Debates of Dec. 14th, 1995

Business Of The House

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Petitions

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present four petitions today.

The first petition notes that the Canadian Human Rights Commission has decided to eliminate the work of about 40 investigative staff in six regional offices in Canada. The petitioners call upon Parliament to rescind the decision and restore the full functions of the commission's regional offices with a full complement of investigative and administrative staff.

The petition is signed by residents of London, Ontario.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition which I wish to present notes that the Senate is not elected and therefore is not accountable to the people of Canada. The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to end this wasteful use of taxpayers' money and to abolish the Senate.

The petition is signed by residents of Thunder Bay, Ontario.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition asks Parliament to act quickly to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in all areas of federal jurisdiction and to adopt all measures necessary to recognize common law couples of the same sex in federal legislation.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the final petition is signed by residents of Saskatchewan, British Columbia and New Brunswick.

The petition draws to the attention of the House the fact that the current Criminal Code denies people who are suffering from terminal or irreversible and debilitating illness the right to choose freely and voluntarily to end their lives with the assistance of a physician. Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to amend the Criminal Code to ensure the right of all Canadians to die with dignity by allowing people with terminal or irreversible and debilitating illness the right to the assistance of a physician in ending their lives at a time of their choice, subject to strict safeguards to prevent abuse and to ensure that the decision is free, informed, competent and voluntary.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at a press conference I attended last week in Quebec City, I made a commitment to the members of seniors clubs in the Quebec City and Chaudière-Appalaches region to table a petition signed by 10 per cent of their most active members.

The petition asks the government to revise the entire tax system to make it more fair and equitable.

It criticizes the government for choosing to shift the tax burden onto people with low income. It criticizes the cuts made to the health, education and welfare sectors, through the Canada social transfer.

It contains a warning to the government and the Minister of Finance about their intention to review the old age pension plan in depth. The petitioners question the income test and make a number of suggestions to the minister. I hope he will consider them.

[Daphne Jennings, Reform, Mission—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I present once again petitions on behalf of Canadians from Ontario and Quebec. They ask the government to recognize the need for an amendment to the Divorce Act to grant grandchildren access to the grandparents.

I am encouraged that I was given a commitment on behalf of the Minister of Justice yesterday in the House that the government will be dealing with my proposals for change. Grandparents and all seniors will continue their vigilance until we indeed have the promised change for our grandchildren.

[The Speaker]

I wish to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 33(2) because of the ministerial statement government orders will be extended by 23 minutes.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On September 18 I put a written question on the Order Paper and asked for a response within 45 days. It was one of those questions which every government department should have had at their fingertips and I have not had a response yet. Now we are going into the Christmas recess and the House will not sit until February. I cannot understand why there is not enough competence to answer my question in a reasonable length of time.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to explain the situation to the hon. member. His question was:

What is the total dollar amount spent on advertising by the government and its crown agencies in fiscal years 1991, 92, 93 and 94, by province, in each of the following mediums: television, radio, daily newspapers, weekly newspapers, monthly newspapers, billboards, and direct mail?

That is going to be a massive reply, I have no doubt. The hon. member knows, as well as I do, that the previous government spent millions and millions each year on advertising. This is going to take massive research.

The latest information I have is that there are 14 government agencies which have to file the information which is required in order to provide the kind of detail which the hon. member wants.

I am sure the persons responsible for this, and I take some responsibility, will work diligently throughout the Christmas holiday to come up with an answer that will satisfy the hon. member. I know he wants an accurate and complete answer, and that is exactly what he will get.

Points Of Order

[The Speaker]

I have a notice of a point of order from the hon. House leader for the Reform Party.

So that we will know how we are to proceed, I believe there have been some minor discussions. I will recognize the Reform Party. Then I will recognize the Bloc and the government. Then I will invite anyone who wants to add anything at all to this point of order. I will hear it all.

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to talk about some very important issues: first, democracy; second, the role of an opposition in a parliamentary democracy; and, third, the office of the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

There are no formal criteria for selecting the official opposition. By longstanding tradition the leader of the opposition is the prime minister in waiting and his caucus is the government in waiting.

Should the government lose the confidence of the House:

-it is the largest minority party which is prepared, in the event of the resignation of the Government, to assume office.

This is from Erskine May, the 20th edition, page 252, and Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 196.

Doubt exists as to the Leader of the Opposition in this assembly. This doubt among other things stems from the fact that there is near parity of numbers between the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party. The Bloc does not have the best claim to be the government in waiting and the present leader of the Bloc has given notice to the Chamber of his departure.

We believe that the Reform Party should be the official opposition because we are the largest minority party that is prepared, in the event of the resignation of the government, to assume office.

I suggest at this time another criterion for a party becoming the official opposition. After the Alberta provincial general election in 1983, the legislative assembly found itself with two opposition parties with equal numbers. Much energy was expended on both sides and much energy has been expended since assessing and evaluating that decision. However Speaker Amerongen based his ruling found in the summer 1983 edition of the Canadian Parliamentary Review on the following basis:

First, the popular vote received by the NDP was over 200,000 throughout the province. The popular vote of the other party was considerably less.

Second, the speaker concluded that since the two NDP MLAs represented a broader range of interests-and that is very important-they should be the official opposition.

Let us look at the facts facing us in this assembly. In addition to achieving the election of 52 members of Parliament, the Reform Party elected these members in five provinces. Further, the Reform Party received the second highest popular vote. Over 2.5 million electors voted for the Reform Party, which amounts to 18 per cent of the popular vote nationally. By comparison, the Bloc Quebecois received about 13.5 per cent of the total popular vote in one province.

We contend that the Reform Party represents a far broader range of interests than the Bloc Quebecois, both in terms of the popular vote and in terms of our caucus including MPs from the five provinces. Electors who voted for Reform but whose MPs are from another party look to Reform to defend their interests. These Canadians surely do not look to a party whose raison d'être is the

break up of the Canadian Confederation. I cannot understand and Canadians cannot understand how that concept could be supported in any way. It puts doubt on who should be the Leader of the Opposition and who should be the official opposition in this assembly.

Why does the Reform Party now bring the matter before Your Honour? Early in this Parliament the leader of the Bloc and his party asserted and made a commitment that they would defend the interests of all Canadians and fulfil the roles of the Leader of the Opposition and the official opposition.

We have to look at the record, and the record speaks for itself. Over the past two years it has become absolutely clear this commitment has not been fulfilled.

We did not believe the interest of the Canadian union would be served by bringing this issue before the House while the referendum campaign was being waged. Instead we proposed measures for change to Confederation in the midst of that campaign. We proposed positive, democratic measures in pursuit of peace, order and good government of Canada. A constructive opposition could not have done otherwise.

Now the leader of the Bloc has again indicated, as of yesterday, that it is his intention to leave the House. Regardless of whether or not the Bloc leader leaves and the seat is declared vacant, serious doubt exists about whether the Bloc Quebecois should continue to be the Official Opposition in the Parliament of Canada and for the people of Canada at this time.

Your Honour, serious doubts have been cast. The time is ripe for the consideration of this issue. In fairness, we would also like to offer another approach in considering this matter, an approach in keeping with the spirit and the evolving traditions of our democratic system. There are precedents when doubt exists where members of the opposition have been allowed to select their leader. I draw attention to two such cases.

From 1918 to 1920 the U.K. leader of the opposition was the leader of the Liberal Party, which was the fourth party in the House of Commons. The government of the day was a coalition of the Tories and like minded members of the Liberal Party. The second party was the Sin Fein and the third party was Labour. The official opposition went to the Liberal Party for two very important reasons.

First, on the basis of a compromise worked out by the Speaker, Labour agreed to support the leader of the Liberals becoming the leader of the opposition. It was on the basis of the Liberal leader's having support from the greatest number of opposition members that he became leader of the opposition.

Second, in the event that the coalition government broke up, the coalition Liberals would return to their party banner. Therefore it would be the Liberals who would be asked to attempt to form a government in the event of the coalition's failure. The Liberals had the largest and strongest claim to being government in waiting.

The second case is from the Australian Parliament's House of Representatives in October 1941. Of the coalition parties, the United Australian Party was the largest party in opposition. The decision on who should be the leader of the opposition was not left solely to the United Australian Party. Instead the UAP settled its own leadership.

The Speaker then presided over a joint meeting with the Country Party, which was the other opposition party in the House. The two groups elected the leader of the opposition. The leader of the Country Party was elected leader of the opposition and the results were announced in the Australian House of Representatives on the next day. This can be referenced in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates of October 8, 1941, volume 168, pages 730 and 731.

In summary, we are facing a very serious crossroads and we ask Your Honour to consider what we have laid before you at this time. We have pointed out that there is serious doubt surrounding the status of official opposition and that is why I have brought the matter to your attention on behalf of my party.

Where there is doubt, Mr. Speaker, I am asking you at this time either to make a decision with regard to the doubt or to preside over an election where opposition members determine the Leader of the Opposition. We have pointed out that it is not simply the largest party in opposition that becomes the official opposition in all cases. There are exceptions and other ways of dealing with the matter. There are circumstances that warrant another party becoming the official opposition.

As I have stated at the outset, we in the Reform Party have a better claim than the Bloc Quebecois to being a government in waiting. It is absolutely clear. I can see where there is no doubt with regard to that matter. There is no way that anyone could argue any differently.

We have also pointed out that the Reform Party represents the broadest range of interests, whereas the present official opposition represents a very narrow range of interests and objectives, not for all of the people of Canada but for themselves and in their own province of Quebec.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members and I ask you in the most responsible way to consider the deliberations that have been presented before you. We ask that you base your ruling on our submission and, if required, give us your ruling when the

House reconvenes. We also ask that you consider any change in circumstance regarding the matter during the Christmas recess. If such changes take place that put you in a position where you can make a decision before the House reconvenes, we ask you to advise us immediately on those change in plans. Mr. Speaker, I thank you and the House for the opportunity to deal with this matter.

The matter is very serious in the minds of many Canadians. It is also serious to the future of the House and its deliberations in the next two years. When we cross the bridge of accepting the Reform Party of Canada as the official opposition or not, we will cross a bridge of democracy that will be either good for the country or will be an action that will not be good for our future in regard to unity.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly not out of a lack of respect for my hon. colleague, but I will be brief.

The Parliament of Canada Act and the Standing Orders of the House of Commons recognize the minority party with the most members as the official opposition. I do not want to offend my colleague, but there are 53 of us and 52 of them.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I will take quite as long as the House leader of the Reform Party, but perhaps I will not be quite as brief as the House leader of the Bloc Quebecois.

Essentially three arguments were brought before you, this morning, Mr. Speaker: one invoking democracy, the second on the role of the opposition, and the third on the designation of the Leader of the Opposition within the context set in the second argument.

It was explained that there was doubt, at least in the mind of the House leader of the Reform Party, about the status of the Leader of the Opposition; that there was near parity in the House of Commons; and that the present Leader of the Opposition had given notice that at some point in the future he would no longer hold that position. This argument was brought to the House before and was raised by the Reform Party outside the House in the media at some point. Some months ago the Reform Party asked the Government of Canada to declare it to be the official opposition. The argument was presented that for ideological considerations the third party should be declared the official opposition, notwithstanding the fact that there was no precedent for doing this in the Canadian system and second, it was asking the government to choose its own opposition.

The argument was obviously very weak because if the government chose its own opposition based on ideological grounds and not on numbers what would stop it from choosing the party that is in fourth place, the New Democrats, to be the official opposition? After all, there are less of them and presumably that would be less offensive to the government. The argument could be made that they have been around longer and therefore have legitimacy.

What about the Conservative Party? It is in fifth place with two members. As a government that would suit a lot better because there are less of them to object to government policy. After all the Conservatives were in power at the time of Confederation. If the argument follows, that would give them some claim to legitimacy. Why can we not invoke that?

If the government were ever put in the position where there would be a vote of the House choosing who the opposition would be, with all members voting, as was suggested some weeks ago, or the new twist of this morning of asking only opposition members to vote, the result would be the same.

The result would be the same because neither the government nor supporters of the government or anyone else, other than the Speaker, should choose who the Leader of the Opposition is in the House of Commons. Once we deviate from that we could be on very dangerous ground that would subvert parliamentary democracy.

I listened very patiently to the remarks of the previous speakers and they, the great advocates of democracy in what they refer to as an important debate, perhaps would care to listen for a few minutes and at the same time give the same respect that was given to them not that long ago.

Mr. Speaker, you will recall that on October 31 during question period the member for Lethbridge, the House leader of the Reform Party, asked a question which was tantamount to asking the government to recognize his party as the official opposition. That is on page 16028 of Hansard . At that time the request was made of the government. Now the request is made of the Speaker.

I have before me an article from the Calgary Herald of November 18 which quotes the member for Lethbridge. At that time he said: As soon as'', referring to the Leader of the Opposition,gives his letter of resignation the member for Lethbridge says he will be ready to rise in the House and make his case''.

It seems that is not soon enough for the member. He rises today in anticipation of what he believes to be the future resignation of another member of the House.

The fact remains that while the decision is yours-

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Yesterday was his last day.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Don't you remember hugging and kissing him?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I go back to the point I raised a while ago about people who believe that democracy is at stake here and that their arguments be heard, seem to believe other people's arguments do not deserve the same democratic consideration. They will probably stop heckling sooner or later or their leader might come and order them to shut up.

I want to indicate to you, Mr. Speaker, that the decision is yours and only yours. It does not belong to members of the House, to be made either individually or collectively. A vote of opposition members or a vote of government members would subvert the democratic principles that the third party says it espouses this morning.

I had the opportunity to consult the Parliamentary Guide concerning what happened in the Alberta legislature because of the precedent quoted by the hon. member for Lethbridge. The argument was made that the two independent members, presumably joined together at the hip, should form the official opposition versus two people who held that designation at the time.

It is interesting to note that one of the two people asking for that was the present member for Lethbridge. He lost the argument and did not become the official opposition. Perhaps he forgot about that, but that is what occurred some 13 years ago.

Second, the legislative assembly of the province of New Brunswick was faced with the situation of an identical number of seats, not close parity of seats some years ago. It made a decision in that regard and I will refer to it in a minute.

The interesting point that was raised by the member of the third party, the hon. member for Lethbridge, was that there was some similarity to what has occurred in other regions of the country.

The Speaker, of course, will be making his decision in due time on this. However, the precedent that was invoked is inappropriate, inaccurate and does not even reflect what occurred.

In reference to the decision in 1994 in New Brunswick, the Speaker had to choose between two political parties having an identical number of seats. The decision of the Speaker was that when there are an identical number of seats, the rule of incumbency should apply.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in response to the hon. government whip and as the House leader in the last year of this session.

I want to make it abundantly clear to the House-I know you know this, Mr. Speaker-that this is the first formal presentation my party has made regarding the issue of the official opposition. We have not formally requested the government make a decision because we realize the government does not have the jurisdiction to determine who is the official opposition. We understand that is your prerogative, Mr. Speaker.

I reinforce what my House leader stated, that we give you that prerogative. Our House leader has suggested that there may be two ways that you might choose to deal with this issue.

We have not, at any time, asked the government to recognize us as the official opposition. We have responded to Canadians' concerns about who forms the official opposition in this House. That debate has at times occurred in the House but I want to clarify that this is the very first presentation by the Reform Party to this House and to yourself specifically regarding the matter of official opposition.

The only further comment I would make is that this is the correct timing. We understand this is a serious matter and want to give you adequate time over the Christmas and New Year's break and through January, if need be, to consider the argument that my House leader has brought forward, the precedents that he cited, not only from the Canadian parliamentary system but the British and Australian systems as well.

I also want to acknowledge that the government whip did recognize that my House leader has personal experience in this issue. The precedent he is using is to argue that the Speaker in Alberta made the right choice. He is bringing those arguments to you. Hopefully you would make the same choice in this case.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the presentations of the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster and the hon. member for Lethbridge.

With great respect, I disagree with the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster when he says that there has been no formal presentation before. There was a request. It was summarized by the chief government whip in his remarks a few moments ago. I would like to read it to the hon. member to refresh his memory.

On October 31, 1995 the hon. member for Lethbridge put this question during question period. He said: "Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has catered to the separatists in the House. His government supports them as the official opposition. His government has elected them as committee chairmen and his government has changed the agenda of the House for the separatists. The separatists in the House have been granted special, preferential treatment. My question is for the Prime Minister. Why is this happening and when is it going to stop?"

[Some hon. members]

More, more.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I could read more of the words of the hon. member for Lethbridge. However, it is clear that what he meant by "when is it going to stop" is, when is the government going to install the Reform Party as the opposition. The government did not support the Bloc as the official opposition. It was chosen as the official opposition because it was the largest opposition party and it still is the largest opposition party.

The Reform Party, despites its efforts, has been unsuccessful in winning any seats in any byelections. It is down in the polls to 10 per cent. Reform members have problems and they are trying by this grandstanding technique today, when they are still behind 53 to 52, as the hon. member for Roberval so ably pointed out, to say that Your Honour ought to make a decision to displace the official opposition in their favour.

What the chief government whip has said is very clear. You, Mr. Speaker, have the power to make the decision as to which party is recognized as the official opposition in the House. It is not for the government to make that decision and the government does not want to be a part of that decision.

We are prepared to say that if a situation arises in the next little while where there is an equality of votes, the standard practice in the House is to leave the status quo. We point that out. It is not, of course, intended to be binding on anybody, but it is the normal practice.

When the Speaker, for example, is confronted with a situation where there is a tie vote in the House and has to break the tie, he generally exercises his favour so as to maintain a status quo and not to pass a motion that would otherwise change the status quo by voting in favour that motion. It is generally exercised in favour of maintaining the status quo.

That is the normal practice developed over some considerable time by Speakers of the House. While it is not necessarily binding, it certainly is a fairly well accepted convention and one that Your Honour will want to consider very carefully when making any decision. Perhaps your decision not be made today, but be made at a future date when there has been a resignation by the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean. He might not win the leadership of the Parti Quebecois. If he came to his senses, of course, he would seek the leadership of the Liberal Party. But that is not vacant in Quebec.

So far that has not happened. He has changed parties before, as hon. members opposite know.