Debates of March 1st, 1996

Business Of The House

[The Deputy Speaker]

I ask all members to not refer to other members as "you". Third person singular or third person plural, please.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Okanagan Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to my hon. colleague's comment about not wasting our time.

If he were really serious about this, which I think he is, at least he certainly looks sincere, the important thing is to get procedural motions like this off the table. They are on the table and we are now obligated to get involved in the debate. However, there is a very big issue at stake here.

The point I want to register was made very effectively by the hon. Pat Nowlan when he was in the House. He did it on the occasion of the 1991 debate. I refer rather extensively to some things he said. At that time he said to me: "In the years that I have been here it would boggle the mind in terms of the effective working of Parliament to do what is being projected here". It is exactly the same thing the previous government did in the House in 1991.

He said:

What really disturbs me, having spent a good many years on the opposition side, is that we know, and my former friends across the way know from when they were on the opposition, that the prorogation date is sometimes used as the negotiating lever to get bills to move along. Under the tradition and history of the British parliamentary system come prorogation everything on the Order Paper died. It was then incumbent on the government and the responsibility of the government in the new session to reintroduce the bills and/or try to work matter matters out by consent, as they so often did.

I have a good memory also. There were many times in this Chamber in which a deal was made before prorogation. Sometimes by unanimous consent bills which were on the Order Paper, certain ones being difficult to agree with perhaps, were nevertheless put together as a package so they could get through and could be reintroduced later.

If the government brings in an omnibus motion which has the effect of lumping all the bills together that were all at the same stage in the previous session of a Parliament through a formal motion of the House where it knows it has the numbers to have a fait accomplis, if you like, of the passage of that kind of a motion, that puts into jeopardy any future debate on the floor of the House. That is what the issue is all about.

The question is why would a government, including this one or any other, that will use this kind of lever really worry about the concerns of the opposition? It does not care about what the opposition thinks. It knows that come prorogation the debate will be cut off and since it has the majority in the new Parliament the government knows it will not lose anything.

What in the world is this all about if we do what is proposed here? I cannot help but refer to the hon. Don Boudria. I am pleased he is here to hear himself quoted again.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Members, we are all rusty. Present sitting members of the House have to be referred to by their riding and ministers by their portfolio.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Okanagan Centre, BC]

I apologize. I stand corrected. I was referring to the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. I believe other members have mentioned this today. I refer to a second paragraph which I do not think has been read. The hon. member will hear himself quoted again, from May 28, 1991.

[An hon. member]

That was then.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Okanagan Centre, BC]

Yes, that was then and he has learned extremely well. He has learned to debate cleverly on both sides of the issue. If it were not so serious, it would be a nice game. To become a skilful debater one must be able to debate both sides of an issue.

"What we are doing is amending completely the rules of the House by adopting this motion. Were we to do so or were this motion to be ruled in order, the implications of the ruling of this motion in order would be such that I fear we could render this House of Commons totally irrelevant and redundant".

He went on to say: "We would simply deem everything and anything to have been passed, to have been at third reading or to have been at any stage or for any reason the government did not want to proceed with other stages of the bill".

Is that not exactly what the hon. member told us 20 minutes ago? It is most interesting what happens when one walks from this side of the House to that side of the House. When they have all the numbers on their side, they begin to think anything they do has to be right.

At that time the government won the debate. Of course it did, had the numbers, exactly as Pat Nowlan put it so clearly. It reminds me very much of what Gordon Gibson said in the Globe and Mail on Tuesday of this week: ``Our system effectively provides for a four year elected dictatorship with an astonishing concentration of power in the Prime Minister's office and the cabinet. Not unnaturally, those enjoying this power think it is a pretty good system''.

That is the seriousness of the issue before us. We really should be reflecting the wishes of the people. Sometimes procedural motions are brought to the floor of the House to give advantage to levering certain bills to move things faster or slower, the suggestion being that somehow the opposition side has a say in these things.

As my hon. colleague from Calgary Centre said so clearly, we do not have a say. It is in the hands of the government. Gordon Gibson said very clearly that in the final analysis the Prime Minister can decide whatever he wants.

Now I refer to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. Let him hear what he had to say on May 28, 1991. This is excellent. The hon. member will have his memory refreshed. He could probably say the very same thing today. He should. If he were on this side of the House I am sure he would. This is really interesting. The hon. member said: "A new definition of democracy has been introduced. That is what this government is trying to introduce to

Canada. Frankly, it is time we exposed the-"-do you remember what you said?

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

Fraud.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Okanagan Centre, BC]

Fraud. He called it a fraud but today it is good stuff. He goes on. It gets better: "I want to deal with the propriety of the motion the government introduced. I suggest it is contrary to all the practices of this House for the last 124 years. It is a breach of the proprieties of this place. While the Speaker has ruled that the motion is in order and I respect that ruling, I suggest that it is still morally wicked".

What a statement. That is what he said when he was on this side but now that he is part of the government he says that is okay. It is as morally wicked today as it was then. The morals have changed. It is amazing. One walks across the House and the morals become different. Is it not interesting? What has happened in this place?

Then he drew his conclusion: "I suggest that this is wrong and it is wickedly wrong. It is a gross violation of the constitutional principles on which the House has operated since Confederation". Listen to the loftiness of these phrases. "Indeed it is contrary to the whole practice of British parliamentary tradition for 900 years and nothing like this has ever been tried before. I suggest it is wrong. The government knows it is wrong".

It is very interesting that at that time the hon. member was joined by the now premier of Newfoundland who said: "The government party of the day regrettably for the country, a country in desperate need of leadership on the constitutional front and on the economic front, does not have the confidence of the people". Even as a member of the opposition, one wanting to replace the governing party, he made those kinds of comments. What does the government do? Yesterday the Prime Minister indicated to the House that the back of the deficit had been broken. That is an interesting conclusion when the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the speech from the throne said very clearly that the deficit shall be at least or not more than 2 per cent of the gross domestic product.

That does not suggest the deficit's back has been broken. It has not made any indication either of how seriously the fiscal situation of the country has been damaged and continues to be damaged.

[An hon. member]

That is a lot more progress than your Tory friends made.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Okanagan Centre, BC]

This is interesting. The hon. member says that is more progress than the Tories made. I draw to the member's attention that since he and his colleagues came into the House they have added to the debt $76 billion plus. That is their contribution to the fiscal health of the country. It is on the backs of the people that the deficit and the debt ride, and they are getting heavier and heavier. I suggest to the Prime Minister and to my colleagues opposite that the back that is being broken is the back of the taxpayer, not of the deficit.

There comes a time when one almost has to say that what we have here is a tyranny of the majority. It is not the interests of the people that are being addressed in this motion but the convenience of a particular group of people who not want to live by the procedures that we have all agreed to. They want to change them.

It would be one thing to say this will simply bring back the bills the government wants back on the table. Then it ties that with this sort of noble condescending attitude, almost patronizing, saying it will also allow private members' bills to come forward. That does not change the principle one iota. It seems the government wants to get some kind of prestige, or to drain some credibility from the fact that yes, private members' bills will also be able to come to the table. If it was morally wicked before, if it was a fraud before, it is no less wicked and no less a fraud today than it was then.

I suggest that the sooner we get on with the business of the country and deal with things like the deficit, justice issues and keeping criminals off the streets, we will be far better off than wrangling here on whether we should bring back all that stuff that was really supposed to have been stopped by prorogation at the whim and fancy of the government whenever it wishes to do so.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if my hon. colleague would want to share his views on the cost issues. I am not talking about financial costs. I am talking about the human costs of the various committees that participated throughout the previous session. I know that many of our constituents throughout the country have invested a great deal of time and effort in coming forward to share their views on various matters before committees at various stages.

I was curious about what are the hon. member's views or his party's views on the subject of costs and whether it is something that should be given consideration.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Okanagan Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am so happy that my colleague across the way asked that question. It really gives me a chance to say something about the speed with which legislation is introduced to the House and the substance of the legislation that is introduced. It is almost like having a car that is trying to go uphill but the ice on the highway is so slick that the car cannot move at all. It is spinning like crazy but it is not going anywhere. That is what is happening here.

If the hon. member is really concerned about the costs that were incurred, then the legislation should have been pushed through the House on a regular basis, instead of trying to force it all through at the end.

Let us take as an example the internal trade agreement. The agreement was signed on July 1 the year before. A whole year later the bill finally came to the House. We would told we should pass it into law so that it can be put into operation. What was the delay? Certainly the opposition did not delay it. The standing committee did not delay it. Somebody else delayed it. I wonder if it is not the same group that has the opportunity to bring bills back to the House if this motion is passed.

The concern I have is this. How much time has the government wasted by not moving faster than it did? If the government wanted to bring all these bills forward, why did it not just keep on going? We lost a whole month.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Why did you prorogue?

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate, as I often do, the views of my learned colleague. The only difficulty I have is this. What about the human investment in time, energy and the quality of the debate that was advanced prior to prorogation?

I would like to ask my hon. colleague if he would comment on that one specific issue. Is it not a valid comment that there were significant investments made in bringing people to Ottawa or having our committees travel throughout the country? Would it not be a pity to lose all of the very good work that was done by all members on all sides of the House and particularly at the committee level? I ask my hon. colleague to comment on that aspect.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Okanagan Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to comment on the human investment. The sad part is that so much of the human effort has been completely ignored by the government.

All kinds of witnesses come before committees, not only the industry committee but a number of other committees, and what effect has it had on legislation? What effect has it had in bringing about any amendments? The hon. member should recognize that that kind of thing is much more debilitating than for the government to take the position that if it prorogues it can bring that stuff back because some of that investment of time and energy is significant and should not be lost.

It is not lost. We have heard all those things. If the government is really serious it will bring forward that legislation very quickly and very clearly. It will not have to go through all of that debate again. We know that and I believe the hon. member knows that.

If there were ever a time when we should be sensitive to the human element it is now. We should recognize the terrible position that people are put in when they are not sure about what is going to happen to the criminal who is incarcerated for committing a violent crime, who has raped their daughters and is now out on the street again without any restriction whatsoever. That is the concern. That has a far greater human cost than the debate that has happened, that has not been forgotten and does not have to be repeated even if the bill is presented at first reading. That is the human cost.

[Dianne Brushett, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to hear the laughter and the jesting going on this afternoon, looking back at the history of what has been said and leaving a very distorted picture of what this motion is all about today.

When the government House leader brought this motion in this morning it was clear and simple. It serves all members of this House. It gives an opportunity of bringing any legislation of the government and any legislation of any private member back to the floor of this House as long as it is identical to the way it was presented prior to prorogation and as long as it has passed second reading. That is very simple and very appropriate for the public who are listening today to understand what this motion does.

The opposition has been misleading the public this afternoon. They talked about anything and everything. They talked about the deficit and about changing policies. This legislation was brought forward where you have the opportunity if you have a voice, Reform members and Bloc members, you have an opportunity in debate-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I am sorry to be such a bore, colleagues. I know it is early in the session but please just delete the word you and say they or he.

[Dianne Brushett, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have been a little distracted with some of the history on this debate. I have no history in this place except as a 1993 member so it is interesting to be reminded of what has gone on in the past, however boring I think it was.

The point of this legislation is to give us the opportunity to proceed efficiently in the business of government. Each and every member of this place was elected in 1993 to pass legislation that works effectively and efficiently for our society. Legislation that was in progress, for want of a better word, that was left on the Order Paper before prorogation, is to come back for debate. There will be opportunities to add amendments and make changes. It does not mean that any hon. member in this House must remain silent.

We have talked about many things here today. Some bills, such as C-111, the employment insurance act, has been debated and the public has talked about it for several months. However, that is what legislation is all about. It is to seek consensus not only from members in this House but from the public as well. The hon. member for Okanagan Centre talked about the debt. He said that we have added to the debt. This is misleading. This government has reduced the deficit. As the Minister of Finance brings in the budget

next Wednesday afternoon at 4.30 p.m., the public will see how we have reduced the deficit.

In terms of the debt, it is out there; it exists. However, this will be part of our longer term legislation and the debt will be taken care of once we have dealt with the deficit. I must remind the hon. members of the opposition of first things first and keep our priorities straight.

When we talk about the Unemployment Insurance Act, about Bill C-111, the public has advised us of what it would like to see in that bill. We have listened to the public. As it goes into committee for more discussion those amendments, those considerations will be listened to. We have the interest of the Minister of Human Resources Development as well as his expression of opportunity to hear those recommendations and see if they can be fitted into this legislation. The opportunity lies in the meetings in committee to present those views.

I would suggest this misleading of the public here today is a distortion of what this House is about. It is a distortion because we came here promising the public we would act more responsibly, more maturely and not spend our time on issues of procedure.

We bring many motions to the floor on House procedure, but was that not also a promise to the public, that we did not have to look back to 100 years ago, that it is time we updated some of the legislation, some of the standing orders, some of the House procedures. The House procedures committee is a committee of all parties in this House.

There is the opportunity and I would challenge any member. If an hon. member believes they do not have that opportunity, it lies there for each and every one of us, whether we are backbenchers on the government side or whether we are in opposition.

The motion presented this morning by the government House leader is very clear. I believe the public, in the interest of efficiency, in the interest of money that has been spent in hearing public views, in holding public hearings across this nation, would be in support of progressive motions that see legislation move forward.

If the hon. member believes this is not the wish of the public, that it is not the wish of the Canadian taxpayer, then I believe the opportunity lies that those views, those statistics, those numbers of convincing, of otherwise, could be brought forward in committee.

The opportunity to carry legislation forward is a reality and it is part of a credible government's mandate. Some of the bills will come forward if the members so choose, but this is all inclusive. Any member has the opportunity to bring a bill forward as long as it is identical and has passed second reading; that is private members' bills as well as government bills.

There is not selectivity, as some members have suggested. It is an opportunity for all bills. As we sat here last year there was a bill from the Reform member on grandparents' rights and of grandparents' accessibility to their grandchildren. As their offspring go through divorce or separation there can be problems of keeping the children at a distance from grandparents.

The gallery was full of grandparents that day as I spoke on that bill on behalf of the Reform member. That bill has excellent content that serves the children of this country, that serves them in a way such that they will have that support morally, lovingly, with nurturing and financially from grandparents who are a little more distanced from the situation. That was a private member's bill from the Reform Party. I would suggest this is an opportunity for every member in the House to support this motion today to see that it does pass which would bring these bills back for debate and for passage.

There is an opportunity as well when we talk about deficits, debts and the cost that we forget that and think of what we have been through. I am convinced the public does not want us to delay in time and cost in not passing this motion which was brought forward today and not bringing those bills back here to debate but they want us to continue on to get them off the slate.

We have a responsibility and we have taken that. Every member in the House has an opportunity through the standing committees which are broad committees representing all parties in this House. I think it is misleading when we tell the public before the cameras today in the Parliament of Canada that we are doing anything but practising good government.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the comments of my colleague, and I have a question for her. I am not very familiar with House procedure, but I do know that according to the statutes prorogation means all bills die on the Order Paper.

The government knows it. This has always been the case since there is a government. The government is free to prorogue or not, but it knows very well that when it does, all bills automatically die on the Order Paper. This very government, when it was sitting on the opposition benches, was very critical of the Conservative government because it did not abide by the rules of this House.

How can the government take such a position now? Is the hon. member trying to tell us that the government is free to ignore our

procedures for the sake of convenience? That is the fundamental question. Do we have procedures or do we not? My colleague is telling me procedures can be changed-and I agree with her-but let the government change them, then. But as long as they stand as they are, it should not ignore them just because it is more convenient. That is the fundamental question.

[Dianne Brushett, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to address that very interesting question. I find it interesting that the hon. member for Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies whose purpose here is to separate the country refers to the origins of the Queen, the King and the reign of British rule, that it is so great and this House has no opportunity to change those historic perspectives as they were.

I assure the hon. member that as part of the Liberal promise, as part of the 1993 election platform, this government took the responsibility and the obligation to the Canadian people to manage the Parliament of Canada more efficiently. Also, in the name of the Canadian taxpayer we would introduce procedures that seemed fitting of 1996 and the progress we should be making as we move toward the 21st century.

I have the greatest respect, as all hon. members do in the House, for the historic value and the traditions, but I believe it is not the absolute rule that we live within the monarchy. We know the views of the separatist members and their purpose and intent here.

This House does have the responsibility to serve the Canadian people and to bring forward legislation that is progressive and efficient. In the name of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs governing this place, in which all members, even separatist members are a part of that committee, then we do have that responsibility. I believe we are only serving the Parliament in a wise, efficient manner using House procedures.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for the hon. member. Could she tell me the specific reason the Liberal government prorogued the House? Could I have a simple answer?

[Dianne Brushett, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is part of this government's platform, part of its promise to the Canadian people to deliver good government. Part of it was to restructure the Unemployment Insurance Act, part of it was to restructure the standing committees and all procedures in this House, and it was to make the House deliver legislation more efficiently and economically.

I am sure the hon. member knows the red book promise. He probably knows the red book as well as any other member in the House.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Probably better.

[Dianne Brushett, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Yes, perhaps the hon. member does know it better than some.

The legislation was introduced according to what the Canadian people requested. Canadians have requested additional commitments from the Government of Canada, that we would respect the five principles of the Canada Health Act; to ensure health accessibility at no charge except through the public purse for all Canadians; to ensure that we would provide the kind of compassionate, caring society; to ensure that we would maintain the Old Age Security Act and the guaranteed income supplement; to ensure to the Canadian people that we would do the things that our government promised.

That is part of why we had a red book. It is part of why we had a throne speech and it is part of why we have the numbers to run the Government of Canada today.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the member is probably the same question my colleague just asked which she did not answer, the purpose of prorogation.

To get on to that issue, is it not to wipe off the slate and start over with the throne speech to set the new direction for the government with its new vision, with its new hope, with its new ideas for growth and opportunity? Is it not to go forward instead of going backward in the first piece of legislation the government introduces?

The first motion the government has introduced is to bring back all those old government bills it does not want to leave behind. Those bills are supposed to die on the order paper.

Prorogation is the cause of this motion and the cause of the undemocratic use of this Chamber. What is the purpose and why, in her opinion, did her government prorogue?