Debates of Sept. 19th, 1996

Government Response To Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to seven petitions.

Committees Of The House

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 25th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of committees.

Bell Canada Act

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, for the Minister of Industry]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-57, an act to amend the Bell Canada Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Canada Shipping Act

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act (maritime liability).

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Carriage Of Passengers By Water Act

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-59, an act to implement articles 1 to 22 of the Athens Convention relating to the carriage of passengers and their luggage by sea, 1974.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[David Anderson, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, with your permission I wish to inform the House that in accordance with Standing Order 73(1), it is the intention of the government that this bill be referred to committee before second reading.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I wonder if I might ask the assistance of the hon. minister. I neglected to recognize him on the first bill I presented in his name. Was his last remark applicable to the first bill, the second one or both?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to request the permission of the House to have both bills referred to committee prior to second reading in this House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I apologize to the minister and my colleagues for not recognizing the minister in the first instance.

Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-60, an act to establish the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and to repeal and amend other acts as a consequence.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Bill C-201

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find unanimous consent for two motions. The first reads:

That at the conclusion of the debate on Bill C-201 later this day, a recorded division be deemed to have been put; and the said division be deferred until Tuesday, September 24, 1996 at the conclusion of Government Orders.

(Motion agreed to.)

Committees Of The House

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe you will also find unanimous consent for the following:

That notwithstanding any order of the House, debate on the motion to concur in the report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on the composition of committees, tabled earlier this day, be held and be concluded no later than 1.50 p.m. today; and at the conclusion of the said debate, the motion be deemed to have been put and carried on division; and that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and the Standing Committee on Finance be permitted to hold their organization meetings later this day.

(Motion agreed to.)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The motion put before the House by the chief government whip, as I stated, carried and we will now continue with motions.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a point of order. The motion that was placed before the House and was agreed to calls for debate on the motion. When will the debate commence?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Just as soon as the government tables the motion we will move to debate. The motion presented by the chief government whip was the agreement to debate the motion once it is tabled, within certain parameters I believe, until 1.50 p.m. this afternoon.

I will look to the government side and see if we can move back to motions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the 25th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House this day, be concurred in.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate the concurrence motion so ably put to the House by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

As we commence the debate we are setting in place the committees for this fall and for next spring, committees which could in fact be in place from now until the next election. Of course, next fall if we are still in session and still in this Parliament, then the whips, through the mechanism of a striking committee, will table another report which would be subject to something similar to what we are experiencing today and new committees would be struck then.

Meanwhile, we are all here this morning to debate this report, which, as I pointed out earlier, will put in place these committees.

To start with today, I would like to talk about the amendments made to the whole committee system in the past few years and the new openness that now exists in this Parliament. In previous Parliaments, parliamentary committees did not have the same level of authority as today.

For example, committees now have the authority to draft legislation. These committees have done so. The bill on lobbyists, for example, was drafted by a parliamentary committee.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

This is not a good example.

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

I for one think it is a good example because we did a good job. I commend opposition members for their excellent work, notwithstanding the criticism aimed at them by my friend across the way. I think the members from both sides of the House who sat on this committee did a good job.

Having given you that example, I could add several others.

This morning one minister tabled two bills which will be sent to committee for study prior to second reading. The general principle of the bill, as opposed to merely the clauses, are up for review at a very different level, a far more intense level of criticism than those bills which are sent after second reading. That is an innovation of this Parliament and that is the kind of good work that can be done by parliamentary committees when bills are sent there prior to second reading under the new mechanism and, of course, pursuant to the promises that were made in the red book and which have been delivered, as were so many promises in the red book.

The parliamentary committees have done tremendous work. Just yesterday we saw the finance committee table a report in the House on the whole issue of family trust.

A while ago, we saw a whole series of reports prepared by parliamentary committees and the good job they did.

I must tell you that, when I first arrived here as a member of Parliament back in 1984, committees were not doing much other than dealing with legislation and budgetary estimates. Today, under Standing Order 108(2), committees can practically turn into working groups and review all kinds of matters coming under the responsibility of the departments associated with the various committees.

Under Standing Order 108(2), the transport committee can review transportation issues either within or outside the estimates.

[Laurent Lavigne, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

The auditor general.

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

The hon. member opposite talks about the auditor general. In fact, this power existed before the amendment I just mentioned. This is not a good example, because this power has existed for a long time. It existed before Standing Order 108(2). In fact, the power of the public accounts committee to review the auditor general's report is similar to the power now held by other committees; it did not exist before.

In that sense, I am glad the hon. member raised the issue. Committees have a much freer hand today than they did, say, 10 or 12 years ago when I first came to this hon. House.

Of course, much more headway has been made since this government took office and opened up all sorts of new ways to improve the efficiency of parliamentary committees.

We have, for instance, seen some of the work done by the foreign affairs and environment committees in dealing with issues ranging from pollution, circumpolar issues and so on. The foreign affairs committee is, as I understand it, studying the possibility right now of doing work in that regard. All of this would have been impossible under the rules as they existed only a few years ago.

We saw a joint committee early in this Parliament do a review of both the foreign affairs department and the defence policy put together. This was a joint effort of the foreign affairs committee and the defence committee. This was early in Parliament. They did an excellent report, widely quoted, and this work was done under the able chairmanship of the then member for Ottawa-Vanier, now a member of the other place, Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier. That kind of excellent work was done in this Parliament by the parliamentary committees.

The point I am making here is that the parliamentary committees have a role to play today which is far different than the one I knew when I came here. I only wished that as a new member I would have had the power to do all these things that new members today as they come here in Parliament are experiencing. The level of frustration that some of us had many years ago when we tried to do anything in committees was unbelievable.

I see my distinguished colleague from Edmonton who was a member in this House several years ago at the time when I believe estimates were probably done right on the floor of the House of Commons. There was little or no work done by committees. You could not even call witnesses before a parliamentary committee. You could barely hear testimony of any kind with regard to legislation.

Today we have committees sitting in Ottawa, bringing experts to give advice so that we can improve on the legislation of the government and study issues far and wide. All of these opportunities would have been virtually impossible before.

We have starting next week the standing committee on justice travelling to look at the Young Offenders Act. I am sure it will produce an excellent report.

I hear a member of the Reform Party being critical already but I am not that negative about the Reform member who will be sitting on that committee. I think he will probably do a good job. I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the hon. member, notwithstanding the criticism which is already starting by some of his colleagues. That is okay.

We have faith in some of the Reform members. We say that the ones on that committee will hopefully do a good job. I hope they do. I am still hopeful. I hope those Reformers do not take personally the criticism of their own colleagues we have just heard. We are on their side. We will defend those Reformers sitting on the justice committee.

The parliamentary committees have done a very good job over recent years. In this Parliament we have seen them do excellent work. We have seen them produce legislation. We have seen them produce reports. We have seen them study various issues, make recommendations to Parliament and we have seen many of those recommendations turned into law.

During the 1993 election campaign our party had the red book. I know you are a non-partisan person, Mr. Speaker, but nevertheless I am sure you will recall those of us who are more partisan-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

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

The members across who want to abolish the CBC did not get their way. I guess they are agitated this morning.

Notwithstanding that, here is what we said. We said we would give MPs a greater role in drafting legislation through House of Commons committees. That was done. Legislation was produced, everything from the redistribution bill that was produced by parliamentary committee to the committee that dealt with the lobbyist registration and so on.

We said we would permit parliamentary committees to review order in council appointments. Most people across the way have never even used that process. That process was used a lot more when we on this side of the House were in opposition. We were

scrutinizing those things a lot more diligently than some members of the opposition now.

We said at that time there would be more free votes allowed in the House of Commons. Free votes occur almost exclusively in the Liberal caucus. When was the last time we saw the Reform Party vote against one another? I know someone will bring to my attention the gun control issue where one member voted against the rest of them. Shall we say he had a different job not too many days later, a job with less whipping. Nevertheless we had some free votes. The consequences were a little different in the Reform Party.

We also said the parliamentary committee would do prebudget consultation. That has been probably the greatest success of all parliamentary committee initiatives. I congratulate all members of the finance committee on both sides of the House in all three political parties officially represented in Parliament. That consultation has occurred every fall. It has given Canadians a more precise picture of the country's finances and we have been able to track gradually how this country has been doing financially. That is something which is unprecedented.

We have the finance committee televised nationwide, being questioned by members on all sides of the House and being able to indicate to all Canadians the progress of Canada's economy. Whereas that process formally occurred once a year at budget time, we have developed an almost twice a year system. We now have the fall consultation process with the appearance of the minister and the others who also appear before the Finance Committee, and then the spring budget free period.

Why did this happen? I believe it happened in large measure thanks to the diligence of members on all sides of the House. In order for that to happen the proper climate had to be there to start with. That process was permitted because this government wanted to change the rules and allow Parliament to do that. We did. It was in the red book. We made the commitment. We delivered on the promise. We made that kind of thing happen, or at least we created the climate to make it happen.

The reason I make the distinction is that notwithstanding the wishes of the government had members on all sides of the House done a shoddy job of the whole thing it would not have been very significant. The government made the commitment. The House put the structure in place. Members on all sides of the House acted properly and made it work. I congratulate all members. You did a good job and that process now has an incredible level of credibility.

You can certainly see the good work parliamentary committees are doing. The Standing Committee on Human Resources Development has also done a fine job with its comprehensive study of social programs in Canada.

I mentioned earlier that the Standing Committee on Finance took on prebudget studies. There is also the Standing Committee on Industry, with its ongoing review of the banking industry in Canada, its summer hearings and all it has done. Why is the industry anxious to know what the Standing Committee on Industry is going to do? Because this committee has gained credibility in this matter through its good work and because the rules we have now allow committees to do that kind of work. These rules did not exist when I was first elected to Parliament in 1984.

[Raymond Lavigne, Liberal, Verdun—Saint-Paul, QC]

It has been many years.

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

It has been many years indeed. In fact, to be more precise next Wednesday I will be celebrating 20 years in political life. The rules have changed over the years and they have changed for the best.

I will conclude on this to give as much time as possible to parliamentarians from other parties to speak. I am confident that, like me, they will express satisfaction with the way parliamentary committees operate and will want to commend the hon. members for their excellent work on these committees.

This was made possible by the excellent co-operation of the committees and by this government's agreeing to put the system in place and improve it as required and then listening to the advice given by parliamentarians. Through committee reports, we have collectively ensured better government for Canadians.