Debates of June 9th, 1998

Business Of The House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 27(1), I move:

That, commencing June 10, 1998 and concluding June 23, 1998, the hours of sitting be extended to 4 a.m.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased actually to debate this motion. Could you tell me, Mr. Speaker, first of all how much time I have?

[An hon. member]

As long as you want.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Until 4 a.m., right? I have until 4 a.m. Let us start it off.

[The Speaker]

The hon. opposition House leader wanted some information regarding timing. The entire debate will take two hours and the hon. member has unlimited time.

[An hon. member]

Take two hours, Randy.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

What does a fellow do for two hours in the House of Commons any more?

The need for this motion is obvious to those on this side of the House. We have said continuously in the 35th Parliament and the 36th Parliament that we are sick and tired of standing up in this House expressing the viewpoints of those people we represent across this country to seats that are empty.

Time and time again, we come into this House. We stand here. We try to do what we can for people across this country. We try to get our points across and we stand here and talk to maybe one person who is reading a newspaper who does not have the least bit of interest in what opposition parties say in this country. They are told what to do time and time again by the Prime Minister and the cabinet.

I guess it is time now that we are getting close to the end of June that we have this debate and we extend it as long as we have to.

It is ironic. Here it is the 10th of June today.

[An hon. member]

The 9th.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Who can tell? It will be the 10th at four in the morning anyway.

Here we are on the 9th of June and the government says “We are going to punish you people. We are going to make you work for a change. We are going to make you come in here until four in the morning”. Well I have news for the government. We do not mind that in the least.

We have a lot of things to talk about in this country. Maybe for a change we will get this government back on issues that are bothering average everyday grassroots Canadians out there like debt, like spending, like taxes, like problems at the immigration department, like crime, like where is the national victims bill of rights. For instance where is the bill on drunk driving that was committed to by this government in May and which was reneged by this government, that was changed apparently to November 30. Now we understand it is not going to do that either when every party here in opposition agreed with the government for a change.

Now the Liberals say “We have some things on the agenda”—not too much on the agenda I might add—“and we cannot have our own way, so you will have to stay until four in the morning”.

Mr. Speaker, could I have a clarification on the rotational order on this two hour debate? After it goes from me, could you clarify whether it goes to the Liberals or back into opposition?

[The Deputy Speaker]

That will be a matter to decide depending on who rises to participate in the debate. It is a difficult issue to predict, but I think the hon. member can expect that there would be some movement back and forth. The hon. member has two hours at his disposal if he chooses to use it. That is the maximum length of time for this debate and the question will be put at the end of the two hours.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I needed a little break to confirm something else as well.

Here we are wanting to deal with the estimates today. We understand that the House may possibly not sit next week. We do not know.

I think the overriding issue here is something that the government forgot once again. That is that we are sick and tired of talking to the wall. We have brought this up numerous times. All we ask for in this House in opposition from all parties is just a tad, a little bit of respect. Listen to what we are saying. It may not go through and the government may not buy what we are saying, but at least people listening or people watching CPAC can at least understand that there are two, three, possibly four different positions on any subject in this House.

Without the government sitting on the other side, it is darn difficult to get a decent debate and a decent hearing on any issue. Why is that so hard to understand? With some 150 members over there, why is it so hard for them to understand that all we ask for is quorum in this House? Quorum in the House of Commons. Twenty people, 20 bodies out of 301. Why is that so hard to get? Quorum in any other organization is usually 50% plus one. Yet the government cannot manage to sit enough people across the House and even on some days as yesterday, there is nobody. Do the Liberals understand how people in all the parties across here feel when there is nobody sitting on the other side?

What do we get to do about it? We cannot say there are no members there, that there is no one sitting there. The Speaker does not allow it. Somehow we in opposition have to show the frustration and that is all. One member over there is counting the heads over here. Quite frankly, there are more opposition members in this House right now than there are Liberals on the other side. Every day is like that and that is fact.

We have drawn the line. Henceforth that will not occur in this House. Henceforth we will be drawing up unanimous consent motions such as this one. Henceforth this government is going to go through the mill on this issue. When it gets lazy again and when it misses its shot at trying to watchdog what is going on over here, it will find we are going to deal with it. I wonder what the people watching this today think.

I heard someone say they have an idiot standing here talking.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe I heard the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine remark that the House leader of the official opposition is an idiot. I think that is out of order.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It certainly would be a word the Chair would find offensive. The Chair did not hear the word. If the hon. member said it I am sure she would not want to leave that on the record. I do not know whether the hon. member wishes to clarify the position.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to know that there are people in the House who know which riding I come from.

As to the point of order, Mr. Speaker you are right. I lost my head for a moment, as Reform members often do. I did use a word which was unparliamentary. I called the leader of the House for the official opposition an idiot. My parents did not raise me to call people idiots, so I withdraw the word.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is really good. There are those who would say I have been called worse than that before.

I guess in parliament it is a little different. They seem to get excited when the opposition over here catches them sleeping. They seem to get excited actually when we bring up an issue near and dear to the heart of most Canadians like what exactly is a democracy. Is a democracy sending parliamentarians to Ottawa to represent their constituents and to stand up here in the House and talk to no one on the other side? Is that what democracy has come to?

I have heard from a number of people this morning already on this issue, not parliamentarians but other people, who said it has been like this for a while. It is going downhill in the House of Commons. The opposition parties get plain frustrated because there is no one on the other side.

I think because we are drawing a line here today it is most appropriate and I think this government is going to hear from all opposition parties very likely that we are just sick and darn tired of this.

I am not going to take any further of my time on this. I know there are other members that want to talk to this. But if I can impress any one thing on this other side, do not take this issue lightly. We did not come here to face the other side with all the seats empty. We are going to make this a very large issue and it is going to cost a lot of time in this House in debate time. It is going to cost a lot of hours and it is all unnecessary. All we ask is the respect of a majority government to sit and listen and debate and consider what we have to say.

This government should understand this. It has very few seats where I come from and we do represent the people where we come from. If it does not have that representation, for instance in the Fraser Valley of British Columbia, I am a part of it.

There is an obligation to listen. There is an obligation to be in this House. We may not like what they have to say across on the other side but just as much as my colleagues from all parties across this side have to sit in here and listen to the things they say.

If this is truly to be a house of democracy then what is really required is a government to pay attention to the people from all regions of this country and listen to what they have to say. Do not ever again empty the seats on the other side or the government will find the next motions before it a lot tougher than this one.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to participate in this debate. Following this rather intense discussion, I immediately wrote a little something for my colleagues from the Reform Party. It reads like this:

“Everybody loves somebody sometime. Everybody calls for Reform members. Something in your moves just told me your sometime is now”.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sure all hon. members appreciate the hon. member for Quebec East's vocal talents but perhaps they would be better exercised in the lobby.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House leader for the official opposition for being brief and giving others a chance to speak to this motion because I am sure he must have been tempted to take up the whole two hours but he did not and this will give others an opportunity to speak.

I will speak against the motion and preface my remarks by saying I very much regret that the House has come to this place in its proceedings. I regret the use of 56(1) whenever it is used and I remember when this particular measure was brought in, I believe in 1991, by the Conservative government at that time. I remember with irony when the House leader of the Conservative Party indicated that he thought this motion was inappropriate at the time. I think this motion is inappropriate at any time.

This motion is what I called it then, sort of the parliamentary ubermenchen clause. This is the clause that means that in the end the government can do anything. I realize it did not succeed in using 56(1) and has now moved to have a much longer process.

A lot of the rules the government has at its disposal are rules it opposed when they were brought in and if we were serious about parliamentary reform we would have a good look at these rules and we would all imagine ourselves some day in opposition. Some of us imagine ourselves in opposition all the time.

Opposition will come to the government as surely as I am standing here, eventually in one form or another. We all have the responsibility to try to imagine what is best for the institution. What is not good for the institution are these motions. But what is also not good for the institution, and I think here is where the Reform Party has done parliament a service by bringing this to a head, is the perpetual absence of government members in the course of debate.

What was common practice in this House for many years is that at least one cabinet minister was present during all debates and perhaps there were two or three ministers and a cadre of government backbenchers. They may not have always liked what opposition members were saying. They may not have always listened carefully and took notes of what opposition members were saying. But they were there. Opposition members had both the perception, some might say the illusion, and the reality of the fact that somebody from time to time was listening.

What I have seen happening in this parliament, and I have raised this with the government House leader on numerous occasions, is that the government has sunk into a form of contempt for parliament. I suppose it comes from a contempt for the opposition, but that is beside the point. That is quite beside the point. We are talking here about a contempt for parliament that is ultimately destructive of this institution and of our democratic values and our democratic way of life. It cannot go on like this.

I know it is not the responsibility of the government House leader technically speaking. It is the responsibility of the whip or in this case the deputy whip because we know that the whip is not able to be on the job these days for medical reasons. But somebody is responsible over there. Overall the government itself is collectively responsible for how it treats parliament. It cannot go on like this.

I think this speaks to a larger problem. It is not just the contempt the government is showing for parliament or for the opposition or for both. It is also a matter of the declining perception of the relevance of the House of Commons to the decision making process in this country. That is something all of us have to deal with and presumably we should try to deal with it in a non-partisan way. To the extent that we deal with it in a partisan way, and I know this is not avoidable at all times but it is certainly more avoidable than is usually the case, to the extent we deal with the powerlessness of parliament and the growing irrelevance of parliament in a partisan way, we simply contribute to its growing irrelevance and powerlessness because we reinforce the stereotype that this is just a place where people fight.

We are all tempted to do that. I think we are all guilty of that each in our own way. So I urge members to try to think their way through the kind of partisanship that sometimes manifests itself on the floor with respect to parliament itself. It is fine to be partisan about issues. There are choices that people have to make between political parties with different perceptions, different policies and different positions. It is all in the course and the nature of democracy that people will be partisan, will be polemical, will be political, will argue with each other. I think that is all fine and dandy in a democratic society but we ought not to be partisan about parliament itself.

I think this is what has happened. It is very regrettable. I hope the Reform Party members see the irony of the fact that they are now, in many respects by virtue of circumstances beyond their control but somewhat within their control, playing exactly the same kind of parliamentary silly games they made a career out of criticizing before they came here. I am sure that must bother them as it bothers me on occasion when I am forced to play these kinds of games.

Sometimes we play them with joy and sometimes we play them with sadness because the government gives us no option. I think the government has created this situation. This morning it had 39 members on the other side—

[Jim Pankiw, Reform, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My hon. colleague has been saying a lot of things that are exactly true and right.

Most important, he said that we are talking about the Liberal government never being here to hear the debate or to hear the concerns. It operates in an autocratic fashion. My point is that there is not one cabinet minister here to listen to him.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I do not think that is a valid point of order.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the point is well taken even if it is not technically a point of order. It is not factually correct in the sense that the government House leader was at the table. We have one cabinet minister whose job it is to bird-dog this debate. He better not leave in any case.

I say this with the greatest respect to the government House leader. I believe he is as troubled by what is happening on the other side of the House as anybody. He has been here for a while. I have always regarded him as somebody who has a great deal of respect for parliament. He has come up through the ranks over the years. I am sure he is not happy with what happened yesterday, not just for the trite political reasons that it is embarrassing to the government and he now has to go through all this hassle to get the motion that was passed unanimously overtaken by subsequent procedures of the House. I am sure he is unhappy with the fact that this situation could even have been created.

As I started to say before the point of order this morning, when the government needed members for its own purpose there were upwards of 40 members on this side of the House. As soon as they saw they were not needed any more, the place cleared out like it was on fire or something.

Here again we see the government not being willing to even maintain the same percentage of their caucuses that opposition members maintain in the House. If we have 10% or 15% of our caucus here and the government and all other caucuses were to do the same we would have quorum all the time. That would not require very many government members.

We all have committee responsibilities. People cannot hide behind committee responsibilities. We all have to take our share in committees. We all have the problem of having to be in more than one place at one time. It is difficult. I do not think the public appreciates the way the timetable works in the House. Members are supposed to be in the House of Commons, be in committee and be meeting with people. It is not always easy.

I see absolutely no reason the government could not maintain a semblance of the appearance that it is listening. It should have at least one cabinet minister in the House, if not two. I would recommend at least two and its share of quorum, which means over half.

Hopefully we would have more than quorum because in parliament members are supposed to be talking to each other. Even if we do not like what the other person is saying we can get up and argue. I often do not like what the hon. member from Calgary is saying, but I can get up to ask him a question. We can have some kind of exchange.

However what is happening is that we are all seeping away from this place. The collegiality that exists even in conflict in debate is disappearing from this place. People just come in here, do their thing and take off. This is not good for parliament and it is not good for the country.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

You are always here.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

I hear somebody saying I am always here. No, I am not always here. For heaven's sake can the member not listen to these comments as being directed at all of us, no matter what party we come from, as parliamentarians who have a responsibility to this institution? Or, does everything have to be cheapened by the kind of remark I just heard from the hon. member?

I will finish with a word of constructive criticism. I hope it will be taken in the spirit in which it is offered. What we also see in declining relevance of parliament is the culmination or the fruit of a decade of dumping on politicians. We see it not only here, but we see it in legislatures across the country. For a decade people have been told that politicians are bad, they are the worst thing that could ever happen to a society, that the real good things that happen in the country happen elsewhere and that somehow we are all sort of parasites.

Some of my colleagues in the House have arrived in parliament and want to make a go of it. I admire them for that. However, it is an irony that they are trying to make a go of it at a time when the consequences of some of the things they have been a part of are kicking in. I would ask them to think of that as well.

From here on I ask the government to let us see some members over there. Let us have some respect for parliament. That is a responsibility the government has and it has not been executing it. Anything that comes out today from what the Reform Party did last night that helps the government see more clearly and to get its act together will be of benefit to all of us.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member on his remarks. The House leader of the fourth party is one of the most distinguished parliamentarians in this place. I usually disagree with things he has said, but he is a man dedicated to parliament as an institution and should be recognized as such.

The hon. member has been in this place for some time, nearly two decades or more. Does he think that the current attitude of the government to the business of the House is consistent with the history of this place? Or, is this an increasing problem over time, this disregard of parliament as a place of debate?

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have just started my 20th year. I think there have been times when we have had complaints about the government's attitude toward parliament, but I cannot remember a time when the government was not willing to maintain quorum. This is a new development.

We have complained about governments that did not listen, governments that were arrogant, governments that changed the rules in a way that gave government too much power over the opposition, et cetera. There is a long litany of things that have happened over the last 20 years which all in themselves have reduced the power of parliament.

I do not remember a time when the government benches were consistently empty in the way they have been over the last while. This is a new development and something that is greatly to be regretted and greatly to be resisted. In the sense of what is now happening I think it is a good thing.