Debates of Sept. 19th, 1996

Committees Of The House

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

I do, Mr. Speaker. Such remarks are surprising, coming from the hon. member who just spoke, after his recent comments last spring and during the summer.

The rule of law does not mean much to people like that. What matters is their owns views, extremist views. When the law gets in their way, they get around it. When the people in front of them do not share their views, they try to get rid of them. If their skin is not the right colour, out they go. If they do not have the right political ideology, the right views about where this country should be headed, out they go.

We have been here for three years and both the official opposition and the governing party have been saying all along that the Reform Party is a party of extremists whose attitude is reflected not only in official statements to the press and in the excessive behaviour displayed by individual members but also in each and every committee of this House. They would have people excluded on the basis of their political opinions. That is discriminatory. That is extremist. It is like racial prejudice, like being against religion.

Today, these people want to teach us a lesson in democracy. But they cannot even tell us how the committees should operate in order to be more responsive to public opinion.

I suggest that they think this over and I am confident that this is the last time they make such a request because not enough of them will get elected in the next election to be in a position to demand anything, whether in committee or in the House of Commons.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The time allocation of five minutes for questions or comments is brief. I want to accommodate as many participants as I can. I simply ask for the co-operation of the member for Calgary Centre. If he could he either make his comment or pose his question within the one minute period then I could give the same amount of time to the member for Joliette to respond.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about tradition and what we suggested should be used in the standing committees.

He referred to tradition. I would like to refer to the rules, and the rules are clear. We wish the standing committees would operate according to Standing Order 106(2):

Each standing or special committee shall elect a Chairman and two Vice-Chairmen, of whom two shall be Members of the government party and the third a Member in opposition to the government-

The wording does not preclude members of the third party in the House from filling these positions.

Since 1958 the chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts has been a member of the opposition, following British parliamentary tradition. Even Beauchesne's parliamentary rules and forms citation 781 states it is customary for the Standing Committee on Public Accounts to be chaired by a member sitting in opposition to the government. That does not preclude any opposition party. It does not refer to the official opposition, the tradition he refers to.

Procedurally no party member is precluded from assuming the position of the chair in any committee. A precedent was set during the third session of the 35th Parliament when members of the NDP, the third party-the third party in the House like us-served as vice-chairs to standing committees and subcommittees and chaired legislative committees.

This party is recommending a push for real openness and real free votes for chairs and vice-chairs, not the set up that the government perpetrates on each of the standing committees. That is what we are recommending. Allow the members to be masters of their own destinies and vote for their own chairs and vice-chairs.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Calgary Centre is absolutely right. True, this is what the law says but it is also true that we are often guided by the traditions and practices in our parliamentary system.

But if we look only at the legislation, the Bloc Quebecois proposed candidates for the position of vice-chair in the various committees and managed to convince the government representative to vote for them. All this proves is that we had the same right as Reform members. We exercised this right and, since we are better than they are, we managed to convince the government to vote for our candidates. That is why some of our members are now committee vice-chairs, and this was done democratically.

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

Mr. Speaker, the most extraordinary thing about parliamentary life is how one always has to expect the unexpected. Last night, when I went to bed, I certainly did not think that, this morning, I would be debating a report tabled by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

In 1993, during the election campaign, four major parties were trying to win the support of Canadians. There was the Liberal Party, which claimed to be in the best position to manage the affairs of the country. There was the Conservative Party, which, of course, made the same claim. There was the Reform Party, which wanted to change Canada and knew how to do it. And then there was another group, made up of separatists, sovereignists, who said: "We want to go to Ottawa to protect the interests of Quebecers".

On October 25 of that year, the Liberal Party formed the new government, with a strong majority and, of course, the responsibility that goes with it. When you have a strong majority, you ultimately have the power to do what you want. This comes with a price though, and I think that, when the time comes, voters will make the government pay that price.

The Reform Party got 52 candidates elected, not bad for a new party. Unfortunately, the Bloc got 54 candidates elected in Quebec. In other words, we became the official opposition by a narrow margin. It was a narrow margin indeed-only two members-but we got it nonetheless.

The value of parliamentary government and the respect in which society holds it derive entirely from its rules and tradition. Accordingly, we became the official opposition. This did not thrill the members of the Reform Party, and I can understand that.

What I have more trouble understanding is that after three years, they have been unable to sort out common sense, logic and, finally, their responsibility as a party in this House to ensure that the House's time is used intelligently. They wanted to reform Canada. When their members are capable of taking up the time of this House for matters which are very interesting but somewhat dubious, we have to wonder what is going on.

What does the time of the House mean? It means 295 members who are here to defend their constituents' interests, it means staff who work with these members, it means the House's support staff. When the House's time is wasted, tens of thousands of dollars are being thrown out the window.

My colleague, the hon. member for Joliette, mentioned the Jacob affair. Everyone remembers the Jacob affair, I should think. In any future discussion of the 35th Parliament, it is one issue that will stand out. We listened to the Reform Party, we appeared before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, much work was done and the final conclusion was that there was not really any basis for the charge.

As for what we are hearing this morning, and with any luck the debate will be over at 1.55 p.m., there is not really any basis for it. I can understand that it is frustrating for the Reform Party to see members of the official opposition holding the position of vice-chair on each of the committees for three years, but that is one of the responsibilities of the official opposition. The governing party has understood that, and finds it perfectly reasonable to vote for the candidates the Bloc Quebecois submits to committees.

There are certain actions that go along with the recognition of responsibility. I feel that the governing party can live with us as the opposition, and I am totally in agreement with that. I have no problem with that.

It is quite another thing, however, to say that it is easy to work in committee. It is not. Sometimes one has good ideas, is convinced they are excellent ideas and can make a valuable contribution to the government's bills, but sometimes, unfortunately, our valuable contributions end up in the waste basket. That is the government's choice and the choice of the majority in committee.

What we have to demonstrate is that our arguments, our contributions, are important and have real potential for improving the lives of our fellow citizens. When we work in committee and try to convince our counterparts on the government side that this or that amendment is important and should be passed by the committee, and subsequently by the House, we are doing our jobs.

We may regret that we are not always successful in doing so, but I do not think it is productive to take up three hours of debate to say that one is not in agreement with the report tabled by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and that really, everything ought to be done according to a free vote.

When we ask ordinary people, the people who constantly switch channels on their tv and end up getting bits and pieces here and

there, who sit around discussing this and that, what they think about politicians, their answers are not always very reassuring.

It hurts to hear this, when we have the impression we work hard and are doing our best. However, if they are watching us today, and I imagine some of them are, they will inevitably start wondering and say: "What on earth is going on? Let them go to work in committee, instead of wasting their time". They may have a point there.

However, I wish the voters watching us this morning would remember one thing, and that is that the parliamentary system works according to certain rules, which means there is a price to pay when we have a majority government and there is also a price to pay when a party is the official opposition thanks to a single member.

I would therefore urge them to elect a sizable official opposition in the next election, which will probably be held within a year. I am convinced the official opposition will come from Quebec, because to me it is clear that as far as the rest of Canada is concerned, the Reform Party is not up to forming an official opposition with a sense of responsibility and capable of acting accordingly.

Amazing, Mr. Speaker. You are signalling that I have one minute left, so I will do you a favour: I would rather not take it. I am sure my Reform Party friends have plenty of questions to ask and perhaps members opposite as well, you never know, so thank you, and I will wait for their questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting that the member for Laval Centre is the only one I know who has brought up the Jacob decision or transaction in the committee. She is the one who brought it forth, not the members of the Reform Party.

We were not questioning the decision of that committee here in this discussion. I find it absurd that members of the Bloc party can question our concern about committees. If members of the Bloc party really think that being the official opposition is the be all and end all, then maybe they should have the courage to put candidates in all of the ridings across this country and see whether they have the support of the Canadian people for the kind of issues and positions that they take. They know that they represent one province in this country. If anybody is extreme, it is the Bloc Quebecois members who are talking about leaving this country and breaking this country apart. If they do not call that extreme, I do not know what is.

I would like to ask the member if the Bloc Quebecois has the courage to put candidates in the other provinces other than Quebec in the next election.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I was negligent in not raising the issue earlier when it occurred the first time. I believe in the affair we are referring to we are referring to one of our colleagues. I would simply ask the co-operation of the House in reference to that particular issue that we would refer to the member for Charlesbourg.

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

Mr. Speaker, your point is well taken.

I want to inform the hon. member that whether something is extreme depends how you look at it. Yes, I referred to the case of the hon. member for Charlesbourg. I made that reference to use an example everyone would be familiar with. You know, when you teach a class, the best example is one that is crystal clear. For everyone in Quebec and the rest of Canada, the case of the hon. member for Charlesbourg is an example that is self-explanatory, and a case that took quite some time. The hon. member may think it extreme of me to bring this matter up, but I do not think that just because this case was closed by the House, we were bound never to discuss it again.

Fielding candidates in all Canadian ridings is an interesting point, but the hon. member should remember that we are here to defend the interests of Quebecers and to stand up and say what is wrong with this system, because there is something wrong with it. I see the hon. member is smiling. I am sure this means he agrees with me. There is something wrong with the system, and we believe it is not only our right but our responsibility to say what is wrong on behalf of the rest of Canada, when we wear our official opposition uniform, which we do quite elegantly.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the dialogue. With regard to the investigation of the member for Charlesbourg, the member has basically stated that it was a waste of time. What she is saying in fact is that the House made a decision of its members to do something and that this entire House therefore was the cause of wasting its own time.

The member may want to reconsider whether or not the integrity of the House is being brought into question, because it was our decision and not a committee decision to undertake that investigation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will give one response to that comment: in its highly democratic spirit, of course, the House agreed to have a committee examine the case of the hon. member for Charlesbourg.

What I mean is, if the Reform Party had not introduced a motion, as far as I know, I do not think the House would have had to use such precious time to come to the conclusion, following the tabling of the procedure committee report and our minority report, that, ultimately, there was nothing to make a fuss about.

It must be recognized that we sometimes waste our time. It is not because a decision was made that, a posteriori, we cannot say that, in fact, there was nothing to fret about. So, our time was wasted somewhere.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate this morning. I have also been, with some interest, involved in the matter that led up to this debate coming before us today.

As a new member of this House, I too have found it to be a learning curve challenge to deal with some of the issues of the standing orders, the rules, the decorum and the general principles of governing ourselves as members of this House and as members of the other house.

Frankly, I think that on balance, one of my frustrations when I listen to some of my colleagues from the Reform Party is based on the fact that they-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. I hesitate to interrupt the proceedings and particularly the parliamentary secretary, but I have been apprised by our table officers that there is a technicality here that I think we should clear up.

The parliamentary secretary in tabling the motion earlier is deemed to have spoken. Therefore, just to assure myself that we are following the correct parliamentary procedures here, I will have to ask the House for consent to permit the parliamentary secretary to continue his intervention. Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a good example where a rule has come up and we learn by our inexperience.

The point is that we need to look at what the government said when it was the Liberal Party of Canada in the 1993 federal campaign.

In that campaign there were a number of commitments which dealt with parliamentary reform. They included the commitment that would give members of Parliament a greater role in drafting legislation through House of Commons committees. That was a commitment we made. We made a commitment that would permit a parliamentary review of order in council appointments.

It was a commitment we made as a Liberal Party. We stood before the people of Canada and said that was a principle. We all felt in the run up to the 1993 election that the respect the people of Canada had for members of Parliament was low. Now that we are at our places in the House we all have a responsibility to try to enhance and improve the respect and the integrity of the system.

We also talked about more free votes in the House of Commons in the lead up to the campaign. We talked about the fact that members of Parliament should be involved in the prebudget consultation process.

Frankly, whether or not the Reform Party members have accepted this, we won the election. Therefore, our platform is the one which will be adopted and imposed. Despite their opposition, I am somewhat sympathetic to certain remarks that were made by the whip for the Bloc Quebecois this morning. All parties have to work together at committees to produce and enhance the work of the government as it is presented.

As I was thinking about what I wanted to say this morning, I was really struck by the very first line in Beauchesne. It states:

The principles of Canadian parliamentary law are: to protect a minority and restrain the improvidence or tyranny of a majority; to secure the transaction of public business in an orderly manner; to enable every Member to express opinions within limits necessary to preserve decorum-

We must have certain limits and certain rules. Just because the Reform Party members do not like the rules, they want to change the rules.

The rules have become part of the Canadian tradition which adopts the principles of the British House of Commons, the principles that all members have respected. Notwithstanding those principles or precedents, the Liberal Party of Canada came forward with a series of changes and said that there were certain flexibilities it would like to build into a new approach to Parliament. We ran on them and we got elected on those and we implemented them.

On February 7, 1994 our government House leader brought forward a substantial motion that detailed changes to basic House rules. He stood in his place and said that there should be a motion to change the rules. He talked about the fact that he wanted to implement a number of commitments that our party made in the election campaign and in the speech from the throne. That is how it works. He talked about a revitalization of Parliament.

Not everything the Reform Party has said is wrong. Not everything the Liberal Party, the Bloc or other Canadians have said is wrong, but we have a set of principles of British parliamentary tradition that we have had for hundreds of years. When we look at how Canadians have reflected on this Parliament and the previous Parliament during the mandate of this government since 1993, it speaks volumes about how Canadians have reflected on us as members of Parliament. I do not say that in a partisan way. I talk

about it as the hard, good work that has occurred on committees such as the industry committee, government operations committee and the lobbyist committee.

As a new member of Parliament I have been given the opportunity and the honour to have served shoulder to shoulder with members from the Reform Party and the Bloc where we work together in procedure and House affairs to resolve difficult and complex issues when legislation comes after first reading to our committee as it did with the lobbyist bill.

We were given a rare new Canadian opportunity, an opportunity that lived up to the commitment that we made as a government and as a party. We said that members of Parliament should be given more flexibility and so we effectively drafted new legislation.

We had a minister come before our committee who said: "Here is my bill, my opportunity to present my best chance to give you how I believe a policy should be implemented on lobbying". The committee took this very seriously and worked very hard with members of the Reform Party, the Bloc and with our own members. We had members of the Liberal Party agreeing with the Bloc. We had members of the Liberal Party agreeing the Reform. At the end of the day we had a very good quality result. The result was a better piece of legislation.

We brought the minister back and he said: "I think you have gone a little further than I might have gone but if that was the consensus I am prepared to accept it". I use that as an example of the credibility of members of Parliament. Frankly, our credibility is at stake every day because all members of Parliament at the end of the day have to work together. They do not have to agree on everything from hair style, suits or opinions but we respect each other's opinions.

One of the frustrations that I find with what Reform members have suggested in certain comments today is how committees have manipulated democracy. Frankly, what I worry about is in whose view of democracy have they manipulated? Is it their view? Is it the people's view? Which people of Canada's democracy have we talked about?

The issue is not that the government has failed to live up to its commitments. The real issue is the Reform Party has failed to understand that it did not win the last election. Many of my colleagues know I have tried throughout my career in Parliament to be a non-partisan chairman at industry, at government operations, at lobbyists and procedure and House affairs. At the peril of my own party I have tried to be a non-partisan chair of a committee.

I find it most irritating when I see members opposite, particularly in the Reform Party, trying to portray the government as manipulating democracy because their characterization of that is a perversion of democracy. Their characterization is manipulating the true realities of how this place works. Many Canadians do not get an opportunity to get the flavour of what goes on in this place.

Frankly, perhaps rather than televising this place we could have more television at our committee rooms when a lot of the real work of what goes on at committees is what is going at this place for the work of the men and women who work shoulder to shoulder regardless of political persuasion.

Because there is a particular agenda in one particular party which represents only a very small part of that overall agenda, I find it irritating disruptive-

[An hon. member]

Rubbish.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member calls it rubbish. It is important to look at what our party has done, at what we have accomplished, at what we have done and what we said we were going to do and at what Canadians feel about members of Parliament today.

I feel better about being able to say to people when I get into a taxi, when I am in a restaurant or when I am on the street in a market that I am a member of Parliament than I might have characterized being a member of Parliament 10 years ago.

Elections are something that we have for 45 days every four or five years. I would urge those members of the Reform Party who have not bothered to read the newspaper to realize that they lost the last election to look at some of the polls about how Canadians feel about Parliament, that we are doing a better job. It is not as Liberals, although the Liberal Party is doing quite well. I am very proud of that record but those members should reflect on how Canadians view Parliament, how Canadians have viewed the committees that are working, the role of the member of Parliament.

I am very proud of the committees that I have worked on. I am proud of the work of the members of the Reform Party and the members of the Bloc Quebecois. They have contributed. We have become friends, colleagues and compatriots. We have become part of a process of changing this place and making it better. We have become part of making the British parliamentary tradition that we have so carefully preserved at this place more flexible, more current.

As the member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley said, it needs to be something not spoken by Sir Edmund Burke 200 years ago. It has to be more modern. We have a more modern democracy and a more modern federation.

While I disagree with certain views of the Reform Party or certain views of the Bloc, we have become a better federation. I do not think it is fair to characterize the new government initiatives that were brought about as commitments in the red book to give members of Parliament more flexibility, more involvement with drafting legislation, and have them whitewashed as a manipulation of democracy. That is wrong. It is disruptive. That is intellectually dishonest.

[An hon. member]

That is rubbish.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

There is a good example where a member walks into the Chamber, barks out "rubbish" and then wants to participate in the debate.

If Canadians want to look at what is really going on, perhaps they want to re-examine what is going on with certain members of the Reform Party. Frankly, it makes me very worried about democracy when I look at some of the extremist views that come out of certain elements in the Reform Party.

I respect the member's right. I would ask you respect our right to-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I have been here since the beginning of the debate. There are strongly held views about this issue. Please allow the Chamber to do its work in the usual parliamentary fashion. We will get through this debate and all the others.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude with what Reform Party members said when our government leader spoke about the reforms and brought forward the reforms, the enlightened changes in my view, to the House.

The House leader for the Reform Party, whom I would consider a colleague and a friend, said the following. I respect what he says. The members of the Reform Party should listen carefully to these words and take heed of them: "Mr. Speaker, today is a very great day and one we should mark high on the marquee as being very important for the House, for Parliament and for the people of Canada. First I want to thank the government". He spoke those words in reply to the government House leader. He spoke those words in response to the changes, the initiatives we brought forward, to the initiatives we campaigned on, to the initiatives we have implemented.

[An hon. member]

Be specific.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

If you had been listening to the debate you would know what the specifics were.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I know that shortly we will get to questions and comments. I urge you to please make your interventions through the chair.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe MPs have been given a greater role. I believe MPs have been permitted to have Parliament review legislation. I believe we have been given more free votes. I believe we have been more effective in becoming involved in the consultation process.

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

Mr. Speaker, I sort of enjoyed that presentation. It was a lot of good political rhetoric, not as good as the government whip who I still think trumps this particular member because he gets the political rhetoric up to a different level. I did not believe most of it, but still it was relatively good rhetoric.

The question I have is two-fold. This was asked of the government whip, and I will ask the deputy House leader. The committees are supposed to be independent and above board, masters of their own destiny. I asked the government whip if he instructs the members of the committee as to who should be the chairman and vice-chairman. The government whip would not answer. So I ask him the same. Who in the hierarchy in the Liberal party instructs who should be chairs of these committees?

Second, on the greater issue of fulfilling red book promises, one of the promises for parliamentary reform is that the position of deputy chair should go to one of the opposition parties. That was the position in the red book, written by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. That has not come to pass, even by the furthest stretch of the Liberal imagination. I wonder why that did not happen if it was a red book promise? What about these committees? Who chooses the chairman?