great chamber, there are two conversations that
go on. There is the conversation that goes on here with the TV
cameras turned on, with the lights on and with Hansard
turned on to record all of our remarks, and then there is the
conversation that takes place in the corridors, behind the
curtains and in the coffee shops.
I do not know a member of any party who thinks it is a good idea
for us to spend hundreds of hours standing and sitting to vote on
frivolous motions. When we get away from the hot atmosphere here
and the attempts to embarrass each other and all that kind of
silly debate, I have not heard anyone who feels it is a
productive use of our limited time to spend the time we do on
issues of this sort.
I want to put some of this in context. I too worry about
excessive use of time allocation. I too worry about the tools
the government has available to drive legislation through without
proper examination or proper debate. I too worry about a House
where one side becomes so powerful that it need not take into
consideration any other opinion.
There is legitimate concern that this parliament, like
legislatures and parliaments around the world, has evolved into a
tool that permits the government to do exactly that, to impose
its will on parliament without having to give proper
consideration of debate on the other side.
However to every action there is a reaction. Oppositions have
resorted, in part because they have limited tools available, to
these rather frivolous and extreme kinds of actions to make their
case, to a point where it makes all of us look silly.
2000
I heard one member earlier talk about the Nisga'a treaty tool in
an attempt to give some dignity to the fact that we sat up here
day and night for about 40 hours. I think that member's claim to
fame was that he actually voted on every amendment because he
could run in and out to the bathroom.
Before I get into some of the solutions that I think exist to
this problem, let me try to provide a bit of a context and be
quite serious about it. I spend a lot of time thinking about it,
as I know other members of the House do. I have had very lengthy
and, I think, fruitful conversations with the House leader for
the New Democratic Party, who is one of the more experienced and
distinguished members of the House. He has spent a lot of time
here and is very thoughtful on these issues. I respect his
advice.
The first question is how do we get here? I would argue that
there are whole bunch of forces at play. One of them is that the
speed of life, the speed of business, the speed of change, the
need for decision, everything in the external world is moving
faster.
Bill Gates, in his most recent book, describes the decade that
we are now in as the decade of velocity, the decade in which the
major challenge to everyone will be to manage rapidity, the speed
at which things have to happen. This just did not occur at the
millennium. This increasing speed has been going on throughout
our lifetime. It has been going on throughout history and has
accelerated to a pace where changes take place within the context
of one generation. They are intergenerational. They are
multiple changes within a single generation.
As a result, there has been enormous pressure on the
institutions of government to respond quickly to changing
circumstances in the external world and to changing circumstances
in the communities within which our citizens to whom we are
accountable live.
Over time, slowly but sequentially and invidiously, the
governing side of the House has adopted a series of tools that
allow it to move its agenda forward faster and allow it to clear
it quickly. It is worthy of recognition that this has taken away
some time for thought. It has taken away some tools that the
opposition had to force more debate and to slow down the speed
with which something could happen.
I believe the debate on reform of this chamber is an important
one. It is a debate that needs to go on now. However, I do
separate it from this motion. One of the reasons I feel
comfortable doing this is that we have commitments now. To talk
about reform is not idle chatter. It is not a hopeful thought.
It is in the Speech from the Throne.
In the Speech from the Throne, the government said it recognized
there was an issue. In fact let me read it because I think it is
important to focus on this part of it.
One of the things I admire a great deal about our current Prime
Minister is this workmanlike, piece by piece, step by step
approach to solving problems. There is no fancy banner waving.
There is the problem and how we are going to find a
solution. That is what I see here.
The throne speech states:
The institutions of Government will continue to be strengthened.
Since 1993, the Government has taken a range of measures to
enable members of Parliament to more effectively represent the
views of their constituents.
In this new session of Parliament, the Government will make
further proposals to improve procedures in the House and Senate.
Among other measures, voting procedures will be modernized in the
House of Commons and, to assist parliamentarians in carrying out
their duties, the Government intends to increase the resources of
the Library of Parliament to better serve the research needs of
standing committees of the House and Senate.
2005
It did not stop there. The next day the Prime Minister stood in
the House and in his speech, his personal commitment to the
House, he said:
Like any human institution, the House of Commons is not perfect.
It can be strengthened. Over the years many changes have been
made to improve parliament and more will be made to bring
parliament into the 21st century.
The House leader is working with his colleagues from all parties
on reforms that will make the House work even better for the
benefit of all Canadians—
That is a commitment. That is not idle backroom chatter. I am
satisfied with that.
The member for Winnipeg North Centre mentioned some of my
feelings about this in her speech. She wondered how I could be
defending this motion today. I am very comfortable defending
this motion. I am tired of being part of a process that looks so
foolish, so stupid and has common Canadians scratching their
heads saying “What are you guys doing?” This is a bogus
procedure. It is one that destroys good work. It wastes
important time of which we have too little. I have no qualms at
all about getting rid of it.
What is the tool we have chosen to moderate it? We did not say
it cannot be done because report stage motions are an important
tool. What we do in this motion is reaffirm power and authority
already held by the Speaker. We do not give it to the government
or to the government House leader. We give it to a colleague who
has been elected by all members of the House and who has a
majority support in the House.
That colleague is not charged under the motion simply to dismiss
opposition motions. The Speaker, as the speaker in Westminster
has done, is empowered to examine those motions. If the Speaker
feels the government is being too harsh and too forceful in
driving things through, he or she can allow all sorts of motions,
or if it is felt they are frivolous, he or she may dismiss them.
It empowers one of the modern day democratic reforms. It was
not that long ago when the House finally got itself together
enough to take an individual who used to be an appointment of the
government's side and said “No, we are going to give this person
power independent of the government”. That is the position that
the motion adds to.
I want to reflect a little on what may come now because I heard
a couple of things. I could close my ears to the silliness which
I thought was coming. Actually maybe that is a bad word to use.
I will apologize for using that word. I do not mean to demean
the comments of other members in that sense. Having been in
opposition and having been forced to sometimes stand and
criticize things I felt positively about, it is very hard at
times to feel comfortable doing that. I realize members are
trying to protect a principle of accountability. However, what
they are trying to defend is something that is so frivolous.
They have to be very hard in their hearts to do that.
I tried to pick that apart and hear some of the other things
that were being said. There was a comment about the recent vote
on the ethics counsellor. There is a saying that a friend of
mine has on a poster on his office wall. It reads “For every
complex problem there is a simple answer and it is wrong”.
That is the problem which arises when we approach changes in the
House lightly. We can all see one little thing that we think is
important and needs to be changed. We can all come up with an
answer on how to change that one little thing that bothers us at
this moment in time. That is not how the House got where it is
today.
That is not how the rules, the procedures, the precedents and all
the things that allow us to work in the chamber have evolved. It
takes time. It takes thought. It takes reflection.
2010
This is the place in our country that manages power and
authority in the lives of all of our citizens. This is the
Chamber in this country that gives citizens their rights. This
is an important debate which should be approached carefully and
thoughtfully. It needs to be approached with the full
involvement of all members of the House. However it has to work
both ways. We all have to recognize the demands being imposed
upon us externally. The House needs to modernize.
I would like to add another dimension to this issue. I will go
back to Mr. Gates for a minute. Mr. Gates talks about the
tremendous impact that new communication information technologies
have had on the world. He calls it the 1980s, the decade of
quality. As these new tools became more ubiquitous and more
people used them and feedback loops were developed, people could
begin to manage in real time the quality process that affected
their business, or manufacturing, or service organization or
whatever.
He calls the nineties the decade of re-engineering. As these
tools got more robust and as the accumulation of data got
stronger and the ability to strike knowledge from that data got
stronger, suddenly we saw in very large organizations very
similar changes. It was like a stepping down into flatter,
faster organizations moving certain kinds of decisions out to the
periphery of contact with customers and clients and drawing some
kind of information into the centre to involve senior management
more directly in decision making. These were radical but
important changes. These were changes that increased service
quality, product quality and lowered costs.
If I can take members back a step to that little paradigm I would
ask them what the quality movement meant for government. It
happened in the external community. Where are the quality
circles, the service feedback and the client operation
improvement systems in government? They do not exist.
What has re-engineering meant in government? God knows there
have been enough consultants running around the country selling
packages on re-engineering usually trying to bolt crude private
sector models, which continuously fail, onto public institutions.
Government is a fundamentally more complex organization than the
largest business.
What is the restructuring, the re-engineering, the change that
has taken place in government? As the world has speeded up and
as this tremendous change has taken place in the external
environment that affects the lives of everybody we serve, how has
this institution changed? The answer is, it has not.
Re-engineering in government since the late eighties and up
until now has meant privatization. It has meant separating
those things that government delivers from government.
I was an advocate of it when I first came here. I chaired the
transport committee when the ports were privatized. I bought all
the arguments. I thought we could put them out there so they
could be fast and responsive. They could deal with the
community, respond to local conditions and all those wonderful
service things. What were we really saying? We were saying that
government was too slow, too stupid, too inept to be useful in
the lives of Canadians.
That is the challenge to us. I am talking about every single
person in the House. I am talking about this institution. I am
talking about every single Canadian because this place affects
every single Canadian. The challenge that confronts us is how
we make the instruments of democracy more useful for everybody.
That is the debate we are starting. I suspect it is a debate
that is going to go on for a long time because it is a huge
challenge in governments all around the world.
The problem I have is the attempt here to personalize this. This
is the Prime Minister's issue. This is the House leader's issue.
That is nonsense. This is an issue that every democratic
government on this globe is struggling with and failing in right
now.
There is a huge challenge, a much bigger challenge than anyone
really fully comprehends yet. I am excited about it. Let us
debate those changes.
2015
Let us debate the ways in which we get adequate examination,
accountability and control over the important instruments that
affect the lives of Canadians. We should stop debating the
importance of this entire House standing and sitting for 400
hours to change a comma. That is silly. We all know it is
silly, so let us stop it and get on with what I believe will be
the most important piece of work the House does in this decade.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, I am very happy to speak to the
motion because it bespeaks a continuation of what we were
dealing with earlier today, the undemocratization of the House of
Commons.
Members from across party lines have for years eloquently
described the frustration of being an MP. There is the
frustration of going home and speaking to the people who sent us
to the House, listening to their concerns and feeling impotent in
our ability to represent their concerns in the House.
We agree with the basic idea and principle of the motion put
forth by the government that we do not want to have a situation
where frivolous amendments are put forth merely to drag the House
into a prolonged period of irrelevant action. On the other hand,
as my colleague for Elk Island has said, we cannot allow the
rights of the minorities to be compromised. That is what we are
talking about today.
It is not only the rights of the minorities, but the rights of
the majority. We have a situation today where the House is ruled
by a Prime Minister who has an iron hammerlock upon the goings on
of the House and of the country.
The public understands that and we understand that. That is why
we saw voter turnout of less than 60% in the last federal
election. That is not something to be proud of. That is
something that should be a red flag that says we need to do
something to engage the public. We need to do something to bring
back the confidence that people should have in this great
institution.
Over decades this institution has whittled away. The democratic
powers of elected members have been removed year after year. The
late Prime Minister Trudeau said something to the effect that members of
parliament are nobodies 100 feet off the Hill. I suggest that
members of parliament are nobodies on the Hill and that is the
problem.
The public understands that and we understand that if we are to
be truthful about it. The fact of the matter is that there are
good people across party lines who have great things to
contribute for the betterment of Canadians from coast to coast,
but they do not have the power to represent their people.
Certainly we are accountable. Every four years we are
accountable. However during that intervening period of time do
we really have the power to represent our constituents so that
people can adequately judge us on the actions that we engage in?
No, we do not because we do not have the power to represent our
constituents.
We have seen over the years the corpses of members of parliament
lying beside House because they have tried to do the right thing.
They have tried to represent their constituents and to represent
their conscience. When that falls afoul of the leaders of
parties they are emasculated, rendered impotent, and at the worst
level they are thrown out of their party.
Who can forget John Nunziata, who on a matter of principle, a
matter of conscience and indeed the issue of the GST and a
government promise, said he could not support the government on
the particular issue? It violated a promise that he made when he
was elected. As a result of doing that he was thrown out of the
caucus.
This is the situation faced by every political party today to
varying degrees. It is something we have to change. Members of
my party have put up ideas such as the ethics counsellor. We put
forth a motion to give the government an opportunity to vote for
the promise that it made to the Canadian people in the first red
book.
2020
The government voted against its own promise of having an
independent ethics counsellor. We do not want an ethics
counsellor who answers to the Prime Minister; neither do the
members from the other side. What we should have is an ethics
counsellor who is independent of the Prime Minister and who
responds to the House.
We are concerned that with this motion the Prime Minister will
exercise more undue and unnecessary control over the House and
further strengthen his hold so that decisions will further be
made by the Prime Minister and his office staff, who are a group
of unelected, unaccountable and invisible individuals who rule
the country.
Many members of the public watching today may not know or
understand that the structure we have created today prevents and
inhibits their views, wishes and desires from being exercised in
the House.
Another serious problem is that we do not have any free votes.
We talk about it but in effect we do not debate it.
Committees, by and large, are make work projects for members of
parliament, and the health committee is a case in point. We have
a crisis in our health care system today. Over the years members
from across party lines have, as has the NDP critic for health,
stood shoulder to shoulder with us. We may have a difference of
opinion on what needs to be done to fix the problem but we
certainly stand shoulder to shoulder in saying that we need to
look at it. We need to examine it and implement effective
solutions to save our publicly funded health care system. Given
the fact that this is the biggest problem affecting Canadians,
not an academic issue but a blood and guts issue where people's
lives are at stake, we have a government that has directed the
committee to study plain packaging of cigarettes, aboriginal
health and other issues that, while important, pale in comparison
to the overarching issue of how we manage to save our public
health system.
Is the government dealing with the issue of our aging
population? We have an aging population and a demographic that
will turn all our social programs on their end, from CPP to
health care, to other social programs. It is an impending crisis
that looms on the horizon. The failure to deal with our aging
population and the impact upon our social programs, and indeed on
our economy, will have such a profound impact on our society that
we will not be able to deal with it and those people who are the
poorest in our society, the most vulnerable, from the aged to the
young, are the ones who will get hurt. The only way to deal with
that is to deal with it proactively. We cannot deal with it in a
knee-jerk reactive mode. We have to deal with these problems
proactively because it takes time to develop the solutions and
enact them. If we do not do it now people will be hurt.
On the issue of the environment, Canada has been repeatedly told
that we have some serious environmental problems. We need to
address them but are we? No. We go through this mill that goes
around and around. Ideas are tossed around in a big circle and
they go nowhere quickly. Our failure to deal with these issues
causes untold hardship to the public.
People in our health care system who are watching their rivers
being polluted by a minority of the industrialists who dump
garbage into our rivers and streams want to know why the
government is not dealing with it. What do they hear? They hear
the sound of silence. They hear nothing. Does that engender
respect and a willingness to engage and work with the government?
Does that engender a desire to get involved in the political
process? No, it does not. In fact, most people want to get
involved but they recognize that the House does not work and that
maybe they should find other ways to exercise their democratic
rights. Unfortunately, too many people have become so apathetic
that they are not getting involved at all.
Part of the reason that we have this situation is the unwritten
code of conduct we have in the House, a code that rewards
zealotry over objectiveness and a code that says if our ideas,
our objectivity and our professional training run adverse to the
leadership, we must be removed or follow blindly what we have
been told.
It is a code of conduct that says one must blindly follow the
leadership of their party. It is a code that excludes external
information from other sources when they run adverse to what the
leadership of the party says.
2025
This is disingenuous. We have a system that naturally rewards
being able to destroy the other side. Indeed, the role of the
opposition is to keep the government on its toes. It is to be
the toughest critic of the government that can be found, but it
should not and must not preclude the ability of members in every
political party to engage in constructive and positive discourse
for the betterment of Canadians.
If we cannot use our God given brains, if we cannot engage and
pull out the best and brightest ideas from the people of our
country, if we cannot stimulate and inspire the people of our
nation to bring forth and have acted upon their ideas to make
Canada the best nation in the world, what are we here for?
We cannot do that right now. We are seeing cracks develop in
our great nation. We talk about western alienation. We talk
about the well known disaffection of the west, but it is not the
only alienation. We have eastern alienation. We have the
maritimers saying that what goes on in Ottawa has very little to
do with them. They feel left out.
We have rural alienation. We have a rural-urban split that is
not well analyzed or spoken about. The rural alienation is very
real. A lot of people who provide the economic backbone of the
country are forgotten about. Because of a lack of health care, a
lack of resources and an abysmal or a non-existence
infrastructure on the part of the government, we have people who
are turned off, tuned out, and have a great deal of antipathy
toward the federal government.
We have aboriginal alienation, large swaths of aboriginal
communities who are suffering the worst possible social
parameters in the country today. That has been going on for too
long.
My party has been wrongfully accused of being against grassroots
aboriginal people. We are the only party which has given
the grassroots aboriginal people a vector, a voice in the House.
We are not as interested in advocating for the leadership they
have as we are in ensuring that the wishes, the hopes and the
fears of grassroots aboriginal people are brought into the House
in the most eloquent and forceful terms possible. We have tried
to do that time and time again.
Mr. Werner Schmidt: We will continue to do that.
Mr. Keith Martin: As my colleague says, we will continue
to do that.
We have francophone alienation. Part of the reason we have such
a terrible situation historically in Quebec is a lack of
communication. There is justifiable alienation on the part of
the Quebec people, the francophonie in this entire country,
because they too have not been listened to. If we scratch the
surface of many separatists we find some very real concerns, some
very real desires to reform the country and to make it a better
place for everybody.
That is what we need to listen to and we need to address. It is
not rocket science. The government needs to listen to what these
people are saying. It needs to go to their territory, their
homes and their communities to ask them what they are saying and
to listen to what they are saying. Lo and behold it will find
that many of the communities across the country are saying the
same thing.
I do not subscribe to the notion that we have different types of
species of Canadians. We do not have homo sapiens British
Columbiensis, homo sapiens Maritimiensis or homo sapiens
Ontarioensis. We have one Canadian and one Canada. The hopes,
the fears and the concerns of people from coast to coast, whether
they are westerners, Ontarians, people from the prairies,
maritimers, aboriginals, non-aboriginals, immigrants,
non-immigrants, rural people or city folk, their hopes, their
fears and their concerns are the same.
2030
They want a job. They want safe streets. They want good health
care. They want social programs to be there in their time of
need. They want to be sure the people who are most disadvantaged
in our community will be taken care of. They want a better
future for their children than they have had.
If the government were to address the problems and concerns of
the people of the nation in a forthright fashion, it would be
elected time and time again. However there is a political vacuum
in which we are trying to engage. My party is trying to force
the government to say to the Canadian people that it can do
better.
Why do we accept a 66 cent dollar? Why do we accept a higher
unemployment rate than that of the U.S.? Why do we accept a
taxation rate that is so much higher than the American one that
it drives the best and brightest out of the country?
Why do we accept education standards in post-secondary and grade
school that are below those of our competitors? Why do we accept
environmental standards that are not adhered to? Why do we
accept aboriginal communities that have social program parameters
akin to the third world? Why do we accept three and a half year
waits to see an orthopedic surgeon? Why do we accept health care
that approaches that of a second world nation? Why do we accept
our best and brightest leaving the country?
We should not and do not accept the level of mediocrity the
government has been trying to sell to the Canadian people, and
the people are not buying it. We can aspire to much more. It is
not complex. Effective constructive solutions exist that must be
applied in a quick, rapid and effective fashion to address the
problems. If we do so, we will be able to aspire to more than we
have and to build a country that provides a better future for all
Canadians and especially for our children.
What are some of the things we can do? Many members in my
caucus have put forth constructive solutions. Our House leader
put forth many. My colleagues from British Columbia and Alberta
and members from across party lines have put forth constructive
solutions, and some have done so for many years.
We have fought for free votes in the House of Commons, and I
mean true free votes. No bill can be made a vote of confidence
in the government. If a bill fails because it was not good
enough, we should send it back to committee and fix the bill.
We can also reform the committee structure. Why have a
committee structure that is a make work project for MPs? We
should give the committees a greater say. We should let them
have greater flexibility in what they study. We should let them
address the big issues. We should not allow parliamentary
secretaries to act as mini whips who force government members to
vote in a certain way. We should have secret votes for committee
chairmen so that the best person across party lines has an
opportunity to chair the committee. Then we would have the most
effective committee possible.
We should expand private members' business. The public might be
fascinated to know that members of parliament can get private
members' bills into the House only by lottery. Names are drawn.
If members are lucky enough to have their names drawn, their
bills will go to committee and the committee will decide whether
the bills are votable.
No other democracy in the entire world allows private members'
bills to be put forward that are made non-votable. What an
oxymoron, a non-votable private member's bill. Why even have a
private member's bill if it can never become law? It is a waste
of time.
The public may also want to ask why the government gutted the
legal opportunities and powers we need to put our private
members' bills together. They were gutted and removed. The
lawyers, the key linchpin in our ability to put private members'
business forward, were taken away from us.
At one time there were only three lawyers for more than 225
members of parliament, yet the cabinet had more than 70 lawyers
at its disposal. That was a sly but effective way of preventing
private members across party lines from being able to put forth
bills on behalf of their constituents.
We should be given more lawyers to craft our private members'
bills. We should expand private members' hour by two hours on
Friday and one hour on Monday. We should make sure that every
member of parliament has at least one bill to put forth.
2035
As my time is running out, I would implore the government, for
the betterment of everyone here, but more important for the
benefit of our country, to democratize the House. If we fail to
democratize the House we do not deserve the respect of the
Canadian people. The House will be nothing but a dictatorship
that compromises the ability of Canada to be as good as it can
become. We need to do this now. There is cross party support
for it. If we do not do it now we do not deserve the respect we
should have.
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
will be sharing my time with the member for Charleswood St.
James—Assiniboia.
The motion tabled today restates the traditional power of the
Speaker not to select for report stage debate motions of a
frivolous, repetitive or vexatious nature. This is not so
dramatic or unusual, it seems to me. Let us consider what the
motion actually says:
For greater clarity, the Speaker will not select for debate a
motion or series of motions of a repetitive, frivolous or
vexatious nature or of a nature that would serve merely to
prolong unnecessarily proceedings at the report stage and, in
exercising this power of selection, the Speaker shall be guided
by the practice followed in the House of Commons of the United
Kingdom.
What are we doing? We are moving to the system we used to have.
We are moving to the system followed by the mother of our
parliament and of all parliaments, the U.K. It is not a huge
change. We are returning to the original intent of the standing
orders we now follow.
It is interesting that this is the same basic concept and rule
that is followed by thousands of community organizations across
the country who use a very well known rule book, Robert's
Rules of Order. I will read from Robert's Rules of
Order, the section dealing with dilatory, absurd or frivolous
motions. The intent of the rule, which is used across the
country by so many organizations, is quite similar to the intent
of the motion today. It states:
—whenever the chair is satisfied that members are using
parliamentary forms merely to obstruct business, he should either
not recognize them, or else rule them out of order. After the
chair has been sustained upon an appeal, he should not entertain
another appeal from the same obstructionists while they are
engaged evidently in trying by that means to obstruct business.
While the chair should always be courteous and fair, he should be
firm in protecting the assembly from imposition, even though it
be done in strict conformity with all parliamentary rules except
this one, that no dilatory, absurd, or frivolous motions are
allowed.
As an illustration of a frivolous or absurd motion, suppose Mr.
A is to be in the city next week and a motion has been made to
invite him to address the assembly at its next meeting, the
meetings being weekly. Now, if a motion is made to refer the
question to a committee with instructions to report at the next
regular meeting, the chair should rule it out of order as
frivolous or absurd.
That is the rule that is followed all across the country in all
kinds of democratic organizations. We are adopting basically the
same concept with almost the same wording.
Members opposite are up in arms about this, suggesting that it
will limit important debate. Is it important that we go on for
hours voting on questions of whether we should have a comma after
every word in a bill or whether the bill should be hoisted for
six months or reconsidered clause by clause? Such ridiculous
motions are not intended to change the substance of a bill but
only to waste the time of the House. That surely is not why we
were sent here by our electorates.
In the last parliament members had to vote for days on report
stage motions because of the abuse of a loophole in the standing
orders on report stage motions.
In December 1999 there were over 42 hours of non-stop voting on
469 report stage motions to amend the Nisga'a bill. Were they
really motions to try to improve the or change the bill
substantively? No. The vast majority of them were vexatious,
repetitive, frivolous motions.
2040
In March 2000 the House spent 36 hours voting on 411 report
stage motions to amend the clarity bill. Again they were
frivolous, vexatious, repetitive motions.
In September 2000, just last fall, there were over 3,000 report
stage amendments to the youth justice bill which would have taken
two weeks or more to complete in non-stop voting. Let us imagine
members of parliament spending night and day for two weeks
standing and sitting in the House to vote on all kinds of
ridiculous amendments.
The public in my riding will not stand for that. I cannot
imagine that members opposite can expect their electorate to
stand for it either. It is enough that we take the time we do
standing and sitting in the voting process. It is good that the
government is looking at the idea of electronic voting to try to
streamline the voting process. Sometimes it goes on and on and
on. It could be done much more efficiently. Our time could be
used far better than in this very slow process.
I mentioned the youth justice bill. I will refer to some of
those motions. There were almost 400 motions in Motions Nos.
2,646 to 3,029 from only 44 members to change the coming into
force of the provisions of the act. For example, Motions Nos.
2,654 and 2,655, one member's motions, had a different coming
into force proposal for the same section of the act. Another
member's Motions Nos. 2,657 and 2,658 had a different coming into
force proposal for the same section of the act. Motions Nos.
2,327 to 2,418 included almost 100 motions for the timing of a
provision, from 691 days to 792 days, increasing one day per
motion.
One member who is no longer in the House, Mr. Turp, proposed
different times for the timing of the same provisions. Again
they were silly, frivolous, vexatious and repetitive motions,
wasting the time of the House and wasting taxpayer dollars.
Motions Nos. 3,030 to 3,133 included over 100 amendments from
only 44 members requiring a statutory review of various
provisions of the act.
What was the point if not to delay things, be obstructionist,
cause problems, waste taxpayer dollars and waste the time of
members and the time of the House? The cost of this abuse is
completely unacceptable to Canadians who elected us to debate and
study legislation, not to spend days and days voting on
frivolous, repetitive and vexatious amendments.
Canadians in my riding and elsewhere across the country are not
concerned about whether there are 10 commas or 2 commas in a
sentence. They are concerned about issues like health care, about
the taxes they pay and about economic growth across the country.
The concerns I heard during the election campaign in Halifax
West were about the fact that Halifax West was undoubtedly the
fastest growing area in Atlantic Canada. We do not have the
infrastructure to support the growth we have seen over the past
20 years. We do not have the new schools that are needed. We
have children in overcrowded schools and old schools that are
becoming decrepit. They need new investment and new schools.
They are concerned about the lack of roads in Halifax West and
the need for new roads to support this growing area. They are
concerned about the need for recreation facilities and the waste
of their tax dollars. The last thing they want to see is members
of parliament wasting $8,000 an hour sitting here overnight
voting on ridiculous motions. It is the last thing they want to
see.
They want us to be working. They want us to be looking at how
departments are spending money and trying to make them work
better. They want us to try to make government work better. That
is the reason we are here. Let us spend our time focussing on
what government departments and agencies are doing and trying to
make them work better. Goodness knows there is a lot of room for
improvement.
There are a lot of details we must look at in our work as
watchdogs to get government departments to work better for the
public. That surely is our job, not to sit here night after
night voting all night long on ridiculous motions that wear us
out and make us unable to do our jobs the next day, or whenever
it ends.
It is a cost that is simply unacceptable to taxpayers who have
to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in overtime costs for the
House of Commons staff to stay when votes go on through the
night.
2045
It is also unacceptable for the staff of the House of Commons,
who have to work the extra hours or work overtime. It may
endanger their health as well.
We should consider what impact this has on the institutions of
parliament and how it degrades parliament in the minds of the
public when it is engaged in silly activities that are clearly
not constructive or substantive.
I realize that members across the way like to find topics to
raise so they can have time to talk about all kinds of issues
that are of concern to them. I appreciate that, but surely to
waste our time sitting here and voting all night long is not an
answer to the concerns of their constituents or my constituents.
Surely we all can see that passing the motion will make our
parliament more efficient and will help us get to the job at
hand.
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, first I want to thank my colleague from
Halifax West for allowing me to take part in the debate by
sharing his time.
The first thing I want to say in my remarks, and I want to make
it very clear, is that I happen to believe very sincerely that
the opposition parties, not just the official opposition party
but all parties, play a very important role in the House and in
parliament. Their role is just as important as ours, ours being
the government side of the House.
Mr. Leon Benoit: The Prime Minister runs the show over
there. What would be the difference if you weren't here?
Mr. John Harvard: What we need is for everyone, wherever
possible, and if we can change our rules, if we can enhance our
rules, perhaps we can make—
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I am sure that at
this hour we all want to hear what the hon. member has to say, so
I will ask the hon. member to resume debate.
Mr. John Harvard: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I hope that
is not subtracted from my time.
What has just happened in the last few seconds is quite
instructive. I started off my remarks by trying to be positive
and by trying to be complimentary toward the opposition. The
opposition does play an important role. They are just as
important as those of us on this side of the House.
Yet the member from Alberta immediately brought up the issue
that the Prime Minister somehow controls every word and
everything that is said and done in the House, which is totally
irrelevant, especially in this debate and given the motion that
is before us.
I listened very intently to the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan
de Fuca a few minutes ago. He is one of the more respected
members of the House. When he speaks, I like to listen. I think
he gave a pretty darn good speech, but almost everything that the
hon. member said had absolutely nothing to do with the motion
before the House.
Let me give an example. I think I can make my case quite clear.
What are we debating tonight? We are debating a change in the
standing orders so that we do not have to deal with these
frivolous, vexatious motions at report stage, which we have been
experiencing for the last couple of years. I think that is a
very legitimate issue.
I would like the opposition MPs to address their remarks to the
motion that is before us. What did I hear from the hon. member
for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca? I wrote it down. He talked about
the alleged dictatorship on the part of the Prime Minister. I do
not know what that has to do with the motion that is before us.
He talked about rendering MPs impotent.
I do not know what that has to do with the motion. He talked
about the value of the dollar, the unemployment level, health
care in Canada and aboriginals in Canada. He even talked about
non-votable motions.
2050
Maybe in some other debate, maybe in some other context, those
remarks would be relevant and make a lot of sense, but we are not
talking about those things. We are talking about a motion that
would change the standing orders of the House because we have had
a problem with these frivolous, nonsensical report stage motions.
An hon. member: Give us some examples.
Mr. John Harvard: Examples? The best examples are those
where it is suggested that we change a period to a comma or a
comma to a period or, as the member for Halifax West mentioned a
few minutes ago, where one member at one report stage made more
than 100 motions having to do with the timing of the
implementation of the bill. That is frivolous and I do not think
it should be tolerated.
One of the speakers—and I do not know if it was the hon. member
for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca—said that this particular motion
before us would somehow aggrandize the power of and add to the
dictatorship of the Prime Minister. This has nothing to do with
the Prime Minister at all. In fact, if anybody is going to get
power out of this, it is extra power for the Speaker. We are
actually deferring to the elected Speaker of the House to make
decisions with respect to frivolous, vexatious motions. It has
nothing to do with the Prime Minister at all, absolutely zero,
yet that is the kind of charge we face.
One of the reasons that we have this kind of debate is that
there is a kind of crazy culture in the House. Everything that
the government proposes the opposition must criticize. Somehow
or other in this culture anything the government does or proposes
has to be wrong. In fact if government ever does anything that
is disagreeable to even one Canadian, the automatic charge that
comes its way is “You don't listen”. It is the most familiar
and common charge one can hear.
We could go out and consult 30 million Canadians. We might even
find favour with 70% or 80% of them, and guess what? The
opposition would say we just were not listening, that we were
totally irresponsible, and not only that, probably idiotic. That
is the kind of culture we have around here.
We are trying in one very small way to improve the performance
of all of us, not just of opposition MPs but of government MPs.
When we are having debates of this kind, instead of having these
free-wheeling discussions where any kind of allegation and any
kind of charge can be brought to the floor, I would suggest that
we require members, all of us, to talk about the motion before
us.
I remember many years ago hearing the story about a debate that
took place in the House probably 40 to 50 years ago. It was a
debate about wheat. One member stood up. I know his name but I
will not mention it. Apparently in those days members could
speak for 40 minutes. The member stood up and talked about wheat
for 40 minutes and never used the word wheat once, not even once.
The reason I mentioned this is that I consider the member for
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca one of the best members in the House, but
when he can address these frivolous motions we face all the time
at report stage and talk about the value of the dollar, health
care, aboriginals and unemployment, what in the name of heaven
has that got to do with the motion before us?
I believe that by tightening up the rules we would all become
much more responsible. I think very often that we on the
government side wander off on crazy tangents.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
2055
Mr. John Harvard: Yes, sometimes. Yes, we are human and
we make those mistakes. Maybe we should have stronger rules,
forcing us to perform better and to address the issue before us.
I just hope that Canadians who are watching this debate have
some understanding of what the debate is about. It is about
changing the House order to prevent these frivolous, silly
motions that are brought forward at report stage.
Imagine over 400 amendments to the Nisga'a bill in 1999. We
spent 42 hours on 469 report stage motions. A year later in
2000, we spent 36 hours voting on 411 report stage motions. It
makes no sense. It is silly.
We are just trying to clean this up, so let us not hear this
nonsense about dictatorship, about how we are out of control and
not being responsible. I think we are being responsible, and I
think this work we have put forward deserves the support of
everyone in the House.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege, actually, to be able to
join in this debate, because I think what we are dealing with
here is probably one of the most significant elements that has
hit this House for some time. That element is parliamentary
reform.
The particular issue I will raise is the quotation that I
believe the member for Winnipeg South used. I think he took it
from an office placard that he saw. I believe it went like this:
“For every complex problem there is a simple solution”. It is
wrong.
I suggest that with parliamentary reform we have a very complex
issue. It is not something that is going to be resolved simply.
It will require a major review of a number of things and I
believe the hon. member for Winnipeg South said as much. This is
a complicated issue.
I wanted to ask him a question and unfortunately the rules of
the House did not allow us to ask questions. The question I was
going to ask him was this: is this not a very simple solution to
a very complex question? I think it is.
It is good that the Speaker would have the right not to allow
vexatious and frivolous kinds of amendments. I have no problem
with that. We agree with that.
However, there is a difficulty, which is why the Canadian
Alliance put forward an amendment. Our amendment reads as
follows:
and, for even greater clarity, the Speaker may select for debate
all motions, regardless of their nature, if in his or her opinion
the rights of the minority have been infringed upon in any way.
At that point lies the very heart of the issue. The essence of
parliament is to give a voice to the people of Canada.
I see the hon. member for Winnipeg South back in the House and
it is great to see him nodding his head.
That is our purpose here. It is to make this place relevant. A
number of speakers here this afternoon said that parliament, for
many people, has become irrelevant. That is a serious indictment
on every one of us here. We should be able to debate in such a
way that it is relevant to virtually everyone in Canada, whether
we are on the opposition side of the House or the government side
of the House.
I will address my remarks in that regard. I will refer to the
hon. Minister of Finance. Not too long ago the Minister of
Finance made a comment in a speech. I will read the exact
paragraph that he used. The Minister of Finance said:
We have been discussing the role of Parliament in enshrining the
values of the nation and its response to change. This is an
empty debate unless it recognizes the role of the
parliamentarians themselves—in our case the 301 members of the
current House of Commons...MPs must have the opportunity to truly
represent both their consciences and constituencies.
2100
I could not agree more. That is a wonderful statement from a
very honourable gentleman in the House who has a major and very
responsible position in the government. I really admire that he
said that.
The question then is will this kind of a motion bring about a
stronger and more effective voice for parliamentarians? It will
if vexatious motions are not there.
One of the reasons why there are these, by some definitions
frivolous or vexatious, motions is because there is frustration
on the part of parliamentarians. They cannot express themselves
the way they want to. They cannot give voice to the people.
They cannot vote in the interests of their constituents. Why is
this? The hon. members opposite know only too well what I am
talking about.
I want to refer back to the position of the Prime Minister. The
Prime Minister stood in the House and said, “I am only an
ordinary MP looking after the interests of my constituency”. The
Prime Minister is not an ordinary MP. The Prime Minister is a
very special person with unique powers. The Prime Minister has
the power to appoint supreme court judges, senators and all the
ministers of the crown. The Prime Minister also has the right to
take away those appointments. He can shift around particular
positions. He is not an ordinary member of parliament.
There are times when the Prime Minister exercises certain powers
over members of parliament that deny them the responsibility and
the opportunity to exercise their representative power of their
constituencies.
I remember clearly the vote that took place in the House on the
remuneration for hepatitis C victims. I am sure all members of
the House know that there are people on that side of the House
who voted against what they had been fighting for and what they
knew was the right thing to do. Why did they do this? They were
told they must toe the party line. That is wrong. That is a
denial of the democratic principles of the House. That is what
we are decrying.
If there was not this kind of frustration, there would be no
need for all kinds of frivolous and vexatious motions. These are
expressions of something else that is wrong. We cannot fix a
complex problem by taking one little item and changing it and
think that all the other things are going to go away. They will
not go away. The problems are inherent in the system. The
system has to change.
The Prime Minister has to be accountable to parliament. We had
a very recent example that happened in this 37th parliament. A
red book promise was given to the people of Canada about
appointing an ethics counsellor by parliament and having that
ethics counsellor report to parliament. The Prime Minister said
that was what they were going to do it.
When it came to a vote in the House of Commons to give effect to
and implement that particular promise, what did the Prime
Minister do? He said his party would vote against that motion,
thus denying an opportunity for the ethics counsellor to become
the truly impartial, objective person who could evaluate what the
Prime Minister was doing and what other ministers might do.
That is what frustrates us. That is what makes it impossible
for parliamentarians to do what they were elected to do. That is
serious business.
I wish to address one other issue. This comes out of a study
that was done by Queen's University. I am sure there are members
opposite who know only too well that particular institution, an
institution of great learning and one I respect.
Mr. Reg Alcock: You're too smart for that.
Mr. Werner Schmidt: I would like to address the hon.
member for Winnipeg South because he understands this university
very well. He probably knows many of the people who teach there.
I would like to refer to this particular study entitled,
“Searching for Good Governance”.
I am going to quote a couple of paragraphs from this particular
study. Bill Stanbury in 1994 concluded that the present system
of cabinet government was seriously flawed with respect to one of
its most widely cited virtues, accountability.
2105
We have just talked about exactly that. Accountability is the
issue. It is not vexatious or frivolous motions that come to us.
Those are byproducts of a much bigger problem which is
accountability.
Mr. Stanbury went on to say “Little useful information is
disclosed that would permit the voters to properly assess the
performance of the government. The ability of parliament and
voters to hold accountable the cabinet and the rest of the
executive is highly limited”.
That is what we are talking about today and it is very
significant. The issue is the accountability of parliament and
the accountability of the Prime Minister and ministers of the
crown. He argued that between elections a majority government
was ultimately constrained only by self-restraint, a form of
self-regulation.
Members know that self-regulation that is talked about here is
nothing more and nothing less than the self-regulation of the
Prime Minister himself. It is the Prime Minister's office that
decides what will or will not happen. Mr. Stanbury went on to
say “The government often controls the means of monitoring its
performance. It controls much of the quantity, quality and type
of information available. It is unlikely to admit non-performance
and will do its best to conceal bad performance”.
In his book Checks Unbalanced: The Quiet Side of Public
Spending, Herman Leonard wrote: “Civilized people go to great
lengths to avoid having to confront unpleasant news and
uncomfortable feeling. But when we practice avoidance and
obfuscation in public affairs, the consequences reach us all. A
civilized penchant to look away. The willingness of some to hide
and of others to tolerate the hiding of the public's business is
on its face antithetical to our society. Society's fundamental
governing precept, governing by the informed consent of the
governed”.
That is a major insight but very important for us to realize.
That is at the heart of what we are debating here today, that we
make parliament relevant so that every Canadian can say it is a
place where their representatives can tell the people what it is
that they want done in a democratic form. They will take their
view from the majority position but they want their voice heard
there.
This is the point that he is making. He is saying that if
information is not given or if it is somehow obfuscated or it is
adulterated in some way, electors no longer make an informed
decision about who can represent them. That is what that is all
about.
He goes on to the accountability of expenditures. This is
probably even more significant than anything else I have said so
far. The authors of the study concluded:
Most of the “bottom line” focus of accountability in the media
is the general budget presentation of the deficit by the Minister
of Finance.
We do not have a budget right now but we do have the rest of
this which does apply. It is a well established practice that
the media takes the bottom line from the budget presentation by
the minister. It provides an incentive to manipulate the
presentation of the general accounts to give the impression of
better performance in this regard.
The study further stated:
For example, spending might be shifted “off-budget” to an
independent agency such as a Crown corporation, or into a loan
guarantee as opposed to a direct subsidy, to reduce the
“deficit” registered in the general accounts. Alternatively,
accounts might even be made to look worse in order to make more
dramatic an expected improvement. It is well-known that new
governments tend to attribute as much responsibility for deficits
as possible to the previous political managers.
How many times have we seen that in the House? We have seen it
over and over again.
It goes on to state that preliminary work done by Postner
emphasized the need for a consolidated budget, a budget that
would provide a unified presentation of all government
activities, including general government activities, trust fund
activities such as public sector pension plans and enterprise
type activities such as crown corporations.
2110
By doing so it would help to illuminate the complete financial
picture of the government and diminish the potential to shift
activities off budget to conceal politically embarrassing
information.
There is the heart of the issue. We are unable to assess
accurately whether the information we are getting in the
budget document is an accurate description of where the
government has spent its money and how much it has spent. We do
not know and we cannot know because the accounting system is such
that it does not accrue the total expenditures. They are
expenditures that take place off budget. They are still a
liability to the government. It has spent the money but it does
not appear in the budget that as presented to the media and the
public. It is not an accurate reflection of the real financial
position of the government.
This is at the heart of the frustration which we are
experiencing. We can argue about free votes. We can talk about
the role of committees and amendments. If we do not deal with
the fundamental issue of representation of our constituents, of
our consciences in this place, we are denying the fundamental
principle of democracy. That is what we need to address.
I would like to say one more thing with regard to the whole
business of reforming parliament. We must first of all recognize
that we are Canadians, that we are here as a democracy, a
democracy that has stood the test of time, a democracy that is in
a crisis situation right now and a democracy where many people
are saying it is no longer relevant and they really do not care.
That is a serious indictment. We must care because the iron law
of politics applies to us and to every Canadian. Those who
choose not to get involved are bound to be governed by those who
do.
The time has come for each of us to work together and to work
through the principles of true democracy. This is where people
are elected on the merits, platform and philosophies they
present. They are elected on the basic principles and policies
that they stand for, that they will implement when given the
reins of power and that we can depend on those people to do what
they said they would do.
Mr. Dennis Mills: Sounds like a Liberal.
Mr. Werner Schmidt: The hon. member cries that it is the
Liberal way. That is not the Liberal way. I just gave the House
an example that said clearly that a promise was given to appoint
an ethics counsellor. He would be appointed by parliament and
report to parliament. The Liberals denied that. They voted
against it. That is what the Liberals did.
The ethics counsellor should have been appointed by parliament.
He should have been given that kind of power. If they
did not want to do it then, they should do it now. It would have
been far better for the government in power today to have put
that kind of motion before us. We could all have supported that
motion, not this kind of motion which does not get to the heart
of the issue and which deals with peripheral duties. The real
frustration comes from these other issues. That is what we need
to keep in place and recognize that it is the case.
The point has come for us to realize that many of us in the
House, and I have spoken to several members on various
committees, whether it is from this side of the House or from the
government side are asking what in the world they are here for?
They feel they are wasting their time. They say the minister
tells them the bill they will be voting on or the legislation
they will be dealing with. They cannot make any amendments to
it. They cannot determine who the witnesses will be. To some
degree there is some flexibility but by and large, if the
minister does not want, or if the Prime Minister does not want,
certain witnesses to appear, they will not appear,
notwithstanding the committee has the power under legislation to
subpoena people. However, what happens? Nothing.
There is the frustration. We need to come to grips with the
realities of giving to the parliamentarians meaningful work,
inside and outside committees. We need to allow them to vote the
way they want to vote and allow them to express what needs to be
done. That is consistent with what the people want them to do.
That is at the heart of the issue. I am pleading for the House
to reform parliament to make that possible.
2115
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I listened to some of the members opposite and I half expect
someone in a red or blue cape to come flying through here. They
just have all the solutions and all the answers. Frankly, I find
it a little bit tiresome and a little bit frustrating.
First, here are a couple of facts. We are sitting here and it
is 9.15 p.m. On a normal sitting day the House would have been
recessed by approximately 6.30 p.m. We will be here until 11.30
or 12 o'clock tonight at least. Just so people know, the cost to
run this place beyond the regular hour is somewhere around
$25,000 per hour. The debate this evening will cost the Canadian
taxpayer, for whom I assume my friend from the Bloc could not
care less, about $125,000. I just wanted to make the cost clear.
Why do we have the motion? Other members have stood up and said
to speak to the motion. We have sat in this place through 24
hours of not debating and not talking but simply voting on
motions that would make absolutely no difference to the
legislation or to the quality of the legislation. They would
have no impact on the end product. They do nothing more than
delay. To sit here doing that is not just a waste of money, it
is an abuse of the democratic system.
If members opposite want to talk about ways to reform this
place, why do we not start with this motion? The motion is
indeed parliamentary reform. The motion says to my hon. friends
opposite that if they want to filibuster and stand in their place
and talk with at least a modicum of intelligence about the
particular issue involved they can do so. They have that
opportunity. In the good old days, filibuster meant talking out
the issue, debating.
When I was a member of the Ontario legislature I recall sitting
through filibusters that would last a day or two. I may not have
liked it or agreed with it but I had to respect the ability of
parliamentarians to stand in their place in opposition to the
government of the day. Whether we were members of the opposition
or members of the government, we had to respect the ability of
the individual to stay on topic and talk about the issue that was
of concern to their constituents and, in that example, to the
people of the entire province, and in this example, all of
Canada.
What have we had? We have had a major debate. The one that
comes to mind is the Nisga'a treaty. The opposition did not
agree with us. It did not like the treaty and did not like what
we were doing. I did not have a problem with that. It is
totally within its rights and its purview to disagree with us.
However, the opposition submitted hundreds of amendments that
were—and I love the word—vexatious, which means annoying. They
did not change the treaty one bit and did not change the outcome
of the government legislation one iota. They simply required the
government to stay here and vote on periods, commas and
semicolons.
Now, really, is that what Canadians elected any of us in this
place to do? Absolutely not. Canadians may have some respect
for a member opposite who could stand up and clause by clause,
line by line, word by word, go through that particular bill and
explain to the Canadian public why he or she is against a
particular bill.
2120
I do not care what bill it is. I have served in opposition and
I have served in government. I respect the responsibility and
the important role that opposition must play in this kind of
democracy.
What bothers me, though, is that when the opposition today does
not like what the government is doing it says that it does not
like the process. When it says it does not like the process
means it lost. Rather than argue the substantive impact of the
motion, the bill or the document before parliament, members of
the opposition cry foul that somehow the big, bad Prime Minister
whipped them. He has chains and runs racks in the back room
where they are tortured mercilessly. Their brains are taken and
put in jars somewhere when they arrive. They just denigrate the
role of MPs.
When I am here in the nation's capital as a member of
parliament, like many of my colleagues on all sides of the House
I work between 12 and 18 hours a day. Our day starts very early
with committee meetings, working in caucuses and working with
opposition members. We find quite interestingly that in spite of
the theatre which goes on in here, when we get members of
parliament from all across Canada sitting in committee talking
over issues they can actually be reasonable. I wonder why they
are not like that in the House of Commons. Why can we not work
together?
Someone from the NDP asked when we would start to work together.
I was at the HRDC committee the other day talking about Bill C-2
and changes to the employment insurance bill. At that time I
questioned the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the construction
trade unions that were before us.
I asked the chamber why, when the country is in a recession,
when the government supports all people who lose their jobs and
when the EI account is in major deficit, we do not hear from it?
Why does it not say that it knows the account is in deficit and
it will pay more? We do not hear from the chamber in that
instance, because it is the responsibility of the government to
be the insurer of last resort.
Is that a question that someone might expect from a government
member? I think not, because I think some of the more socialist
minded folks might agree. Some of the more right wing people
might not agree. They might think I was being hard and harsh on
the poor chamber of commerce. I see at committee all the time
where we cross on issues.
The member opposite doing most of the chirping served with me on
the citizenship and immigration committee for some time. With
the odd exception, when that member decided to ignore the rules
of parliament and released a document to the media before it was
tabled in the House, for which he was properly chastised by the
Speaker of the day, I found that he tried to work and to deal
with issues of concern around the citizenship bill and around
refugees. He tried to put forward from time to time some
thoughtful comments in debate.
Why is it that after we have gone through the process of losing
whatever is the issue of the day—
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
am not sure that we on this side should be the only ones required
to listen to this diatribe. I would like to see more Liberals in
the House and I am challenging you on quorum.
And the count having been taken:
The Deputy Speaker: We now have a quorum.
2125
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I wanted an audience. I
generally perform a little better when I have an audience, so
here we go. That is exactly the kind of nonsense that sends this
place into disarray because that party over there does not have—
Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
We can stray a little in debate but I would question the
relevance of the comments the member is making.
The Deputy Speaker: With the greatest respect to my hon.
colleague, I think that is not a point of order.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, they always interrupt me
because they have very thin skins.
Let me deal with the issue. The issue is parliamentary reform.
The issue is whether our Speaker should have the ability to rule
an amendment out of order that is put forward by anyone in this
place. As a matter of fact I am not even sure we need the
particular amendment to the standing orders. Having read them,
it is my opinion the Speaker already has the ability to throw
those kinds of things out.
If he or she considers them vexatious or irrelevant, it is my
opinion that the Speaker of this place can rule them out of
order. However, we want to have a debate about toughening up the
rules, making it more clear to the boys and girls that we will no
longer allow periods to be substituted for commas because they
simply do not change the basis of the bill. We will no longer
allow someone to submit 3,000 amendments for the sole purpose of
stopping a bill that the government, duly elected in a majority
position, has not only a right but a responsibility to put
forward. It is the agenda of the government that needs to be put
on the table.
If opposition members had any credibility whatsoever they would
stand and fight. They would stand and debate. They would stand
and disagree, but they do not. What do they do? They say that
this place is dysfunctional and that MPs are irrelevant. I take
exception to that.
It is my view that the proudest thing one can do in this great
country is serve in this place. It is clearly an honour to have
people in our communities, our neighbours and our friends, say
that they trust us to go to Ottawa to represent them, that they
believe in what we are telling them. They do not like everything
we do. They disagree with us from time to time. We may have to
vote a certain way because we do or do not agree on a certain
bill. They understand that. That is the process. That is the
democratic way.
I will paraphrase Winston Churchill who said that it may not be
the best system in the world but it is a long way ahead of
whatever is in second place.
Let us understand that when they lose and when they cry about
the system that is one thing. The next thing they do is
denigrate their colleagues. However, when they look in the
mirror and say as members of this place that MPs are not doing
their jobs, that they are irrelevant or that they are trained
seals, they denigrate the face in the mirror.
That is the problem in this place. If we want to return respect
of parliament to Canadians, if we want to return respect of
parliamentarians to Canadians, it is time we respected ourselves.
That is not to say we should be arrogant. We have no right to
do that. In fact the opposite is true. We need to work, as my
colleagues do and even members over there do. We have round
tables in our communities. We have public meetings in our
communities. We put out householders. We all return phone
calls, I would hope, to our constituents.
I find it interesting that constituents will phone my office and
say that they are calling because they are mad about this or mad
about that. They leave their names and phone numbers. They
think I will not call them back but I do.
2130
My policy is that within 24 hours I return a call personally.
Guess what they say, Mr. Speaker? They ask whether that is
really me. They are stunned that a member of parliament actually
called them back. If they did not want me to call them back, why
would they call and leave a message?
It is our job to talk to the people. That does not mean and
never will mean that we are puppets. I love it when the whip of
the Alliance Party says that members of the Alliance Party will
vote in favour of the motion unless they are told otherwise by
their constituents.
Do they have a hot line? Do they have all their constituents on
a big speaker phone doing a yea and a nay, doing a referendum of
some kind? I guess three per cent of the people told them that
this was what they wanted them to do. They are all out there
saying “Mary, what do you think? Should I vote in favour of
this or not?”
I am being a little facetious but the serious point is that we
do an injustice to the Canadian people to run down this
institution. If members want to know what fuels the so-called
alienation we hear about in places like Quebec and western
Canada, it is exactly that kind of behaviour which runs down this
place. They throw gasoline on the fire and the people say it is
awful that those terrible politicians in Ottawa will not listen
to them.
It is interesting that the people of Canada do not buy it at the
end of the day. I have talked to people in my community who say
that they do not like politicians but that they do not mean me. I
am sure everybody in this place gets that. I do not want a
second opinion, either.
That is what happens because they read it in the newspaper, saw
it on the news or heard someone in parliament say we are all a
bunch of bad people who do not care about our communities. We
know that is not true. Putting forward motions to change periods
and commas and semicolons is not even an intelligent way of using
the parliamentary democracy that is available in this wonderful
place, in this incredible establishment.
It says to Canadians that we are here. I agree with one thing
the member opposite said in his speech, that we are here to
provide a voice for all Canadians.
I want to talk on the issue of the ethics counsellor that the
opposition is having a field day with. Nobody over there
mentions the fact that in 1999 the ethics counsellor appeared
before the industry committee and made a report to
parliamentarians. I am assuming, a terrible leap in faith maybe,
that there were members opposite in attendance at that committee
since it was a standing committee of this House. They heard Mr.
Wilson make his report and they had opportunity to question him
on his findings. That committee then reported to parliament.
I refer to the commissioner of the RCMP, which brings up another
point that the member of the fifth party over there in the corner
does not want to accept, the absolutely independent investigation
by the RCMP which found that there was no wrongdoing. Those
members say they want it referred to the ethics commissioner and
then when the ethics commissioner says there was no wrongdoing on
the part of the Prime Minister, what do they do? They complain
about the process. It is what I said before. They complain that
the ethics commissioner, because they did not like the answer, is
a lapdog. That too is an insult.
As far as how I voted and my colleagues voted, I am very
strongly of the opinion that we have already lived up to the
commitment in the red book by appointing the ethics commissioner.
He has the responsibility and the opportunity and will be invited
from time to time to appear before a committee of the House. All
we have to do is ask and he will come. He will answer questions
and then the committee will report to this place.
It is absolutely normal.
2135
I will give the members opposite credit for one thing. They
managed to trick the media a little bit. They managed to put
some kind of message or image out there that we were breaking a
promise when in fact they knew full well we had already kept that
promise and lived up to that commitment.
To this day that ethics counsellor is there. If they want to
apply to have him investigate, they can do so. If they do not
like the answer, they had better not come crying to me. He is
there to do a job and he has his responsibilities. He will
absolutely discharge those responsibilities.
I want to talk about someone else. Someone always throws out
the name of my former good friend Mr. Nunziata. Mr. Nunziata
stood in this place and voted against the government on a
confidence motion that had to do with the budget. Everyone said
how wonderful and great he was.
Let me ask members a question. Everybody loves hockey in this
country. If I played on a team and I shot the puck on purpose
into my own net, what would my team members do to me? They would
tell me to sit on the bench or they would kick me off the team.
If Mr. Nunziata would have had the courage to step out of caucus
and vote against the government, I would have nothing but
admiration for him. He did not. He voted against the
government, against the team, and the end of the day this is a
team sport, a blood sport and a fabulous place to be. I could
not be more proud to represent the constituents of Mississauga
West and I will continue to do so with vigour in this place.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I will try not to raise the pitch used by the hon.
member for Mississauga West in his speech.
Those who are listening to us and winding down in their living
rooms now that their children are in bed have heard examples
taken from hockey by the member for Mississauga West. With all
due respect for the hon. member, his speech was worthy of a
chihuahua. Members know that a chihuahua is a small dog that yaps
a lot but does not bite. So, the member for Mississauga West made
a speech worthy of a chihuahua. I am only referring to the pitch
of the speech, not its content.
Getting back to the issue before us, it is unfortunate that we
must debate until 11 p.m. the government House leader's Motion
No. 2, because this motion—
An hon. member: A motion for closure.
Mr. Michel Guimond: A motion for closure, I agree with the
hon. member for Roberval, has very serious implications. It is
appropriate to read it.
Mr. Speaker, let me say from the outset
that it is not the integrity of the Speaker or of the Chair, as
it is called, that is being questioned, but the action taken by
the government House leader.
The motion reads as follows:
That section (5) of the Standing Order 76 and section (5) of the
Standing Order 76.1 be amended by adding at the conclusion of
the notes thereto the following:
“For greater clarity, the Speaker will not select for debate a
motion or series of motions of a repetitive, frivolous or
vexatious nature or of a nature that would serve merely to
prolong unnecessarily proceedings at the report stage and, in
exercising this power of selection, the Speaker shall be guided
by the practice followed in the House of Commons of the United
Kingdom.”
Mr. Speaker, I know that you are a man of law. I did say a man
of law not a man of the right.
2140
I know that the government has hit one of your tender spots. I
do not know you well enough to know all your tender spots, like
in hockey, when they know a player has bad knees for instance,
and focus on them, but I do know, with his reference to the
parliamentary system of the United Kingdom, that the government
House leader has hit on one of your soft spots, because you are
greatly fond of the parliamentary system as it prevails in the
United Kingdom.
This motion contains elements which give incredible latitude and
we cannot subscribe to them. Who, for instance, will be the one
to determine whether motions are indeed repetitive, frivolous or
vexatious?
I submit, respectfully, that in parliamentary law these are
totally subjective concepts. There is nothing objective about
this. We are in the realm of subjectivity.
With this motion, then, the government wants to give itself a
clear conscience by including an initiative we consider totally
partisan, something it had been thinking about for a very long
time, but did not want to take the fall for. Taking advantage of
the election last November 27, and the first block of the new
session, the first five weeks of sittings, the government, and
the government House leader in particular, said to itself “Now
is the time to strike”. I submit that the government is going
to have to take the fall for this.
This motion confers upon the Speaker the right to decide on the
motives and motivations of the members of the opposition when
they bring in amendments in the House.
If the opposition is denied the right to bring forward
amendments or if our amendments are subjected to an arbitrary
decision, what is there left of the opposition? Is the
government unhappy with the fact there is an opposition? Would
the government like to have had all the 301 seats in this 37th
parliament?
I think that the members on this side of the House are
legitimate as well. In other words, they are elected just as
democratically as the members on the other side. Does that mean
that the government is unhappy about having an opposition?
There is no doubt that, when the government House leader
presented his motion, he certainly did not think his own motions
in amendment could be frivolous or vexatious. This is surely not
the case with the some 200 amendments to Bill C-7 on young
offenders.
This motion is very insulting to any self-respecting political
party working sincerely to improve legislation introduced by the
government.
Thus, according to the motion the government introduced, the
Speaker will have the power to judge, to all intents and
purposes, the relevance of any party's political strategy. This
Liberal government wants as little criticism as possible and
imposes changes to the standing orders in order to manage public
affairs on its own.
Here we have a basic question before us. Does a
mathematical majority of members give the government the right to
do everything? Can the government usurp this power simply
because it had a standing of 172 seats at the latest election?
Does that give it the right, literally, to negate any opposition?
If this government is democratic and transparent, as it claims,
what is the point of presenting such a motion as Motion No. 2,
presented by the government House leader?
There is a political price to pay for managing public affairs.
2145
When government decisions are not popular, they must be debated
in parliament. The opposition has a legitimate role in
parliament of working to amend legislation. If this right is
withdrawn, we might as well ask what is the point of committee
work, and of making speeches in the House, most of the time
before empty chairs. What is the purpose?
I have a suggestion for the government. If the government wants
to move quickly, all it has to do is introduce its bills and say
“There will be no debate on this bill that we have put together.
No opposition member will speak. Only members of the party in
power will be allowed to speak. There will be no parliamentary
committees, and no witnesses will be called to appear before
them. I, such and such a minister, rise to introduce a bill, and
I ask my Liberal colleagues in the government majority if they
have any speeches to make. I give them the floor and I order
that we proceed immediately to pass the bill at first, second and
third readings”. Bingo. We send it to the other chamber and
that is that, no more discussion.
Is this the kind of democracy that the Liberals want and the
kind of country in which they want to live? If so, we need to
know. I think they should have been just as plain about it in
the campaign leading up to the November 27 election.
The process whereby the opposition tries to amend an act is, in
itself, a sound process in a democracy. It is the expression of
democracy by a part of the population that does not think like
the government. I looked at the situation, and we on this side of
the House should be lobotomized to ensure that nothing the
members opposite say will be questioned.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Of course, government members are
applauding. They would love that, but they really should not
applaud when I make such comments. This is what they are aiming
for, but in a somewhat more hypocritical if not subtle way.
The process whereby the opposition tries to amend an act is
a sound, democratic process, and the opposition has a duty to
ensure that the government respects the public in managing the
affairs of the state.
Depriving opposition parties of the tools that they need to do
their job tends to change the role of our democratic
institutions. This is a serious matter. It is through debates and
decisions made democratically in the interest of all that a
government should manage public affairs, not in the interest of a
fistful of individuals, and not in the interest of a certain
group of members who sit in cabinet.
The role of each and everyone of the 301 elected
parliamentarians, whether they sit in the fifth row on the
opposition side or on the government side, is to improve the
legislation, unless the government House leader thinks he has a
monopoly on truth, in which case I am wasting my time, I should
sit down immediately and no one else should talk.
With all due respect, I submit that the government House leader
does not have a monopoly on truth.
At any rate, all we on this side have to do is look at the way he
directs the work of this House to see that he does not have a
monopoly on the truth.
The government is calling upon the institution you represent,
Mr. Speaker, to intervene in order to limit opposition delaying
tactics. The government House leader is giving this reason to
all the media: “I do not want to see MPs turned into voting
machines”.
2150
I regret to inform hon. members that we were elected to listen
to the debates, to get some idea of what bills are about, and to
respect the concerns and needs of our fellow citizens. Then,
having done all that, our fellow citizens expect us to come here
precisely for that reason, to vote. Is that being voting
machines? If, within one year, we are able to pass 600 pieces
of progressive legislation which will help improve society, which
will add something to democracy, to the relationship between
citizens and their government—for this is what we often fault
government for, and I do not necessarily mean this one, or a
provincial one—we will have done our duty as parliamentarians.
When the people listening to us run into us at the mall buying
groceries, what criticism do they often share with us? They
fault government for being out of touch with their concerns, with
not listening to them. That is why they elect someone and tell
them “You, sir or madam, are the one we have decided to send to
Ottawa to represent us in parliament, and we want you to be our
spokesperson. We want you to be the one to speak on our
behalf”. Is that what being a voting machine means?
The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons added that
dilatory motions can lead to hours of unnecessary voting. This
is once again a value judgment on the part of the government
House leader. That is what he thinks. He is the one who feels
the voting is unnecessary, but if the government introduces bills
that are reasonable, if the government House leader introduces
bills that are valid, that have the approval of society and all
the political parties, we are in agreement.
Members have seen that, in such cases, there have been no
lengthy debates for hours and hours and no amendments. When
there is a consensus on the bill, we can pass it quickly. For
sure, when the government introduces bills that are meaningless,
such as the bill on young offenders, such as the clarity bill,
such as the bill on the Nisga'a treaty, which our Canadian
Alliance colleagues considered inappropriate for the people they
represent, naturally amendments are tabled.
This is the right of parliamentarians. The best proof that it
is a right is that we do not use it unreasonably and in a
repetitive fashion with every bill. You use a right when you
want to, when you feel a need to use it. A right and a privilege
for an MP, that is what that is.
The government says that we are voting unnecessarily for hours
and that it costs some $27,000 for each hour of overtime the
House sits. I say to the government House leader that democracy
has no price. If we find that $27,000 is too much, and if the
government House leader wants to make cuts—
An hon. member: Let them abolish parliament.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Let them abolish it. Let us say that if
there are savings to be made, we should shut it down. Shut it
down for six, eight, nine months a year.
We should try to compress all of parliament's work into one week.
If we sit for just one week, we will save $27,000 an hour times
24 hours for 51 weeks. That will save a bundle.
Democracy does have a price, and I think that passing a
motion such as Motion No. 2 would be to deny the right of all
parties, including the opposition parties of course, to introduce
amendments.
While the government is using this faulty argument, while it is
trying to prevent us from representing our constituents, it has,
since 1993, pocketed no less than $31 billion of the surplus in
the EI fund, money that belonged to unemployed workers. The
government has many ways of limiting opposition to a bill.
2155
I will give an example. We do not need to give the government
House leader ideas for keeping us down; he has all sorts of his
own. One of the tools used by the government House leader is
closure.
What is the main reason for closure? It is intended to silence
the opposition members. The government House leader decrees
“There will be another two and a half hours of debate on such
and such a bill. We feel that you will have said all you had to
say in those two and a half hours and we are not interested in
hearing any more.
It does not matter whether you can provide additional arguments,
whether research assistants found a study somewhere in the world
or in Canada to show to the government that it is headed in the
wrong direction. The government has decided to put an end to the
debate after two and a half hours with a gag order. You will have
said all you had to say by then”. I say two and a half hours,
but it could be one hour, three hours or three days. We cannot
accept such a measure.
From 1984 to 1993, the Conservative government used a gag order
49 times for 519 bills, or 9.4% of the time. In the seven years
it has been in office, the Liberal government has resorted to
closure 60 times for 350 bills—
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It was even more than 60 times.
Mr. Michel Guimond: —or 17.4% of the time, which is almost
double. The hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes tells me
that it was more than 60 times—
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It was around 70 times.
Mr. Michel Guimond: —because it happens regularly, on a
weekly basis.
My Latin teacher used to say tempus fugit, time flies. Since
you are signalling that I have only one minute left, I simply
want to conclude on this: What power will the opposition have if
it has increasingly less access to the parliamentary tools that
are necessary to the expression of a true democracy? How will
opposition members be able to protect the fundamental interests
of their fellow citizens?
From the moment that a government stops listening to the public
and adopts a piecemeal approach based on a strictly partisan
agenda that takes into account only the interests of a few, all
our institutions lose their meaning.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member
for Oxford.
I would like to first begin by actually congratulating the
member opposite for his impassioned remarks, because I think this
is an important debate and I am very sensitive to the fact that
opposition members always have reason to fear that their rights
to a fair hearing in the House of Commons must be protected and
guaranteed.
Having said that, I do not think the amendment that is being
debated right now actually constructively adds to the original
motion, because I point out, Mr. Speaker, that the original
motion gives you, Mr. Speaker, the opportunity to interpret what
the words unnecessarily prolong mean.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, in my view, if you really felt it
was of interest to protect the opposition or minority rights in
the House of Commons, you could decide that if the opposition
felt in order to make a statement they had to move a series of
amendments for debate, if you felt that was in the interests of
the Commons at large and the debate at large, you could so rule,
so I really do not see the amendment as constructively adding to
the main motion.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to speak in this debate because I am very,
very sensitive to the need to preserve the rights of backbench
MPs on this side and opposition MPs on that side, the rights, Mr.
Speaker, to move amendments of substance or even, Mr. Speaker,
substance is of course, shall we say, something that one decides
subjectively.
2200
However, I think it is very important that MPs retain the right
to move amendments that they believe in, even if those amendments
do not succeed, that may make a statement with respect to how
those members individually or collectively feel about
legislation.
I have to say that I have availed myself of report stage
amendments on a number of occasions knowing full well that I
could not proceed with my ideas with respect to the legislation
at hand through the committee process.
For the benefit of people who may be watching the debate, they
should understand that after second reading, legislation goes to
a committee, that committee hears witnesses, considers the
testimony of those witnesses and then hears proposals for
amendments that may come from members of that committee or from
the government through solicitations to the parliamentary
secretary. Those amendments are then voted upon in committee and
they go forward and the government gets to decide whether or not
those amendments are actually acted upon at report stage.
The problem with that system is that many of our committees are
dominated by the government. It is an artifice of the way the
committee structure is set up. Whether one is an opposition
member of parliament or a backbench member of parliament,
sometimes when we present an amendment through the committee
process and it is defeated at the committee, it cannot be
re-submitted at report stage.
Well the difficulty with that is that if a backbench MP or an
opposition MP has an amendment, which he or she knows full well
the government does not support, if he or she introduces it at
the committee and it is defeated then it disappears forever.
The advantage of the report stage amendment process for a
backbench MP like myself, or an opposition MP, if we know we
cannot win at committee, we can submit it at report stage in the
House of Commons. We then have an opportunity to rise in this
place, with the amendment grouped among a number of other
amendments or other motions, but we have an opportunity to rise
in this place in front of all of our colleagues on both sides of
the House and the public at large to speak, I like to think, with
feeling to the amendment that we know full well will be defeated.
I never tire of saying in this House that this House is not just
about passing legislation, winning or losing, voting or not
voting. This House is about debate and about presenting ideas.
I think the public gets dreadfully discouraged if it does not
hear valid debate not only from the opposition but from the
backbench MPs on this side.
I have to commend the government House leader for the type of
motion he has put forward now because I believe other speakers
have alluded to the fact that the House leader did present, about
a year ago, amendments along this line to report stage
proceedings pertaining to vexatious or frivolous amendments that
were of such a nature that many of the members on this side of
the House could not accept it.
I think the members opposite should know that when that occurred
many of us on this side expressed our feelings to the government
House leader in the strongest possible terms. In other words, we
said that we would not support the proposal he had before the
House. The government accepted the resistance that came from
this side and the result is the proposal that the government
House leader has now before the House.
I would like to say that I ultimately have no problem whatsoever
with opposition members trying to prolong debate at report stage
in order to make a point about legislation that they do not agree
with.
During the debate about the clarity bill, for example, in which
there were about 100 amendments, if not more, that were presented
by the opposition, and many of them definitely of a frivolous
nature, I had no problem with the fact that the House sat late,
sat into the middle of the night, because if I sat here into the
middle of the night, the opposition members sat into the middle
of the night as well. When it comes down to defending government
legislation that I believe in, I am willing to sit in my place as
long as it will take and I am prepared to out sit, if need be,
any member of the opposition who wants to make a point in this
particular way.
2205
Ultimately I did not have a lot of problem with what the
opposition was doing from time to time by moving multiple
amendments that were, shall we say, of a frivolous nature. The
problem, and I think this is where the government House leader
has a real point, is the optics to the public out there when they
see amendments that basically are the moving of a comma, the
changing of a little bit of grammar. The optics is such that I
am afraid that members of the public would lose confidence that
this House is really undertaking serious business, even though I
would agree that the opposition ought to have as many
opportunities as possible to make points even if it is by
filibuster or by prolonging debate.
That having been said, I do feel that what the government House
leader has done by moving this particular motion, which devolves
upon you, Mr. Speaker, enormous opportunities, if not power, of
interpretation and the reason why I was so keen to speak in this
debate, and, Mr. Speaker, I am speaking directly toward you, and
I hope you are giving me 100% of your attention, the reason why I
am speaking directly toward you and seeking your attention, Mr.
Speaker, is because I am hoping that you will appreciate that
when you interpret this amendment that is proposed by the
government House leader you will interpret it only in ways that
defend the rights of backbench MPs and the rights of opposition
MPs to move amendments of substance at report stage.
It is a subjective call on your side, Mr. Speaker. I am glad
that you are giving me such rapt attention because of course I am
trying to make a dreadfully important point. I just wanted to
make sure you were with us there, Mr. Speaker. I have full
confidence that you will interpret this, and I want to stress
that I only support this motion from the government on condition
that when you interpret it you interpret it in terms of the
minority rights, the rights of free expression, the rights of
state position that has to be a part of being a backbench MP, or
being an opposition MP.
That having been said, I think that the government House leader
has done something that I know the opposition members would find
hard to credit, but I can assure them that there was great
objection to the original proposal on this side. The government
did concede that it was going too far. It has come up, I think,
with a compromise. I really do not think it is necessary because
I do not mind if the opposition wants to use up House time. I am
conscious of the fact though that the optics would be improper
and I will always bow to the government when it has a proposal
that I think is reasonable and that is ultimately in the interest
of the House at large.
But I end with one caution because the member for Oxford wants
to speak very shortly. I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that whatever
you do, you must protect the rights of the backbench MPs and the
opposition MPs to have their say in debate on legislation at
report stage.
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the motion
deals with empowering you and your assistants to rule on
repetitious, frivolous and vexatious amendments at report stage.
I listened to my colleagues this afternoon and evening and found
myself agreeing with many points made by some of the members
opposite, particularly the member for Winnipeg—Transcona and the
member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
We could have a committee to review the democratic purposes and
actions of the House of Commons. This could be done, but that is
not what we are voting on tonight. We are voting on a way of
preventing amendment abuse and hence voting abuse.
I was involved with the Nisga'a agreement and the work on the
bill by the committee on Indian affairs and northern development.
2210
I remind the House that the Nisga'a worked on that bill for 500
years. Chief Gosnell worked on it for 21 years and Frank Calder
worked on it for life. This government and previous governments
worked on it for some 20 or 30 years. In the last 11 years we
finally got an agreement. To have that agreement held up for 42
hours while we voted in the House on frivolous, vexatious and
repetitious amendments was terribly disheartening to me, and I am
sure to the Nisga'a who watched. It did nothing for public
perception.
People have made much of the fact that the public did not
understand that waste of time, that waste of talent, that waste
of effort. I do not either. We have a committee system that
works. It involves witnesses. It involves travel if necessary.
It involves all parties in the committee working toward a common
end. It is one of the things I enjoy most about being here and
working with my colleagues. Sometimes things go awry between
committee stage and the House but not always.
Report stage allows motions from members who are not on the
committee and have not had a chance to make an amendment, but it
is not designed to allow games to be played with the work that
has been done by serious parliamentarians. Endless voting on
frivolous, vexatious and repetitious amendments is not productive
of anything but cynicism, ennui and disrespect.
The member for Winnipeg North waxed eloquent about closure,
which is not what we are talking about. The heart of the matter
is how we develop good laws for Canadians. Some members opposite
talk of overall change, closure, the auditor general's report, et
cetera. Somehow they forget that we have just had an election
based on party platforms, based on the country's choices for the
future.
My colleague from Waterloo—Wellington talked about the
development of parliamentary democracy. He suggested it was a
slow but steady process. It is adaptive to new technological
challenges and social changes. It did not burst full blown from
the brow of Zeus or the brow of Simon de Montfort. It developed
gradually, haltingly.
There were big steps like the Magna Carta and the Reform Act of
the 17th century. There were a lot of little steps day by day.
We are taking one of those little steps hopefully tonight and
saying that we went too far in this direction. We have to
change. We have to come back to the centre and do the right
thing. Amendments at report stage were not intended to get us
into that kind of trouble.
It has worked because Canada has just been voted for the eighth
year as the best country in the world in which to live. That is
pretty good.
There is another saying many people use around here and that is
“if it ain't broke don't fix it”. The committee system is not
broken. Having bills go through at least three stages is good.
Our voting system is good and our timing for speeches seems to
work. The nonsense of wasting time on silly amendments is not
productive, sensible or defensible by any member who thinks his
work is useful to his constituents and his country.
Most members have all had experience in many organizations and
how they run. We have had experience in motion making, in
elections and in amendments. Personally I started at about age
10 with a neighbourhood stamp club among my boyhood chums. We
had elections. Minutes were kept. We prepared an agenda. We
even had a stamp evaluation committee.
From there I went to cubs, a scout leader, patrol leader, the
university student union as a director and a member, staff
president at the high school, union president, the hospital board
and a lot of other social organizations, and now here.
My colleague from Winnipeg South made a great deal of sense. He
concentrated on the point of the motion before us: the
achievement.
2215
Let me conclude by saying that we should focus on the motion and
pass it. It is a festering sore which we can eliminate tonight
and then get on with future improvements to our parliamentary
system.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, before I start I would like to say that I will be
sharing my time with my colleague from Fraser Valley. It is not
that I really like it but he came up with an excellent proposal
so I must give him time.
I listened to the member for Mississauga West a little while
ago. When I looked at my watch and saw the time I thought it was
past his bedtime because he was slipping. He was trying to tell
Canadians, with his bellowing, booming voice, that this amendment
was great. He was saying that the Alliance had taken its supply
day motion exactly from the red book. The member was defending
it and saying that the Liberals had fulfilled their red book
promise. Can hon. members believe that? He said that there was
an ethics counsellor, forgetting that the ethics counsellor
reports to the Prime Minister and not to parliament as was
promised in the red book. The member had the guts to stand over
there and say that they have fulfilled the red book promise. That
is why I thought it was past his bedtime.
The essence of the motion is about parliament, the voice of the
people. In the House democracy works for the government and for
the opposition. People who disagree with the government have a
voice through the opposition. From what we have seen over the
years, our voices have been silenced by procedures, manoeuvres
and all the power of the majority government. Opposition parties
have eventually had to resort to narrower ways and means of
taking their message to the public.
The Liberals stand over there and say that the amendments are
not changes but they will not say exactly what the opposition,
the other voice in parliament, is trying to do. The opposition
is trying to get the message out to the public about what is
happening in the House, and its voice is being silenced.
The Canadian Alliance and my colleague from Fraser Valley have
put forward proposals on the reform of the House. The whole
purpose of the reform is to have a sound, reasonable debate. The
other voice can be heard as well, not only the voice of the
government.
My colleagues on the other side have said that there are
committees where the opposition can debate the issues of the day.
We all know that they were in opposition before 1993. They
should know very well that those committees are totally
ineffective. We have been there.
2220
This is my second term. I have been here for three and a half
years. I have never seen the government listen to a committee.
It does not. Committees are nice. Committees are a very nice
way for the government to deflect criticism of what it wants to
do.
The government says a matter is going to a committee. It goes
to a committee and when it comes back it is up to the minister
and up to the government whether or not it wants to take a
committee's recommendation. We are finding that most of the time
it is not.
Where is the voice of the opposition, the voice of the other
side, the voice of the people who elected us to speak in the
House? We stand here and debate, but what happens? Nothing.
The motion, quite interestingly, says the government wants to be
guided by the practices followed in the house of commons in the
United Kingdom. Of course we all know it is the mother of all
parliaments and that would be nice. However other practices are
followed in that house which give a voice to the other side as
well. A balanced voice is heard in that house, but not here.
Here the government picks only what suits it so that it can ram
through whatever it wants and forget about what the other voices
are saying.
When the immigration minister said the Alliance Party attracted
bigots, racists and Holocaust deniers, who was she talking about?
Millions of people voted for our party. Was she talking about
them?
Is that the respect the government has for other Canadians? Can
it not respect the views of the opposition and other Canadians?
It cannot. This motion is another example of the attitude that
the government has of ramming things through.
We agree that to vote on 3,000 amendments would take a long
time. The Speaker will still have some discretion over that. It
is not the amendments we are worried about. It is the method of
getting the message out. That is what is called democracy.
It is no wonder Canadians are losing confidence in the House. It
is interesting that the members on the other side know that and
allude to it. The member for Mississauga West referred this
evening to one of his constituents. He claims it was a
constituent but I doubt if it was a constituent; it was probably
a family member who said “I hate all politicians except you”.
It was probably a family member who said that, but the point is
that Canadians are losing confidence in the House because debate
is curtailed. They see the power of the government, the
dictatorial power of the government, and their inability to
effect any change in the House.
Then we start seeing little flames of separatism. We do not
support them at all but those sentiments start to come out. I
hope they do not become big sentiments but that is where they
start.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said it was blackmail.
It is not blackmail. People are trying to find ways and means of
saying what they want to say and having someone listen. If we do
not listen, people will find other means to make us listen. That
is what the amendments are all about.
2225
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the motion although it is
not a pleasure for any of us to be here late this evening. Once
again we are speaking about what the government is about and how
it has found another way to curtail the legitimate role of
opposition members within the House.
It is moving again to restrict the ability of opposition members
to slow down the work of government, a role that both
Beauchesne's and Marleau and Montpetit have said is a legitimate
role for opposition parties. Once again it will remove, after
tonight's vote, our ability to hold up government legislation and
to make the public aware of opposition points of view on
contentious legislation.
I would like you to remember, Mr. Speaker the challenge I gave
you the first time the government used time allocation or
restricted debate in this session. I argued with you at that
time that somewhere along the line you would have to step in
between the government and the legitimate role of opposition to
allow the opposition to do its role.
This is the 70th time that the government has restricted debate
in the House. It is always offensive, but to use closure to
force changes to the standing orders is not just offensive. It
is inexcusable. The present minister of public works said in
1991:
The government claims that the proposed changes to the standing
orders will make the proceedings more relevant and increase the
efficiency of the House.
Does that sound familiar? Have we heard that all evening long
from across the way? Do they say it will make it more efficient?
I will go on:
First of all, we must realize that this is being proposed by the
very government that applied closure 13 times and time allocation
8 times. How can we seriously take a proposal to improve the
efficiency of the House made by a government which, in the past,
showed contempt for the Standing Orders of this House?
The minister of public works was complaining about a government
that had abused time allocation and closure 21 times. He found
that offensive in the extreme. The same member is now part of a
government that has used time allocation and closure 70 times to
shut down debate in this place, not 21.
He should be ashamed of his House leader. He should be ashamed
of the way the Prime Minister runs this place. The fact that he
is not ashamed shows that Lord Acton still lives. If power
corrupts, the power concentrated in the Prime Minister's Office
now is so absolutely corrupt that we cannot tell the difference.
I have listened to talk about spurious and vexatious amendments.
Let us talk about the spurious and vexatious arguments made on
that side of the House. I have heard that we cannot make changes
unless we do it all at once. First I heard that we had to do it
piecemeal. This is just one step.
Why is it that every time the government makes one step it
always strengthens the executive's hand? Why is it that every
time it shuts down debate it strengthens the government's hand?
It restricts the list of witnesses and it strengthens the
government's hand. It does not allow a free vote in committee to
elect a chairman. Why? It is because it strengthens the
government's hand. Why is it that the whip will come in at the
last minute and take members off a committee who have sat on it
faithfully for months? When the vote comes, it brings in the
trained seals and they vote. Why? It is because it strengthens
the government's hand, the executive's hand, time and time again.
Somewhere, sometime I am convinced that unless you, Mr. Speaker,
step into the breach and stop this from continuing, the question
will not be should we sit on Fridays, which some people might
ask. The big question will be: Why sit at all? I said this in
an article today which was printed in The National Post.
Why sit at all if the government treats this place with contempt?
Every time it gets an opportunity it makes an announcement, not
here in the House but anywhere other than in this place.
We asked the Speaker in the last parliament time and again how
the government could make multimillion, sometimes billion dollar
announcements and treat this place like it did not matter. The
then Speaker admonished the government not to do this. He said
that it was treating this place with disrespect and should not do
it.
2230
However, what happens? Guess. The next time an announcement
comes along the government treats this place like it is
irrelevant and just goes about its business.
You, Mr. Speaker, have to step in and stop it. Somewhere you
are going to have to flex some muscles.
The important thing to remember is that the government is
closing off the ability for opposition parties to bring forward
amendments and the question that has to be asked is this: why
have the opposition members felt compelled to bring in so many
amendments?
I will tell you why, Mr. Speaker. Because when we get into
committee, guess what happens to our witness list. The witness
list is tossed aside like trash. Only government members are
allowed to come in on this.
On the Nisga'a agreement, they went out to British Columbia
supposedly to talk to the people. They would not listen to the
Indian bands that had counterclaims on that same Nisga'a land.
They would not even listen to them. They flew in witnesses from
Vancouver to that committee. They would not listen to witnesses
from Prince George, from Prince Rupert and from neighbouring
Indian bands. They would not listen to them and they shut down
the debate in the committee. They would not allow us to continue
the debate there.
The government brought back the bill to the House. It used
closure in committee. It restricted our witnesses. It
restricted our ability to bring things to the House. When push
came to shove, what happened? The government used its authority
to again shut down the debate in this place, which should be a
debating Chamber. The government shut it down and that is
inexcusable. The government has shut it down 70 times.
Do you know what happens, Mr. Speaker, when the government
treats this place with contempt—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I know all hon. members want
to hear the hon. member for Fraser Valley. It is hard to hear
when everybody is yelling.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: What happens, Mr. Speaker, when the
government shuts down debate, which it has now done 70 times?
Governments have fallen by shutting down debate. We remember the
pipeline debate, when it used to be a heinous crime to shut down
debate in this place, but what happens here now?
On the first bill that came to the House in this session, the
government shut down the debate. We hit the second day of debate
and the government shut it down. It brought in time allocation.
It said that we could not speak about it any more. Why? It had
to get the bill into committee. The only problem was that the
committees did not exist yet. The government shut down debate so
it could do what with it, just hold it in abeyance and wait for
what, an epiphany? What was it waiting for? Was it waiting for
a road to Damascus experience? It did nothing with it.
The government is so addicted to shutting down debate. The
government is so afraid of other points of view that it shut down
the debate when there was not even a reason to shut it down.
There was not even a committee to send it to. We were on the
second day of debate and the government shut it all down in this
place. The government members said they did not want to listen
to anybody on the other side of the House. They said “Anybody
who disagrees with us is irrelevant. This House is irrelevant”.
What happens then? Opposition parties find ways to make
themselves heard. They have to. Our job is to legitimately
oppose the government. Rather than let us have a reasonable
amount of time to debate, rather than let us have a reasonable
number of witnesses, rather than let us work in committee and
give and take and make amendments and so on, what happens? The
government sends its parliamentary secretaries into committees to
say, “This is what you shall do in committee. This is what you
shall allow for amendments. This is what you shall permit to go
through the system”.
That is what the government does instead of give and take,
instead of debate, instead of amendments, instead of making
legislation better and listening to a point of view that the
government maybe has not thought of. The government never does
that even when it could and it would not hurt a bit. It is not
even part of the government's agenda or even part of the throne
speech. The government will not listen to an opposing point of
view.
When this idea came forward to give you the power, Mr. Speaker,
to restrict the number of amendments that could come forward at
report stage, I spoke to the government House leader. I said
that if we were going to do that, then let us go the rest of the
way, like the United Kingdom has done. It is even quoted in the
motion. Let us talk about some of the other things. Let us then
allow the Speaker to intervene when, in the Speaker's opinion,
the debate has not gone on long enough. Let us allow the Speaker
to intervene when he thinks the rights of minorities have been
unfairly afflicted. Let the Speaker have some real power to
intervene, not just against the opposition but on behalf of
minority parties so minority views come forward.
However, none of that happened. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because time
and again, every amendment to the standing orders, to the rules
of the House and to the way we do business in this place
strengthens the hand of the executive on that side and every
single time it weakens both the backbench on that side and
opposition parties on this side.
2235
Mr. Speaker, it is time for you to intervene and to use the
influence of your office to say that you will have debate in this
place. You were elected, Sir, to give us fair debate, a lot of
debate, and opposing points of view have to be listened to.
Mr. Speaker, if you continue to allow the government to go down
this path of treating this place like a second rate House instead
of the first rate House of debate it should be, not only will we
continue to have a Canadian electorate that finds us increasingly
irrelevant but members of the House will find it so as well. That
would be the ultimate shame of allowing these kinds of motions to
continue to pass in the House.
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a great honour to rise and make my maiden speech
in this 37th parliament.
Before I get into the gist of what I want to say, I want to
commend the previous speaker. I think he articulates a point of
view very logically and very forcefully. I agree that the
opposition certainly should be concerned about the powers of the
government.
We work in a system that gives tremendous power to the Prime
Minister and to the government. If my colleagues across the way
had bothered at some point to take a first year political science
course, they would know that is part of our system. We should
have a debate as to whether it is an appropriate system. It is
not a function of the Prime Minister's personality. It is not a
function of this particular Prime Minister. It is a function of
our rules. There are certain advantages to those rules.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague reminds me that I am splitting my time
with the member for Scarborough—Rouge River.
I point out to my hon. friends across the way that we should
have a debate about whether our parliament, our rules and our
system are serving the needs of the country in the 21st century.
I was scheduled today to speak on the endangered species bill.
That was scheduled to be my maiden speech. I much would have
preferred to be talking about a substantive issue like endangered
species or the environment. As well, I watched the news tonight
and we have bad economic news. I would much rather be debating
the economy or a variety of other issues that are pressing on
Canadians.
Instead we are talking about the rights of a Speaker to enforce
the rules. We are talking about whether it is appropriate for
opposition parties to tie up the House of Commons for three,
four, five or six days by debating whether to move a comma to
another line or change a period into a semicolon. We are talking
about the most trivial, vexatious and frivolous amendments. This
is the right that the opposition wants to hold on to.
If we read the motion that is put forth it says:
For greater clarity, the Speaker will not select for debate a
motion or series of motions of a repetitive, frivolous or
vexatious nature—
Nothing in the wording of this motion will prevent the
opposition from putting forward hundreds of substantive
amendments. However, they are going to have to be substantive
amendments, not the silly amendments we had in the last
parliament. They will have to be about ideas. We could have a
debate about ideas, not about personalities. We could have a
serious debate over the coming months about parliamentary reform.
Let us leave the accusations about whether we are puppets or
they are puppets. Let us talk about how we make the system work.
We are in the 21st century. Let us talk about how we make it
better for Canadians. That does not include, I am sorry to say,
three, four, five or six days or longer of simply debating
whether a comma should be moved. I am sorry, but that is not
what Canadians sent us here to do. It is not why I was elected.
My constituents want me to concentrate on substantive issues.
They want me to concentrate on issues that matter to them, such
as whether the air they breathe is clean or whether their jobs
will be safe. They do not want us to concentrate on this
nonsense.
I think this is a perfectly legitimate motion. All it does is
tell the Speaker to enforce the rules. If we want to have a
debate about changing the rules, then let us do that as well.
2240
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to make a few remarks tonight before we reach the end of our
time. I thought the quality of the debate tonight was rather
good and I think most of us have had a chance to share our views
on the issue in front of us.
I want to address what I think is a bit of historical
perspective on this: how we got here from there and why we are
dealing with this particular rule change. I want to suggest that
it really is not much of a rule change at all. I am sure all
members have read the existing rule, which says very clearly that
the Speaker “shall have the power to select amendments to be
proposed at report stage”.
Mr. Speaker, you already have the power to select amendments at
report stage. The problem is that the Speaker is not selecting
amendments at report stage. The Speaker will group them for a
vote or group them for debate, but the Speaker is not selecting.
Why is the Speaker not selecting now? The Speaker is not
selecting now because 20 or 30 years ago a Speaker decided that
he or she would not do any selection. As the practice evolved,
we ended up with many amendments. The Speaker still did not
select proposed amendments, and we ended up in this box at the
present time where we have 400, 500 or 3,000 amendments, as the
Speaker was not using the power that he or she had under the
existing rules. This could keep us voting for days or even weeks
solid, 24 hours a day. The House went through this a year or two
ago and it was clear to all members that we could not continue
this.
So we may ask ourselves, if the Speaker already has the power to
select amendments for debate, which means excluding proposed
amendments, why do we have to move this little change to the
rules? The reason, I believe, is that the Speaker felt boxed in
by the previous evolving practice and did not want to make a move
to alter what had been an evolution of the practice.
During one of the marathon voting nights that occurred in the
House, during the clarity bill, I believe, a year or two ago, I
happened to be in Westminster. I felt perhaps fortunate not to
be here at that time. I was in the U.K. parliament. When word
of this marathon voting procedure came up over there, MPs and
clerks there asked me what was happening. They did not
understand. Even I could not understand. I could not explain to
them how our House had allowed this procedure to evolve to the
point where we could have 10,000 report stage amendments. There
was no restriction in our rules. Over time, Speakers simply
appear to have accepted that it did not matter whether there was
1 amendment or 100 or 1,000 or perhaps even 10,000.
At that point I inquired into the U.K. situation. Normally
under rules similar to our own and a practice similar to ours,
which says that the Speaker shall select for debate, the Speaker
purges all amendments that may be described as frivolous,
vexatious, repetitive or unnecessarily prolonging the process.
All we have done here is propose for greater clarity for the
Speaker a rule of thumb that will allow him or her finally to
select on a basis that will exclude the frivolous, the vexatious
or the unduly prolonging.
The opposition thinks it is being prevented from doing that. I—
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Given that the hon. member opposite, the parliamentary
secretary, has in essence outlined how the Speaker feels and how
the Speaker has pronounced on this issue already, and knowing
that this certainly is not common, I would suggest that this is
highly inappropriate. The Speaker is certainly in a position to
speak for himself. Although that is not common practice, perhaps
the Speaker would like to speak to this issue himself.
2245
The Speaker: I appreciate the very kind thoughts of the
hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. I think he
knows that the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River really
meant the speakership because certainly this Speaker would not
have any opinion whatever on a subject like this one.
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, opposition members say that
they have been restricted in some way, precluded from doing
things that they feel they should be able to do in their role in
opposition. There is a role for opposition.
Let us just say tonight that all the opposition parties are
doing a good job being the opposition. However what they are
being prevented from doing under the rule is being repetitive,
frivolous and vexatious in unnecessarily prolonging debate. I do
not think the rule change is particularly momentous or onerous.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Derek Lee: The party at the end of the House is now
interested in the debate. It is nice to see them participating
at this point.
Let me close by saying that the rule change is not much of a
rule change at all. It does not give the Speaker any more power
than the Speaker already has. It is simply gives direction to
the Speaker to do what the Speaker perhaps should have been doing
all along but has not been for reasons of evolving practice in
this place.
I can only think that a Speaker would be glad, fortunate and
pleased to have this kind of direction from all members of the
House.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
before coming here, I was wondering what the government was
trying to do exactly with this motion and why it has come to the
point where it wants to impose this kind of motion upon the
opposition.
I think the House of Commons is about to vote on a very serious
issue tonight. The members opposite seem to change their tune
depending on which side of the House they are sitting. I remember
clearly that, when they were on this side of the House, they used
to cry bloody murder every time the Conservative government
invoked closure or used its majority to impose its will.
Before voting on this motion, members must ask themselves the
following question: did the opposition go too far?
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: The government House leader is
applauding like a five year old. He may very well do that
tonight.
Did the opposition bring parliament to a halt? Did it go too
far in the use of the legislative and procedural tools? That is
the question we must ask ourselves before voting tonight.
If there is a group of persons who went too far in the use of
the legislative tools at their disposal, it is the government
members. They went too far in the use of closure or time
allocation, for example.
I am sure members will remember the rat pack, when the Liberals
were in opposition, how they criticized the government. Today,
one of these individuals is the government House leader, and he
is proud of what he is doing. It is undemocratic.
If we look at the statistics, we see that the Conservative
government limited debate 49 times on a total of 519 bills. Over
a shorter period, the Liberal government opposite did that 17.9%
of the time on a total of 350 bills. Is this what we can expect
from a responsible government?
Hon. Stéphane Dion: We are a responsible government, unlike
you.
2250
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I hear the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs say the government is responsible
because it is gagging the opposition. In gagging the opposition,
it is also gagging democracy. Does the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs think this is a responsible government?
I understand he is the best liked minister in Quebec as well.
Why is the motion today, and I think it must be read, borrowing
from the United Kingdom's house of commons? Even though we have a
British history, the United Kingdom's house of commons does not
have the same legislation as we have.
Before speaking, I was wondering. The government wants to gag
the opposition, because we are doing our job. Yes, I plead guilty
to bringing forward 3,000 amendments on a bill. Once again, the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is applauding.
If I brought forward 3,000 amendments on the young offenders
bill, it is because, in Quebec, no one wants the minister's bill.
Thanks to my 3,000 amendments, the government did its homework
even further, because it moved 170 to 200 amendments on the same
bill. In some of these amendments, and I invite members to read
them, it changed some commas. Are these frivolous amendments, as
the motion implies?
Mr. Speaker, when you will rule on this issue, will you reject
one of the government's amendments? No.
The government House leader is staring at his papers, and so he
should, because if I were in his shoes, I would be ashamed of
doing this.
This is a strange country indeed, where the opposition can be
gagged. I can be denied my constitutional rights, my freedom of
speech in the House.
When it comes to the Hell's Angels, the government does not dare
to do anything. They have constitutional rights. The mafia and
organized crime have constitutional rights too. But members who
have been democratically elected are denied these rights. It is
ironic. I cannot understand how Quebec members can vote for this.
Nowadays, under the charter of rights, just about everything can
be done. You can even have a website with slanderous comments.
The supreme court even ruled that one can draw pornographic
pictures at home if it were for personal use. That is what is
called freedom of expression.
Members of the House have been given a legitimate mandate in an
election. We are here to stand for our constituents. That is what
I did with my 3,000 amendments to the young offenders bill. It
was not a kind of power trip. I wanted to represent adequately
the people of Quebec, something the ministers from Quebec are not
doing at this time. They just sit on their behinds and keep an
eye on their limo.
They should be supporting the Bloc Quebecois on this kind of
bill, but they are not. Where are the members from Quebec in the
government caucus? Where are they, when they should be standing
for Quebec?
It is even worse than that. The issue today is above
partisanship. It is a matter of democracy. Some day, you will be
back on the opposition benches.
2255
Where is the member for Laval West when it is time to fight for
the interests of Quebec on an issue like the Young Offenders
Act? She hides behind the curtains like all the ministers in the
front row, like the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Where
is he? Today, he will hide behind a motion in which the Liberals
refer to the United Kingdom, but the United Kingdom does not
have the Canadian constitution, the magnificent constitution of
the best country in the world, as the Prime Minister says, with
the mounted police and whatnot.
Sincerely, and I will repeat what my leader said, I do not envy
your situation, Mr. Speaker, once the motion is carried.
I am anxious to see what the words repetitive, frivolous and
vexatious mean for you.
Was the amendment moved by the Minister of Justice to move a
coma in Bill C-3 frivolous? Was that vexatious? We know that the
legislator does not speak for nothing, a small comma can make a
big difference in the interpretation. I do not say that the
minister should not have made that change or changed words as
she did. What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that you will be in a
very uncomfortable position when time comes to decide what is to
be considered frivolous and what is not.
Honestly, you are going to have a very hard time ruling on that.
and eventually, that will turn against one person: the one in
your chair.
Mr. Guy St-Julien: Then we'll change the Speaker.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: The member opposite just gave me an
answer: we just have to change the Speaker. I have more respect
for you, Mr. Speaker, than the members opposite. At the
beginning of my speech, I asked a question—
Mr. Guy St-Julien: We just have to change the opposition.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I would invite the members opposite who
are making comments among themselves to look at their own
record, especially the member for Abitibi who brings in motions
without even being able to find a seconder in his own party.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The
member did not tell the whole truth. He could have mentioned the
full name of my riding, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik. Moreover, I was
able to make my speech anyway.
The Speaker: I believe this is a point of debate, not a point of
order.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, I was in the House and I
can say that the member had a hard time finding a seconder for
his motion and finishing his speech.
That being said, I will close with a quote from
Marleau and Montpetit. The government wants to give lessons in
democracy, but if we knew all that is being said on the
government benches while we are making our speeches—
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Outrageous.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: It is outrageous for Canadian democracy.
I will try to rise above the level of debate set by the
Liberals.
Mr. Pierre Paquette: It will not be difficult.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Here is what it says on page 260 of the
book entitled House of Commons Procedure and Practice:
The duties of the Speaker of the House of Commons require
balancing the rights and interests of the majority and minority
in the House to ensure that the public business is efficiently
transacted and that the interests of all parts of the House are
advocated and protected against the use of arbitrary authority.
A little further on, it is even more interesting:
The Speaker is the servant, not of any part of the House or any
majority in the House, but of the entire institution and the best
interests of the House as distilled over many generations in its
practices.
2300
I was present when the government House leader introduced his
motion. He said that, ultimately, it would not change much
because the Chair was already doing this work. I urge the
government not to go any further and to withdraw this motion,
because so far the Chair has indeed used its authority wisely.
In a bill such as the one on young offenders, of the 3,000
amendments for which I gave notice, the Speaker still accepted
2,977. This is proof that these amendments were not all that
pointless, and that the Chair could very well continue to do the
work as it is doing it now.
The Speaker: Order, please. It being 11.01 p.m., it is my duty
to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question
necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment will please
say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
2330
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Benoit
|
Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
| Brison
|
Cadman
| Casson
| Clark
| Comartin
|
Cummins
| Davies
| Day
| Desjarlais
|
Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gallant
| Gallaway
| Godin
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hilstrom
| Hinton
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lill
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Meredith
| Merrifield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Moore
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Peschisolido
|
Proctor
| Rajotte
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
|
Robinson
| Schmidt
| Skelton
| Solberg
|
Sorenson
| Spencer
| Stinson
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Williams
| Yelich – 66
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bagnell
| Baker
| Beaumier
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Binet
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bourgeois
| Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Caplan
| Cardin
| Carignan
|
Carroll
| Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Cotler
| Crête
| Cullen
|
Cuzner
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
|
Dion
| Dromisky
| Dubé
| Duceppe
|
Duhamel
| Duplain
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Eyking
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laframboise
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lanctôt
|
Lastewka
| Lebel
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Loubier
|
MacAulay
| Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Marceau
| Marcil
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCallum
| McCormick
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McTeague
| Ménard
| Mitchell
|
Murphy
| Myers
| Neville
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
|
Paquette
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Regan
| Robillard
| Roy
| Sauvageau
|
Savoy
| Scherrer
| Scott
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tirabassi
| Tobin
|
Tonks
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Ur
|
Vanclief
| Venne
| Whelan – 167
|
PAIRED
Members
Discepola
| Fournier
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Girard - Bujold
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| McLellan
| Reed
(Halton)
| Rocheleau
|
Rock
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please
say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek
it, I think you would find unanimous consent of the House that
the members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as
voting on the motion now before the House, with the Liberals
members voting yes.
[Translation]
The Speaker: Is there consent to proceed in this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members vote no
to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois oppose this motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, the NDP members will vote against
the motion.
[English]
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, members of the
Progressive Conservative Party vote no to this motion.
Mr. Roger Gallaway: Mr. Speaker, I want to be recorded as
voting no.
2335
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bagnell
|
Baker
| Beaumier
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Binet
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
|
Carignan
| Carroll
| Castonguay
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Cotler
| Cullen
|
Cuzner
| DeVillers
| Dion
| Dromisky
|
Duhamel
| Duplain
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Eyking
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| LeBlanc
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Macklin
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Marcil
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCallum
|
McCormick
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McTeague
| Mitchell
|
Murphy
| Myers
| Neville
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Regan
| Robillard
| Savoy
|
Scherrer
| Scott
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
|
Tirabassi
| Tobin
| Tonks
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Vanclief
| Whelan – 136
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Bourgeois
| Breitkreuz
|
Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
| Cardin
|
Casson
| Clark
| Comartin
| Crête
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| Day
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dubé
| Duceppe
|
Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Gallant
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
|
Hearn
| Herron
| Hilstrom
| Hinton
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laframboise
| Lalonde
|
Lanctôt
| Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Ménard
| Meredith
| Merrifield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Moore
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Paquette
|
Peschisolido
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Proctor
|
Rajotte
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
| Robinson
|
Roy
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Skelton
|
Solberg
| Sorenson
| Spencer
| St - Hilaire
|
Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Williams
| Yelich
– 97
|
PAIRED
Members
Discepola
| Fournier
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Girard - Bujold
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| McLellan
| Reed
(Halton)
| Rocheleau
|
Rock
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
The House resumed from February 23 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-9, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made Friday, February 23, 2001,
the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
division on the motion at second reading of Bill C-9.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find
unanimous consent that the members who voted on the previous
motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the
House, with the Liberal members voting yea.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House to proceed
in this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members will
vote no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois will vote in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP vote yes
to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Progressive
Conservative Party will vote yes to this motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bagnell
| Baker
| Beaumier
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Binet
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bourgeois
| Bradshaw
|
Brien
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Caplan
| Cardin
| Carignan
| Carroll
|
Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Charbonneau
| Clark
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comartin
| Comuzzi
| Cotler
| Crête
|
Cullen
| Cuzner
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dion
|
Dromisky
| Dubé
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
|
Duplain
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Eyking
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Hearn
| Herron
| Hubbard
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laframboise
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lanctôt
|
Lastewka
| Lebel
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Loubier
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Macklin
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Marceau
|
Marcil
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Matthews
| McCallum
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McTeague
| Ménard
| Mitchell
|
Murphy
| Myers
| Neville
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
|
Paquette
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proctor
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Regan
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Roy
| Sauvageau
| Savoy
| Scherrer
|
Scott
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| St. Denis
|
St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
| Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tirabassi
| Tobin
| Tonks
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Ur
| Vanclief
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan – 187
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Benoit
|
Breitkreuz
| Cadman
| Casson
| Cummins
|
Day
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Gallant
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Hanger
| Harris
| Hilstrom
| Hinton
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
McNally
| Meredith
| Merrifield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Moore
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Peschisolido
|
Rajotte
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
| Schmidt
|
Skelton
| Solberg
| Sorenson
| Spencer
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Vellacott
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Williams
| Yelich – 46
|
PAIRED
Members
Discepola
| Fournier
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Girard - Bujold
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| McLellan
| Reed
(Halton)
| Rocheleau
|
Rock
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
The bill is therefore referred to the House Standing Committee
on Procedure and House Affairs.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
* * *
[English]
IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT
The House resumed from February 26 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-11, an act respecting immigration to Canada and the
granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced,
persecuted or in danger, be read the second time and referred to
a committee.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the
House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded
division on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-11.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think you would
find unanimous consent that the members present and voting on the
previous motion be recorded as voting on the motion now before
the House, with the Liberal members voting yes.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the House to
proceed in this way?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Alliance
members present vote no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois are in favour of this motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, the members of the NDP will oppose
this motion.
[English]
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, the members of the
Progressive Conservative Party vote yes to this motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bagnell
| Baker
| Beaumier
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Binet
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bourgeois
| Bradshaw
| Brien
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
|
Cardin
| Carignan
| Carroll
| Castonguay
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Clark
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Cotler
| Crête
| Cullen
| Cuzner
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dion
|
Dromisky
| Dubé
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
|
Duplain
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Eyking
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hubbard
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laframboise
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lanctôt
| Lastewka
|
Lebel
| LeBlanc
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Loubier
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Marceau
| Marcil
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCallum
| McCormick
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McTeague
| Ménard
| Mitchell
|
Murphy
| Myers
| Neville
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
|
Paquette
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Regan
| Robillard
| Roy
| Sauvageau
|
Savoy
| Scherrer
| Scott
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tirabassi
| Tobin
|
Tonks
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Ur
|
Vanclief
| Venne
| Whelan – 175
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Benoit
|
Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
| Cadman
| Casson
|
Comartin
| Cummins
| Davies
| Day
|
Desjarlais
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Gallant
| Godin
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hilstrom
|
Hinton
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lill
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Meredith
| Merrifield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Moore
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Peschisolido
|
Proctor
| Rajotte
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
|
Robinson
| Schmidt
| Skelton
| Solberg
|
Sorenson
| Spencer
| Stinson
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Williams
| Yelich – 58
|
PAIRED
Members
Discepola
| Fournier
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Girard - Bujold
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| McLellan
| Reed
(Halton)
| Rocheleau
|
Rock
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly,
the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Citizenship
and Immigration.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
The Speaker: It being 11.40 p.m. the House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 11.40 p.m.)