Debates of June 9th, 1998

Business Of The House

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, like my hon. friend from the western Reform Party I commend the member who previously spoke. The House leader of the NDP obviously has a great history in this place.

He spoke very eloquently to this issue. He spoke to the fact that closure was first brought to the House of Commons by the Conservative Party. Like the NDP, the Conservative Party has been around a long time, a claim that the Reform Party cannot make.

Does the hon. member feel there are times that closure might be a useful tool for parliament, if exercised with discretion, if used by the government, tempered at times, and if used on occasion when the opposition may be misusing or taking up parliamentary time?

I am not suggesting that is what happened in this instance, but I am suggesting there are rules that have to be respected by all members of the House and procedures that have to apply to everybody. If used with fairness and equity those rules can be adhered to and the rule of closure can be used on occasion and used properly.

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

Mr. Speaker, I did not mean to suggest that closure originated with the Conservative Party. Closure in itself goes back in the history of parliament. Certainly I remember that closure was moved during the pipeline debate of the fifties.

I was suggesting that the immediately previous Conservative government brought in the various reforms in 1991, having to do not just with closure but with other ways in which the government could trump various things that the opposition might be able to do. That is the point I was trying to make.

There is a role for time allocation and closure but it should be a very rare thing. The problem is that it is not rare. In previous parliaments it just grew like Topsy. People get used to this kind of thing so it is not a big deal any more. When the opposition tries to make a big deal out of what is appropriate to make a big deal out of, the media are tired of it and the public is tired of it.

What has happened over the course of many years is that the opposition is eventually weakened in its ability to hold up government legislation, not just procedurally but politically, because people regard the whole debate about closure as a big yawn when they should not but they do.

Sometimes it is appropriate to regard it that way because it is a kind of pro forma battle between government and opposition. People kind of twig on to that and they lose interest. What happens is we throw out the baby with the bathwater on that. Sometimes when it really is important people are not paying attention or they cannot see just how important it is.

One of the things that has happened around this place is that the function of delay has been devalued, again because we have a cult of efficiency in our culture now. We think that everything should happen like a corporate boardroom or some kind of production planning and control mechanism for a factory floor. That is not what parliament is. Parliament, by its very nature, is a parliament, a place where people talk. To the extent that the only kind of talk we now regard as valuable are things that happen on talk shows rather than what happens in parliament there is a very funny thing happening here.

At the same time as our whole culture is obsessed with talk on the radio it has no time or appreciation of the talk that goes on in this place between the people elected to talk about what kind of country is wanted. That might be the subject of some kind of thesis for some student. It is more than I can go into at the moment. I think there is an interesting irony there.

What has happened is that the power of the opposition has been systematically reduced so that we cannot put up the kind of resistance we used to put up to a government measure and then take the political consequences. If we are delaying something and there is not a lot of support for delaying it, sooner or later we will stop delaying it.

We need to stop regarding that as a waste of time. That gives people time to mobilize. It gives the Canadian people time to figure out what is going on. It gives the media time to decide that they are going to cover it. If they only have 48 hours between the time the issue comes up and the time it is resolved, there is no time for any of that to happen. There is no time for process. What we have done here is killed the opportunity for that to happen in many respects.

Some issues drag on and there is time for that. I am not making an absolute categorical statement here, but that is part of the problem. It is not just closure in any of its formal forms. It is the self-imposed closure we all do on ourselves by saying it does not matter whether we have anything to say in here because nobody is paying any attention anyway, particularly the government. It is not even willing to go through the motions any more. Over time everybody loses heart. When we lose heart we lose the very thing that is absolutely essential for a democratic culture.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have more of a comment to make than a question. I always enjoy listening to the House leader of the NDP. I respect him for his respect for the parliamentary institution we are a part of. I will admit I have only been here for five years so I am still learning. I am still wet behind the ears compared to the member who has just spoken. It is not only my read on history. There are rules by which we govern ourselves in our standing orders and in Beauchesne's. They state that reasonable delaying tactics are acceptable in the House of Commons.

In other words, the government is not right to expect and it should not expect that we make it as efficient as possible over here. It is not within the realm of reason for us to say whatever you want to do at whatever timeframe you give us, we will just have to do it.

I wish government backbenchers, not just cabinet which understandably wants to run it like a business, would realize that the role of all parliamentarians is decreased every time the government brings in time allocation. This is about the 50th time this government has brought in time allocation, although this is not time allocation. The government has brought it in so frequently that the public and even the government backbenchers say I guess that is just the way we have to do it.

It is a shame when people come here with the best of intentions only to find out those intentions cannot be followed through on because no discussion, no debate and no delaying tactics are allowed. The government just says it is its way or—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The time for questions and comments has expired. I am afraid we have run out of minutes. I did my best to hint to the hon. member that we were doing that but I am afraid the time has expired. Given that this is a two hour debating time, the Chair is going to be relatively strict on that point.

Let me also advise the House that when the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford rose to speak, the Chair indicated he had unlimited time. In review of the standing order, the Chair was apparently incorrect in making that ruling and we wish to apologize to the House. The ruling should have been that it was a 20 minute speech because the motion is not a government order. It is a motion under routine proceedings. Accordingly, the speech should have been a 20 minute one, subject to questions and comments, and it was not. The Chair wishes to apologize to the House for that error. We did not want to have a bad precedent set by that ruling.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is with some regret that we find ourselves debating this issue but it is obviously a very important one. I am honoured to be following the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona who has a long and storied history in this place. He spoke very eloquently about the changes he has seen during his years in parliament.

I think of former parliamentarians who are watching what is taking place in this place, members like Robert Howie from Fredericton, New Brunswick who have served in this House and all members across the country who look back and occasionally follow the parliamentary channel. They must wonder what is taking place. There is obviously a digression. There is something afoot that seems to be undermining the relevance of parliament.

I strongly suggest that occurrence is a result of a change in attitude, an attitude on behalf of a government that has now been sitting in the government benches for five years and some months. It has decided in its arrogance that it is going to do what it wants to do. That was displayed in the House this morning. After a motion was properly moved and tabled by the opposition, the government decided in its wisdom to come forward and to try to rescind it, simply rescind it without any debate or consultation. It was simply going to run roughshod over the opposition as it has done, as has been its wont in the past months.

The opposition on this side of the House has shown a non-partisan unison by banding together and saying no, we are not going to let that happen. The time has come to draw a line in the sand and say it is not proper that the government is going to do this.

So here we are. Standing Order 56 has been debated. It has been used on a number of occasions in this parliament. It was used in the last parliament as well to stifle the opposition on occasion. I was glad to hear the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona acknowledge that there is a time and a place when closure can be used, much like the rules of procedure themselves where there is a time for their application. But this was not the time or place for the government to exercise that discretion. It did so in such a way that it displayed an attitude such that the opposition parties felt that was enough.

We are debating this issue when we could perhaps be debating other more important issues.

However, the issues that will arise in this debate are the issues that do govern the House, set the rules of engagement and set how the rules of procedure will be applied. Therefore it is an important debate and I am hoping there will be some lessons learned and some exchange of information and ideas that will perhaps improve the way we choose to apply these rules for the months and years ahead that will bind us in the House.

I think it is high time that the government realized that MPs in the House, whether its own backbenchers or opposition members, are not irrelevant and are not here to be taken for granted by the government.

It was a bit of irony to see the reaction of the government House leader when this occurred, a complete overreaction I would suggest, an attitude of disbelief that the opposition would have the audacity to stand up and oppose what was about to happen.

We have seen occasions where the government had no hesitation whatsoever to applying the whip to its own members. It happened in a very poignant way during the debate on hepatitis C. It was not at all afraid to fill all of the benches on the government side to ensure that every single member was present in the House when it suited its purpose.

However, time and time again opposition parties bring forward issues they feel are of relevance and importance to their constituents, be it in the east, the west, Ontario or Quebec. They want to debate relevant issues to put their voice and the voices of their constituents on the record in parliament and to be heard by the government. There are far too few members on that side of the House. That does not lead to a healthy discourse or to the exchange that should take place in parliament.

As has been referenced by the previous speaker from the New Democratic Party, parliament is supposed to be about speech and about the exchange of ideas, thought and thought provoking debate. The debates that occur in this place should be of interest and importance. I hope Canadians around the country, abroad and those serving overseas who hear about what is taking place in their own Canada should have no more focus than on parliament and on what we say and do in this place.

As well, what we have seen are a lot of shifting priorities on the part of this government. One of the things I viewed with great regret was the use of press conferences on the part of the government as a means to announce shifts in policy and to broadcast the direction in which the government had chosen to go rather than making ministerial statements here in the House, allowing members of parliament to be given the first opportunity to review what the government had chosen to do and allowing members of parliament to perhaps ask relevant questions and discuss the decision the government had made to move in a certain direction.

The Minister of Justice has done that on two occasions within the last number of months. Rather than bring forward new legislation on the Young Offenders Act and talk about the priorities of her department, she chose to hold a press conference and leaked that information to the press before members of the House were given an opportunity to speak on it.

We had a very relevant and lively debate yesterday about the status of parliament as it compares to the judiciary and how some members of the opposition are feeling that perhaps parliament is losing is relevance when it comes to the making of laws. Again that is a sad reflection on this place when some members in the House actually feel we are becoming that irrelevant, that we are not the supreme court of the land when it comes to the making and passing of legislation.

We must be a House of democracy and a place that is most reflective of the fact that Canadians have entrusted us and have put their faith in us as members of parliament to come to Ottawa, leave behind our homes and the places I am sure each of us would prefer to be, and bring forward their ideas and deal with the problems that do exist out there. There are many problems out there when one looks at the high rates of unemployment, the declining quality of our health care and the problems within our justice system, to name a few.

If Canadians as well as parliamentarians, are feeling that this place is losing its relevance, this is a sad day. One would only hope that we can learn from this debate.

As a result of discussions today and as a result of circumspection and looking back on what has occurred, perhaps the government will not be quite so quick to react in the manner in which it did to inform us that we are now going to be speaking and called on to debate issues until 4 a.m.

As the Leader of the Opposition said, so be it. If that is the way it has to go, we will be here. I know members of the Progressive Conservative Party will be here as they always have been.

We are prepared to be in this House if called on until 4 a.m., until the wee small hours of the morning. We will be here. I give that assurance.

To send a message to the government, I am very pleased that the official opposition has taken this initiative. I think we will see there is a non-partisan tone to what has taken place here.

The purpose of this was to send a message that the opposition matters. I am sure that many members in this House have been questioned, those in opposition. What can one really do as a member of parliament in opposition?

If for no other reason, the message that comes out of today's debate is that there are occasions when we can hold the government accountable. We can say no, that is not the way it should go, it will not run roughshod over the entire opposition with its motions.

That is not a bad message to come from this debate. We certainly know this is a busy place and that people do work. I do not think there is any suggestion that government members as well as opposition members do not have a very busy schedule on the Hill, the amount of work that goes on in committees, the amount of work required in striking that delicate balance between the obligations of serving one's constituents and the obligations brought on either by a ministry or a critic's portfolio. Those are very important roles and it takes a great deal of time and effort to do the job we are charged with.

There also has to be a shift in attitude. There has to be a conscious change in attitude on behalf of the government when it comes to its arrogance toward the opposition. That has been reflected time and time again in the manner in which the rules of this House have been applied.

We cannot simply acquiesce. In opposition we cannot simply say we are powerless, we accept that we are the opposition and the government has the majority and it can do whatever it pleases. That only goes so far and finally the opposition, as we come to the end of this session, says enough is enough.

I hope the government in its wisdom will review this situation and realize there was an overreaction here that did not have to happen. The role of the opposition here is to hold this government accountable. I am sure that all members on the opposition side take that task very seriously.

If we can somehow improve the influence and perhaps improve the relations we have with this government, again I that is going to be a positive outcome from today's developments. We are also charged with protecting the public interest.

There are some times that government initiates policy that is not perhaps in the best interest of the Canadian people. We certainly should have the opportunity to question it when that occurs.

This has been a healthy debate. This has been an opportunity to perhaps raise the level of intellect, the discourse that should be taking place properly in the House of Commons. Perhaps now we will see the government a little more anxious to call to arms its own members when there is debate occurring in the House, not only for its own purposes but for the purpose of improving generally the way matters proceed in the House of Commons.

We certainly hope the trend spoken of by the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona and other members, the downward spiral of disinterest and the perception of unimportance that might exist out there, will change. We can put a stop to that by showing more mutual respect between government and opposition.

I would certainly hope that we are not going to see a continued trend of righteous indignation on behalf of government members when opposition members decide to stand and question what it is they are doing here in this place.

If that message gets through and if we are not forced to use a tool such as the tool which was used this morning to try to block, outmanoeuvre and outflank the government, perhaps we will not be forced to digress into this type of debate again. Perhaps then and only then will we be able to get on with the discussion of the important issues and the important tasks that we have been given as parliamentarians.

It is a matter of respect and attitude. If we can learn from this, if we can hopefully get past this interlude and move on to the issues that matter most to Canadians and do away with this contentious, non-important attitude that seems to exist on behalf of the government toward opposition members, then I am sure we will all be better off and the level of debate and the type of importance and emphasis that is placed on this parliament will improve.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for his comments. I always enjoy listening to his comments and as the House leader for the party I know he has a lot of interest in the whole procedural part of parliament.

It is unfortunate when the public looks on and says “I am not sure what is going on. There are a lot of green seats and there are some things flashing on the screen, but I do not know what it is all about”.

However, I believe that it is critically important today to discuss the issues of the role of parliament and the role of the opposition parties, collectively, in a properly functioning parliament.

I appreciated the comments that the member brought forward regarding the need to respect this institution and the need for people on all sides of the House, especially the government which holds the big hammer, to understand that there is a role to play. A proper functioning democracy needs an efficient opposition.

The member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and I spoke to the Cuban delegates together some time ago. We talked about two things. I talked about the role of the opposition. I told them that we think a good government can be made better by an efficient opposition. The opposition is important in making a government more efficient and accountable; not just efficient in the sense of quickly passing legislation, but efficient in the sense of doing the right thing and representing people better. The opposition is required. I made it perfectly clear when I talked to the Cuban representatives that the opposition was important.

The member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough talked about the importance of a free media and its role in a functioning democracy. In other words, there are the people themselves, the voters, the active participants that not only vote but make their feelings known to their politicians, there is the role of the media to actively report not only what is sensational but the meat and potatoes of what goes on in this place, and there is also the role of the opposition parties. All of that is key to a properly functioning democracy.

What can be more key in that parcel that we are involved in, which is partly media and partly debate, than to have the right to speak to important issues? The public may say “This is just a debate on restricting your ability. They are going to try to wear you out by sitting until 4 o'clock in the morning”. The public should know that it is the crux of a democracy to be able to speak out in parliament when we do not agree with something. It is the quintessential essence of parliament to debate, to talk, to be able to get our points across.

This was before my time, but when the pipeline debate came to a head and the government restricted debate, what happened at that time?

The pipeline was one issue. It was a big issue. It was an important issue for the country, but what the subsequent election turned on was the use of closure. Mr. Diefenbaker made proper use of that. He said “It is not just the pipeline, it is the fact that we were not allowed to talk about it”. The election turned on that.

In my province of British Columbia, back in Dave Barrett's day, the opposition of the day, which was led by Bill Bennett, made the point that the government was not using the legislature. The legislature was not sitting. The government was bypassing it by using orders in council to pass everything, to spend millions and millions of dollars.

Mr. Bennett went around the province and his rallying cry was “Not a dime without debate”. He could not go to the legislature and cry it because it was not sitting. He went out and said to the people of that province “It is not right that the government is bypassing the legislature, bypassing parliament, and running the province by executive order. We need to have public scrutiny. We need to have public debate. We need to have the legislature sit”.

That was back in the early seventies. It was such a big issue that he won the next election because the government refused to do its job, which was to sit, to withstand the barrage of media scrutiny, to withstand the scrutiny of the opposition parties who put questions to it and to debate legislation. Because of that the Barrett government fell. It was one of many reasons, but that was the rallying cry leading up to it.

That happened about 25 years ago. In 25 years we have come so far that this government has used closure and time allocation 50 times to restrict debate on routine issues of the day. It just does not want to bother talking about them.

This is not a national pipeline debate. It is just “We don't not like the cut of your jib, so we are going to cut off debate”.

Changes are necessary. We had a debate on potential changes to the standing orders. I put forward six or eight ideas that I thought could improve this place to make it more accountable and also to limit the extreme power of the government. I wonder if the house leader of the Conservative Party could detail for us some of his ideas on standing order changes which would make this place function better.

I have dealt with things such as referral before second reading and a lot of other things, but I would be interested to know if there were some specifics that he thinks could improve this place so that the government does not only holds all the cards but play them underhandedly.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that question. As always he brings a great deal of history and a great deal of knowledge to the debate, even though he is a relatively new member to this Chamber. He is not as new as I am, but I always respect and enjoy hearing the hon. member speak.

He has a great depth of knowledge of the history of the Conservative Party of Canada, which leads me to believe that there may come a time when he will be back in the party. I am very encouraged to hear the hon. member speak in such glowing terms of some of the past glories of the Diefenbaker years and the Conservative Party itself.

To turn to the question, he asks specifically about some of the changes that I or the Progressive Conservative Party might like to invoke or to see take place within the standing orders themselves. I have not turned my mind to that, except at this very moment.

One suggestion might be, in terms of the use of this card that has been played, this heavy-handed card of closure or time allocation, that the government within a certain term of parliament would only be allowed to use that card a specified number of times. It could be limited. Perhaps that would address the problem that has been referred to by the hon. member, that it would appear this government uses this measure, this shotgun approach to a mosquito, basically with no discretion. They simply, at a whim, decide that debate has become irrelevant, or a nuisance or a bother and they shut it down.

That might be one suggestion.

But I think, generally, the rules of procedure, obviously, like the law itself, are like a living tree. They have changed over time. They have evolved. The rules of procedure are not necessarily the problem, just as it is with the law. It is their application. It is the tool in the hand of the person that is using it, the old expression being that a poor carpenter blames his tools. The government has, in my opinion, displayed an attitude of arrogance and irreverence toward the opposition. It has misused the rules or the tools of this place.

If there was a change in attitude, a shift in the focus of the government as to its role as juxtaposed to the opposition, and if it had a little more respect for the opposition, I think that would go a long way to improving the way in which this place operates.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is an outcry today.

Last week, we were treated to a marriage between the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party, and today we have moved on to adultery between the Conservative and Reform parties. Members opposite are all so perfect. It is the Jimmy and Tammy Baker Show.

Now they are telling us how to do our job. These are people who ask questions in the House about India and Pakistan when there is not even a Conservative Party representative on the foreign affairs committee.

These people are so self-righteous, telling us there is nobody in the House, when we know that parliamentarians are also required to work in parliamentary committees.

There is nothing worse than a weak opposition. The opposition is weak because the opposition is weak. Today, we see why. The polls show the Reform Party with only 12% of popular support and the Conservative Party with 15%. The reason we have 55% is because we do our job. They are such a mighty opposition that, when 25 members were asked to rise in the House, there were 13 Progressive Conservatives and only 12 Reformers.

At some point, the ridiculous comments have to stop. Enough of this hypocrisy. I will tell members something about hypocrisy.

There are people in the Reform Party constantly saying that they are looking after important matters. I am on the sports subcommittee, and Reformers were never visible. The only time they showed their faces was when the National League governors were there, or when representatives from the Montreal Expos came to testify, because then there were cameras present. When there is a photo op., when there is a chance to show off, to play a little game, then they are there. But when there is a discussion of important issues, where are they then?

They got all holier than thou about Stornoway, saying it should be turned into a bingo parlour, but now their leader is living there because, as he said, “I have received mail on this, it is shocking. I was forced to move to Stornoway”.

Now we see all the nonsense that is going on now with these people—not just the leader of the opposition, but also members of his party and the Conservative Party—trying to cover up. I heard the NDP member commenting on “How dreadful it is, you are not there”. He should go see how things are in the foreign affairs and justice committees. To be honest, the only ones doing their job properly aside from the Liberals are the Bloc Quebecois. They take committee work seriously, the only ones who do.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

We do not agree on the basic premise, but we will—

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure that the whole House heard the hon. member accuse the Reform Party of a cover-up. I would like him to either explain what he meant or withdraw that comment.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I think the hon. member is getting into a debate here. On questions and comments perhaps he will be able to elucidate that issue. The hon. member for Bourassa.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

The truth hurts, Mr. Speaker, but that is perfectly normal. They are trying to pull a fast one. Allow me to point out something. When there is a fight going on, one tries to fight to the finish, to reach a conclusive outcome.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the hon. member has reached a new low in his reference to the foreign affairs committee.

Everyone knows that the member for Burnaby—Douglas fell off a cliff and has been recuperating from his injuries for the last several months.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member is on a point of debate, not a point of order.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the truth hurts and pressure is building up on the other side. This once again shows the weakness of the arguments from the other side of the House. The opposition wants to sit until four in the morning? I have no problem with that. I have been working hard for 10 years to be a member. I can be here for hours and speak forever.

Opposition members want to raise points of order? Let them do so. I do not see many members from the NDP in the House. I do not see many Conservative members, nor members from the other opposition parties.

If they want to start a war, they better be prepared to fight to the finish. If I am going to be the only person here to take a count in parliamentary committees or in the House, I am prepared to do so. They better be prepared, because if they want to take things seriously, they will see that if they start a fight, they better be able to win it.

There is nothing more belittling than to see members opposite shooting themselves in the foot and continually telling us that the government did not do anything and does not take the public's interest seriously. It is this government that eliminated the deficit. It is this government that took position—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Angela Vautour, NDP, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

On the back of the unemployed and the poor.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

The other side is whining again. It is this government that put the emphasis on the fight against child poverty. We allocated $850 million.

Another point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. While it is true that the Liberals balanced the budget, they did did it by implementing 37 tax increases.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It sounds to me we are getting into debates here on phoney points of order. The hon. member for Bourassa has the floor.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is not the debate that is phoney. It is the members of the opposition who are phoney.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I think hon. members might allow the member for Bourassa to complete his remarks. I know that what he is saying is clearly provocative. On the other hand it is not a matter of consent.

The hon. member may be provocative in his remarks but with respect, when we have points of order raised that are not points of order, that are phoney points of order and that disrupt a member's speech, we know this on every side, that it causes more difficulty for all members. I urge hon. members to allow the member to complete his remarks.

There is a period for questions and comments at the end when members are encouraged to make comments and ask questions, and argue with the hon. member. I hope that members will take full advantage of the 10 minutes that will be thus afforded.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

He is going to cry again.