Debates of June 9th, 1995

Business Of The House

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope I did not refer to someone by name. I try to avoid that. I apologize for doing that if I did. I do not recall.

As I was saying, hon. members opposite may feel their views represent the majority of Canadians but it is not an opinion shared (a) by the majority of Canadians, and (b) by the vast majority of the members of the House. While they might want us to substitute Reform Party policy for the red book we will not do it. We will not be dissuaded from proceeding with the policies outlined in the red book because of a lot of shouting and yelling from the other side of the House. Nor will we do so because of obstruction practised by members from the opposite side of the House. I want to refer to that right now. I have some statistics that hon. members opposite may want to hear.

In respect of Bill C-68, about which we heard a lot of bleating and whining yesterday when we applied a time allocation motion to the debate on it, I want to point out what has gone on here. This bill was introduced in February, debated at second reading on February 16, February 27, March 13, March 27, March 28 and April 5 for a total of 20 hours and 21 minutes. Over 38 members of the Reform Party spoke in the debate on second reading of this bill.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

And we're proud of it.

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

They may be proud of it but I would have been embarrassed at some of the speeches I heard. After 20 hours of debate the bill went to committee where it spent something like five or six weeks. I have forgotten the amount of time.

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

How many witnesses were refused to be heard?

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

"How many witnesses", says the hon. member. Hundreds. The committee heard witnesses night and day four or five days a week for four weeks. Then it spent over a week studying the bill in committee with something over 200 amendments, I am told.

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

Four hundred and five.

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

Four hundred and five, the hon. member says. He only serves to prove my point. Hon. members opposite are wasting the time of the House and Parliament. They are deliberately trying to obstruct the bill. They have no interest in seeing that democracy takes its full course. Members of the House are entitled to express their view by a vote. That is the normal way of concluding debate. That is what the government is seeking to do by the time allocation motion it has brought in respect of this bill.

I do not know why the government House leader was so generous as to allow six hours on each stage but he did. The fact is we will be debating this bill next week. Hon. members opposite will have a chance to express their views along with the other members of the House, the members of the official opposition and the members of the governing party.

I am pleased we will have an orderly debate and that we will conclude debate with a vote to see what happens to the bill. I strongly suspect it is going to pass, notwithstanding the objections of hon. members opposite.

Let us turn to Bill C-85, another bill dear to the heart of the hon. member for Calgary West. This bill was also debated in the House at great length. We are hearing bleats and whines again from the Reform Party about the time allocation motion in respect of this bill. It was debated on May 4, May 9, May 10 and May 12 for a total of 15 hours and 57 minutes. That is almost 16 hours of debate. Then it was referred to committee.

The committee proceedings were expeditious. The matter was dealt with in a day. We heard five, six or seven different witnesses during the course of the day. Then, as I pointed out when I tabled the report from the committee, every clause was carried unanimously in the course of the clause by clause study in that committee.

Now the hon. member for Calgary West is objecting. He has a whole string of amendments which he wants to bring to the House. He did not bring them in committee. He got up in a huff and huffed and puffed and blew himself out of the room. He was not there to propose his amendments. We did not have any discussion on any amendments. Now he thinks maybe we had better change the bill, so we are busy debating amendments in the House.

We have allocated four hours to debate the amendments of the hon. member for Calgary West, then we will have a vote and then four hours on third reading. After 16 hours on second reading, four hours on third reading, four hours in report stage and a full day in committee, I do not know what objection there could be to passing the bill. The bill was in the red book. Everything in the bill was promised in the red book except the extra things we have added which can only help make hon. members feel more comfortable.

What did we add? Opting out of the pension plan, which they asked for. They asked to be allowed to opt out and that has been granted in the bill. They asked that the pension be reduced and it has been reduced in the bill. It is not enough for them, but it has been reduced.

Let us turn to Bill C-41. This is another bill which hon. members opposite think should not come under time allocation. We have heard nothing but complaints from hon. members opposite about the bill; not about the whole bill of course, just about one clause. Again, we have another red book promise being implemented by the government. Hon. members opposite

were not elected on the red book so they should not ask us to substitute their opinion for ours. We chose what we were going to run on. We put the platform forward in the red book and the people voted for it in droves.

Let us look at the record on Bill C-41. It was given first reading in June 1994. It was debated in the House on September 20, September 22 and October 18 for a total of 8.5 hours. It went to committee on October 18, 1994 and did not come back from committee until March 22.

Yet the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley is bleating from her seat about the fact that the bill was in committee for six months. What did she do all that time? Did she sit and obstruct the bill? Why did she not call witnesses and move amendments then? There has been a whole pile of amendments moved to the bill. The hon. member clearly does not want a decision in the House, she just wants to obstruct and cause delay.

The government has to make a decision. That is what governments are elected to do. This government made a decision. Its decision was outlined in the red book. It brought the bill before Parliament. It has allowed ample time for debate, ample time for discussion, ample time to hear witnesses and ample time to consult. There comes a day when you have to bite the bullet and make a decision and, by George, we are going to do it next week. The great thing is that we are going to be able to sit until late to do it.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Just what we all want.

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

Exactly. It is just what we all want, as the hon. member says. I am glad he is as enthusiastic at the prospect as I am. I will have supper with the hon. member in the lobby.

As we look forward to next week's late night debates and, undoubtedly, very late night votes, I can only say that I hope the weather stays a little cooler. I know that debate will be heated on many of these bills. I recognize there is a difference of opinion. However, the fact is that the government has to bring these matters to a decision at some point in time and the time has come. These bills have been around and they have been debated extensively in Parliament.

[An hon. member]

No, they have not.

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

The hon. member says they have not. I have just been through the facts. I wish he would listen to my speech. If he would listen he would agree with me.

The fact is these bills have been debated extensively and Canadians have been consulted. There is disagreement. Of course there is disagreement. We recognise that. However, the government made a commitment to the Canadian people in the red book. The government made a series of commitments, and those commitments form the basis of government action in the House and will continue to form the basis of government action in the months and years to come.

The Prime Minister made it very clear when he was campaigning, and I remember hearing him say this, that at the end of the day Canadians will be able to turn to the red book, go through it and say this government lived up to its commitments. As Prime Minister, he will be going to Canadians in the next election, whether it is 1997 or 1998-it cannot be too soon, and hon. members opposite must be very nervous at that prospect-and he will say: "Here is the red book. Here are the commitments we made. Here are the promises that we kept, one after the other."

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

That would be a short speech.

[An hon. member]

What about the ones you did not keep?

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

The hon. member says what about the ones we did not keep. We were not elected for two years, we were elected for four or five. There is ample time for us to live up to the red book commitments. It was a blueprint for action, not for one or two years but for the full term of a Liberal government. That is what the government is doing.

Hon. members opposite refer to the Ontario election as though it is some kind of setback.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

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

I can only say to hon. members opposite that in spite of their laughter, the setback is going to be with them. If we go to most of the ridings around Ontario-and the hon. member for Simcoe Centre knows this very well, and it is Ontario they are now concerned about because of this election, which is why I am referring to those particular seats-we have to add up the Reform vote and the Tory vote in the last election and see what it comes to. Had the two been together-and of course we know they are becoming bedfellows over there-they might have won a few more seats than the one they got in Ontario in 1993.

The success in the Ontario election can be attributed to the fact that the Reform Party failed to field any candidates in the provincial election. We know why they did not. As a national party they are going to have a tough time the next time living this down.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

It is because our members said no.

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

The hon. member says it is because their members said no. We know it is because their leader said no, not because their members said no. Their members in Ontario wanted to run, but their leader said no. We all know about the dictatorial powers possessed by their leader. Let me get the little green book again, if members do not believe me on that score.

I know hon. members opposite do not like me to quote from the little green book, the little book of Reform, the gospel according to Preston Manning and the Reform Party.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Is that an authorized publication?

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

If the hon. member who is doing all the yelling kept this little book under his head at night he would not sleep well. I suspect that is the problem.

Listen to this on the struggle against the usual charges. I cannot really read this; it is in small print. It says: "Reform candidates must effectively combat the charges of separatism, extremism and eccentricity, which are invariably levelled against any new party originating in the west". That is on the Reform Party questionnaire, but it does not say how they do it.

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

If you are going to use a prop, give us the name of it.

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

I will read one more quote from the leader: "People make assumptions that we are eccentric, that we have weird baggage"-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. parliamentary secretary is using a prop.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

No, I would rule that is not a point of order. In fact he is quoting from a document, as I understand it.