Debates of June 10th, 1999

First Nations Land Management Act

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

I am not talking about the ruling. I am talking about Beauchesne's, which I have not yet completely memorized, but I know that there is a citation in it which says that a member may not rise on debate as a guise for making a motion. He cannot do that. It is against the rules.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The standing order very clearly states that “a Minister of the Crown may, at any time when the Speaker is in the Chair, propose a motion”.

The member was recognized on debate and moved it on debate. It is before the House. We will now have one hour of debate. On debate the hon. member for Elk Island for 10 minutes.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the mover of the motion has nothing to say. That is why he is not getting up to debate the motion.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It has been pointed out to me that the mover of the motion should be the first speaker on debate. The hon. government House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I need the full 10 minutes to say what most of us in the House think at this point.

Most members in the House would concur right now that having delayed a bill for months and months and months, a bill dealing with Canada's—

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member who is speaking, the House leader of the governing party, rose on debate. He made his motion—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

No, this is not a point of order.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member rose on debate. Once he said his piece, he moved his motion, which is fine—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The government House leader moved the motion. The Speaker then had to read the motion into the record, present it to the House. From that point on debate on the motion started. There had been no debate on that motion until it was read to the House.

The hon. government House leader on debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, I do not think I need much time to convey what most members think about this issue and about what has been occurring.

Let us stick mainly to the issue. The issue is that the aboriginal community and indeed several other Canadians involved with the issue of land claims have been urging us for months and months and months to pass Bill C-49, which we did. The Senate considered it and made an amendment which most of us concur in. Many of us have had members of Canada's first nations communities urge us to pass this legislation.

The conclusion to all of that is that we need this bill urgently. I do believe that most of us think in our hearts that we have already said that is precisely what we would do and that is precisely what I am urging the House to do now.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

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

Standing Order 53(2) very clearly states:

After the Minister has stated reasons for the urgency of such a motion, the Speaker shall propose the question to the House.

The minister never stated the purpose of this motion and the urgency of it. Therefore the motion is out of order.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

When the hon. member for Elk Island stood the first time, as I recall and we can check the blues, the hon. government House leader made the point of why it was an urgent matter and then went into it. We can check blues. I know the hon. member for Elk Island is a student of House procedure. We recognize that.

It is the opinion of the clerk that this is being done strictly according to the standing orders of the House of Commons. Therefore the Chair accepts it and recognizes the member for Elk Island on debate.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, often in this House when we speak we say we are so pleased to stand here. I often think of it still. This is a place of honour. I am called the hon. member for Elk Island, as all members here are called honourable. I wish that I could on this occasion also stand to say that I am really happy to speak to this motion. I am not.

The motion the government House leader has brought forward is that we should suspend Private Member's Business. That is the motion, that we should now talk about Bill C-49, for which the time for debate ended earlier today.

I think it is unconscionable. For years and years and years the government front bench, whether it is the Conservatives or the Liberals, has controlled Private Members' Business. Here we are into Private Members' Business speaking about a very important bill, that of double taxation for mechanics who have to buy tools in order to make their living. This motion is now pre-empting that very important bill.

Bill C-502 is important to Canadians. The bill has been brought forward by a private member, a bill that should properly be dealt with in Private Members' Business. The government over there says “Private Members' Business nothing. Democracy, who cares about it?” All the Liberals are about is getting their own way and pushing their way around like schoolyard bullies. That is not acceptable. It is wrong.

There are a couple of ways of getting Bill C-49 passed. The government ran twice on its red book platform of making government more accountable, making government more democratic, doing things that are right according to the rules of the House and everything. This is the same government which is now invoking closure on a bill which is incomplete. That is why we are opposing it.

We are not pulling a shenanigan today. We are simply exercising a parliamentary process. We are exercising a duty in order to ensure that the flaws in Bill C-49 are corrected. The government wants to invoke closure and just ram it through because the Liberals want to go on their golfing vacations. They want to go away. They do not want to be here.

We are in deep trouble if members of parliament replace the urgency and the need for running the government on behalf of the people of Canada with the urgency to get out of Ottawa. I am willing to stay here until the end of September if I have to in order to correct the flaws in the bill. It is shameful that the government just snubs its nose at the democratic process, at debate, invokes closure and brings in these bills.

This is not a new thing. It happens every June. It happens every December. The government waits until then for the things it knows are not popular and not right and it hopes that the opposition will tire. The Liberals hope that we will not care enough and that we too will want to join them on the golf course. Well, we do not. We are here to represent the people.

This is not the time to debate Bill C-49. There are some very important flaws in that bill which must be corrected. It is our job as the official opposition, indeed it is our job as members of parliament and it should have been the job of the senators, to fix the errors in that bill which make it unacceptable.

The bill is unacceptable to women. Aboriginal women are being cut off from the rights that every other Canadian has. They are being cut off by the bill.

We proposed an amendment to it. Of course the government. invoked closure. It invoked its “Let us get our MPs to stand and vote when we pull their strings”. The Liberal members got up and passed it without the amendment. As a result, aboriginal women will not have the rights that are rightfully theirs because of the lack of the amendment.

I can think of other things, such as the right to confiscate land, to foreclose on land and all sorts of different things. We are dealing with people whose right of lease is being transferred and they have no rights.

It is incredible that the government is not willing to go through the democratic process. As I said, there is a very simple way to get this bill passed and that is to correct its several little flaws. That is all we are asking.

Often when we use words they have a tendency to reflect on ourselves so I want to be very careful when I use the word, but an element of arrogance is involved in a person who says “I have it absolutely right and you do not know a thing”. That is what they are saying over there. The Liberals are saying that the members of the opposition do not know that there are some flaws in this bill.

As we heard today, the hon. member for Skeena has had many representations from people in the native community, from women and others. He has had representations from people who live on lands adjoining the native reserves. Those people have brought forward some very important concerns which ought to be corrected. What is the point of ramming this bill through and getting it wrong?

One of my former bosses had a little placard on the bulletin board in his office which read “If you don't have time to do it right, when will you find time to do it again?” It is fine when we are working in an office somewhere to say that we have to take the time to do it right, otherwise we will have to find more time to do it again. When we are dealing with issues like this, doing it again is not a tenable option. Once a bill is passed into law, it is usually very difficult to backtrack and to correct the errors and flaws in it.

All we are asking is that the government simply do what it promised to do and which it is failing to do. Exercise a true, democratic process here and not the bullying tactics. Do not play the schoolyard bullies by saying “It is our way or no way. We are bigger than you. We have 156 members and you do not have that many so we are just going to march forward and you poor guys, you are worthless, you are useless”. That is what the government is saying and it is absolutely untenable.

I am here to represent the people of Elk Island but I am also here to represent Canadians from coast to coast. I am here to make decisions that are good for Canada in the long run, not just for tomorrow. I am here for more than just making sure that members of parliament can start their vacation two and a half weeks before it was scheduled to start because the lazy bums over there do not want to do their work. That is not acceptable.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am giving the hon. member for Elk Island the two minute warning. Since I am giving him the two minute warning, I am also going to give him another warning. We are not going to refer to each other as lazy bums.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, did I use those words? My apologies. I must have gotten carried away. That type of language is not usually even in my thinking. I am genuinely sorry.

All of us must do our job. We must never permit our eagerness to get out of here to supersede the urgency and importance of doing our job and doing it right. I am embarrassed to be part of a parliament that is so eager to get out of this place and go back to the ridings, as important as that is. Do those members have holidays planned? What do they have planned? I do not know.

I do not have anything planned. My plans are to come back here on Sunday night and to be here Monday to Friday. I am going to be here in any event because I have it booked. I have work to do here. I am here to represent the people.

It is absolutely shameful that the members over there are so eager to get out of here that they will not work on a bill for a little longer and perhaps accept some amendments from the opposition that will fix the flaws. Then at the end of the day we could stand up proudly before our children and our grandchildren, before Canadians from coast to coast and say that we did a good job when we were in Ottawa.

Instead the Liberals are going to be hanging their heads in shame and saying “We should not have done that. We should have listened to other heads, but instead ours were totally clouded. They were on the other side and we assumed that they did not know what they were talking about”.

Those Liberals over there have a lot of wisdom, but there is also some wisdom on this side. If we worked together we would get much better legislation on behalf of the Canadian people.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[Some hon. members]

Debate.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The ruling was 10 minutes per party.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. According to Standing Order 53(3)(c) it is not 10 minutes per party, it is 10 minutes per member. I see more members who want to speak. I believe they should be given a chance to speak pursuant to the standing order.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit that you have ruled on this matter, and I suggest that you put the question to the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

There is no question that when I explained how this was going to work I said we have a maximum of one hour of debate. That means if we split it we are going to have 10 minutes per party. If the other parties do not choose to use their time, that is their business. It is 10 minutes per party. That is it. I am putting the question now.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, according to Standing Order 53(1)(c), which was quoted by the government House leader, no member may speak more than once, nor longer than 10 minutes. It is not per party, Mr. Speaker. It is written here very clearly that no member may speak more than once, nor longer than 10 minutes.

One member has spoken for 10 minutes. Now it is time for the next member to utilize the time allocated by the standing orders, which is 10 minutes. I would ask that you kindly look at the standing orders and have the House work accordingly.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

This has certainly been an educational evening for many of us, because most of us have never gone through anything like this before.

Under this standing order the Speaker is vested with the discretion. The discretion the Speaker is vested with is the form of the debate. At the start of the debate I, as the Speaker, said “This is the way we are going to conduct this debate. It will be 10 minutes per party”. That is what I said. That is the way it is going to be.

I will put the question now. I will not recognize any points of order on the same subject.

The question is on the motion. Will those members who object to the motion please rise in their place?

And 10 or more members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The motion is deemed to have been withdrawn.

(Motion withdrawn)