Debates of Dec. 10th, 1996

Excise Tax Act

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

I declare the amendment lost.

The next question is on the main motion.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, you will find there is unanimous agreement for members who voted on the previous motion to be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yes.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the official opposition will vote no.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will vote no, unless instructed by their constituents otherwise.

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

Mr. Speaker, New Democrat members in the House this evening will vote no on this motion.

[Gilles Bernier, Independent, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yes.

[Jag Bhaduria, Liberal, Markham—Whitchurch-Stouffville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I vote no on this motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on division:)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee).

Points Of Order

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Secretary of State (Training and Youth)]

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

As a member of Parliament who has fought long and hard for the rights of Louis Riel and the Metis people, I feel that I and other members who have also struggled long and hard over many decades to right this wrong, have been put in a very untenable position. I feel my rights as a member of Parliament have been marginalized because this bill is rooted in everything that Louis Riel did not stand for.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

Order. It is clear that this is not time for debate on the bill. The time has elapsed. This is a deferred division.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. A point of order was raised so that some members would have a chance to leave and others to save face, because what was raised had already been pointed out by the person who was trying to get out of voting for the bill. She is as much out of order as I am.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

The question before the House is on a deferred recorded division. Neither point is relevant to the division before the House, but rather is tending to debate which was completed in accordance with the rules.

The House resumed from December 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-297, an act to revoke the conviction of Louis David Riel, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

An Act To Revoke The Conviction Of Louis David Riel

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

As is the practice, the division will be taken row by row, starting with the mover and then proceeding with those in favour of the motion sitting on the same side of the House as the mover.

Then those in favour of the motion sitting on the other side of the House will be called. Those opposed to the motion will be recorded in the same order.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

The House will now proceed to the consideration of the next item under Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from October 23 consideration of the motion; and of the amendment.

Peacekeeping

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat ironic that after we have spent most of this day responding once more to time allocation we now have an opportunity with motion M-31 to discuss at least partial restoration of the prerogatives, dignity and relevance of Parliament.

I would like to open my address by quoting some remarks made by the current Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the House on October 23. I quote from Hansard : ``When a peacekeeping mission is being launched, reviewed or renewed, debate is encouraged and the House is asked to support the initiative''. There is no requirement in that statement that the House give its consent but only that it be encouraged to support the government's moves.

In the same address the parliamentary secretary went on to say: "The government agrees that a debate on our commitment should be held either in this House or before the Parliament of Canada, but it is quite another story to ask that there be a vote before Canada can make any commitment". Is that not nice? "It is quite another story to ask that there be a vote before Canada can make a commitment".

It has not always been that way. There was a time when Parliament had some relevance, when Parliament had real power.

As usual I notice that most of the Liberal members are conspicuous in their absence from the House. Those sweethearts may have nothing but contempt for this institution but, by God, they should have a little respect for their fellow members. They should show that respect by at least hearing our views and going through the motions of having a real debate.

There was a time when cabinets, no matter how powerful, respected this place. I quote Hansard for June 30, 1950, when the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent said the following:

If the situation in Korea or elsewhere, after prorogation, should deteriorate and action by Canada beyond that which I have indicated should be considered, parliament will immediately be summoned to give the new situation consideration.

"Parliament will be immediately summoned". How Liberal attitudes have changed in this post-Pearsonian era. Parliament is now regarded as little more than a nuisance, but never a serious threat to governmental activity.

In September 1950 Parliament was indeed recalled to debate sending ground troops to Korea. The debate began on September 4. The mobilization order was issued on September 9. Some might call this undue delay, but remember that the UN resolution calling for joint action had been passed on June 27. The government had waited for two months before it decided to bring the matter to a head, discuss it in the House and set the subsequent events in motion.

When the Suez crisis developed in November 1956 the House was already in session, but Canadian participation was nevertheless determined by order in council. That was only six years after the Korean involvement.

In theory, and it is a great theory, Parliament had 10 days in which to determine whether to fund the action. However, in practice, as we all know, it was an exercise in rubber stamping. Here in Canada, with no separation of executive and legislative powers, Parliament cannot, without a vote of non-confidence, restrain the government by denying funding for its adventures.

In contrast, the U.S. Congress 25 years ago was able to stop military operations in Laos and Cambodia by tying the purse strings of the government.

In this century, for those of you who have not followed the political life of our giant neighbour to the south, the U.S. president, prior to the Laos and Cambodia situation, had gradually usurped the power of Congress to declare war. However, Congress is nevertheless the ultimate authority because of its power to withhold funds.

Of course, the flip side to that is, contrary to our domestic situation, the power of the president as commander in chief confers what has been described by some as a vast reservoir of powers in time of emergency, with the authority to do just about anything anywhere that can be done with an army or navy. It is the type of power which has been usurped by cabinet in this country.

It has become possible to deploy troops in situations where, although combat is not technically involved, there is danger of provoking conflict or where the deployment of troops could be regarded by others as a hostile act. Under the Canadian system governments are not supposed to possess such draconian powers, but cabinet abuses in the post-Pearson era have conferred them as a matter of custom, a custom which must be reversed if we want to reaffirm democracy in this country.

In M-31 it is stated that not only should Parliament be vested with the power to send our troops abroad, but that it should be subject to a free vote of the members. It should not be a partisan issue. Members of Parliament, before they put their constituents or the sons and daughters of their constituents into life-threatening situations, should be able to look into their own souls and they should be able to consult with their constituents to make a decision which bears the imprint, if you will, of the will of the country. We should not be rushing about, sending troops hither and yon without the absolute support of the people of Canada.

It is possible, although I would say by no means certain, that if we had had a reasoned debate and a free vote in the House on the Rwanda adventure that particular fiasco might have been avoided.

I see the Speaker is giving me the finger. I will terminate my remarks at this point.