Debates of Oct. 29th, 1999

Committees Of The House

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

In answer to the hon. member's point of order, there is an ongoing debate about whether that type of announcement should be made in the House or somewhere else, but it is not a point of order.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is not often that I thank members from the New Democratic Party for interrupting me while I am making a speech, but this time I would certainly concur with what the member is saying. Again it is an atrocious example of the dictatorial nature of this Liberal government that it will do things outside of the House which should be done in here and which should be done in consultation with members of parliament who represent their constituents and are accountable to them. Instead, the government does this when there is no accountability. Even the members present in the Liberal Party do not have anything to say on this. It is atrocious.

The Nisga'a agreement is a deal with two groups of people. We are not trying to obstruct the government. Probably the members over there will fail to understand this because of their inability to understand common sense, but we are actually trying to help them. If this deal is rammed through this parliament like it was in the legislature in British Columbia, the Liberals will put at risk the very future of our children, our grandchildren, our whole society, our country, the unity of the country and the fiscal accountability of the country. Everything will be at risk unless they reach an agreement between both parties.

We are taking this action today of blocking the travel of the finance committee. The Liberals are quite right in that it is a move to force them to listen to the people of British Columbia. We are absolutely fed up with the fact that Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia are continually ignored by this government.

The country has a unity problem. People right across the country from coast to coast are asking “What is wrong with Ottawa? Can we not fix it?” The fact is that they can fix it, and we want to help them do that by engaging in a debate.

It is an affront to every member of parliament to bring in a Nisga'a agreement with a prior condition that not one dot or tittle in it can be amended. That is the condition. It is all or nothing.

We find a number of elements in that agreement to be quite offensive to Canadians. The Liberals are wrong. We are not permitted to amend it. Therefore we have no choice but to oppose it. The only way we can achieve this is by getting the people informed and involved. Contrary to what the minister said the other day, the more people find out about the facts of this agreement, the more they will say that it is going in the right direction but there are immense problems with it which must be fixed or else we are in trouble. Of course it is a ploy. It is a tactic we are using. The Liberals may not like it but it is in direct response to what they are doing, not to us. I have a pretty thick skin and it is padded beneath. I am not worried about that. I am worried about the fact that they are insulting and ignoring the voters and the taxpayers of British Columbia.

They can fix this. If they want to do their travel, all we are asking is that on an issue as important as this we should also have a committee travel, that committee being the committee on Indian affairs. Let it go to British Columbia and hear directly from British Columbians what their genuine concerns are.

This is of great importance. I do not know how to emphasize it. I know I could be dramatic. I could get on the news tonight if I stood on the table and maybe took off my shoe and banged it on the desk like Khrushchev did. However, I will not do that because I believe in the dignity of this place and that dignity is destroyed when ordinary principles of democracy are so trodden on by the government.

I believe that in order to solve the problem we must have both committees travelling. That is all we are asking for. We will absolutely not obstruct parliament, but we will not permit them to obstruct parliament either. If they do so, they can expect from a responsible official opposition that there will be a little bit of a tactic in return. They ought not to be surprised when they have been this blatant in their abuse of the democratic process.

Because of the importance of this, I will move an amendment. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting the words “be permitted in 1999 to—”

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The motion we are debating at this time cannot be amended. We are on the previous question and it cannot be amended.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am just trying desperately to do something that will force the government to act democratically. I want to do what is right for Canada and Canadian citizens. I want to do what is right for the voters of the country. I want to make sure the country stays together. I want to make sure that the people of British Columbia are heard on this matter. I want to make sure that the natives of our country are heard. I want to make that there is an agreement between both parties that is amicable to both sides, instead of doing this behind closed doors and making an agreement that is partially acceptable to some of the people on one side while some 40% of natives are saying no to the Nisga'a agreement. We are not being fair to them if we do not make these changes.

I also want to make sure that the Canadians who are footing the bill for this and who have to live with the consequences of this, whether they be citizens of British Columbia or citizens anywhere in the country, have the right to be heard and that their genuine needs will be addressed.

I stand by what I said earlier. I wish we did not have to do this. I really wish we could say “Sure, let the finance committee travel”. I still would not let it go to London for this photo op, but let it travel and listen to Canadians. I would not mind that but the photo op thing is absolutely ridiculous. It is a waste of taxpayers' money.

I certainly want to urge the government to change its mind for once and admit that maybe it made a mistake. Why does it not for once exercise a little humility and say that it should go to British Columbia to hear the genuine concerns of Canadian citizens over there.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan—King—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise to participate in the debate because I think it is necessary for Canadians to understand that we at the committee level actually approved this plan to travel and the hon. member who just spoke agreed to travel with the finance committee.

There are a couple of points that the member raised in his comments which I find quite suspicious. First, he feels that members of parliament ought to go out in their communities and seek input during the prebudget consultation period. That is precisely what our committee has been asking for since 1993. Members of parliament should go into their communities, report to the finance committee and their findings would be incorporated in the finance committee report to the Minister of Finance.

Second, I do not understand how the member can say that the recommendations made by the finance committee are not acted upon by the Minister of Finance. For the interest of Canadians, I want to raise just a few of the recommendations that have been adopted by the Minister of Finance and the Government of Canada.

These recommendations deal with prudent economic assumptions in the formulation of the budget and the issue relating to the contingency reserve and how it should not be used to fund either program spending or tax cuts. The committee recommended: that the federal government establish a long term target for sustainable debt to GDP ratio; that the temporary 3% surtax be completely eliminated; that the basic personal amount be increased; that employment insurance premiums be lowered; that the government increase funding to the provinces for health care; and that the government increase funding for health research because we all understand the importance of that particular issue.

What is interesting is that all of these recommendations came from the people of Canada. They had input in two ways. They had input through the finance committee and also at the community level through those members of parliament who cared enough to do a prebudget consultation through town hall meetings, questionnaires or whatever method they liked to use to consult with Canadians.

If there is something I personally take great pride in, it is the fact that Canadians' input has been seen in every single budget delivered by the Minister of Finance. When Canadians see that the $16.5 billion tax cut has been implemented, they know it comes from the input from the various town hall meetings and from their presentations to the House of Commons finance committee.

When Canadians see that we understand what it takes to build a productive economy and make wise investment in young people and education and health care, they know that is their word being reflected in the budget. That has happened every single year.

When the government inherited the $42 billion deficit and Canadians said that we should make eliminating the deficit a priority, that is exactly what happened.

I have to make these points because I fundamentally believe in the consultation process. I fundamentally believe in the consultation process that was started by the government. It speaks to what is the essential fibre of democracy; that Canadians are given an opportunity to express themselves clearly, to clearly state their points of view and to clearly state priorities. This essentially is what is being denied to the people of Canada who must have an opportunity to express their points of view on a very important issue. The budget is very important and must reflect Canadians' priorities but in order to do that we must be able to seek their input.

The prebudget consultation process, above and beyond the OECD, has also been applauded by Canadians from coast to coast to coast as an innovative method of seeking public input. Therefore, the Reform Party had better be careful because it is infringing on the fundamental rights people have to express themselves.

The hon. member who just spoke is a very active member of the finance committee and that is why perhaps I am very surprised by his attitude. The members opposite had better think twice about doing what they are doing because Canadians recognize how effective the prebudget consultation process has been and how effective their voices have been in making sure the government acts on those priorities which are essential to building a better life, a stronger economy and a more just society.

My question for the member is quite simple: Why the flip flop?

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, since the member used seven minutes of the ten, I assume I will have seven minutes to respond.

The member has misinterpreted my motivation here. He seems to be implying that I do not want to listen to the people. That is false. The accusation he is making is factually incorrect. I do not only want to hear from special interest groups, I also want to hear from ordinary Canadians. That is why I said what I said.

The member indicated that members of parliament are invited to go to their ridings and have consultation meetings. I take my job very seriously and, Madam Speaker, I do not know if you have noticed, but when the House is in session I am essentially always here, pretty well 99.9% of the time. It is very seldom that I allow functions in my riding to take precedence over my job here because I am here to represent them.

On the weekends and on the weeks out, I go back to my riding to listen to the people. What did the government do when it prorogued the House? It chose the week that we were scheduled to be out where we would have normally scheduled our town hall meetings. We did not have enough time to schedule, advertise and book them before those two weeks of break. The week we would have had in order to give advance notice was taken away from us by the opening of the House and the throne speech.

What has the finance committee done about November 11? That is a so-called week out, when members of parliament go back to their ridings to listen to the concerns of their people. It has scheduled a finance committee.

As the member for Elk Island, I am a faithful member of the finance committee. When it is sitting and listening to witnesses I am there every minute of the time. When those people are there because they have taken the time to prepare a presentation, I will be there to hear them.

What has the finance committee done? It has taken me out of my riding during that week and scheduled meetings in Toronto, just totally ignoring the fact that for those of us in the west, travel time is necessary. We have duties in our ridings on November 11 for Remembrance Day. The member just says “That does not matter, we can get back to our riding in one hour, let us not worry about the west”. That is the whole point. He also said that Canadians should be heard on an issue as important as the budget, and I agree. However, there is another important issue, the issue British Columbians have with the Nisga'a deal?

I will reflect his words right back. He said “they had better be very careful”. I am telling them that they had better be very careful because if they do not listen to British Columbians they will be in much worse trouble than if we do not go around with our prebudget hearings. I have a very simple conclusion.

I want the budget to be representative of what the people want. I want the finance committee to travel, but I want the Indian affairs committee to travel too. If they deny that, what else can we do? They have pushed us into a corner.

Do I not have seven minutes, Madam Speaker? I wish in the future that you would stop those members halfway, because I think we should have at least as much time as they have to make their points.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With the flow of the debate back and forth and the very long question that was asked, I know there were a number of points my colleague did not have a chance to deal with.

I wonder if we could seek consent of the House to have the time extended another four minutes so my colleague could answer those questions.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is there consent of the House to extend the question period?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want to split a few minutes with my colleague from Kamloops to say a few words in support of the motion before the House today which states:

That the question be now put.

I do not think we need a lengthy debate on whether or not we put a question allowing for a vote on whether the finance committee should travel to hear from the Canadian people. I think we should do that as soon as possible.

I said before that I sympathize with some things the Reform Party is saying in terms of proper hearings on the Nisga'a agreement and treaties across the country; perhaps not just B.C. but other places as well.

I sympathize, having been here many years and as I have said many times myself, that time allocation is now used too often. Actually if we want to get historical about it, the current government House leader used to get up in row three over here and complain about the Mulroney government using time allocation time and time again. He did it with great eloquence.

Even the member from Pembroke is hanging his head in shame. Look at him back there. The cameras could not record that he was standing on chair. I hope his feet were clean when he did that.

The government House leader often used to say that when they were in government some day they would not do the same thing and would allow free and full debates, with all eloquence and so on. However the Liberals do not necessarily do the same thing in government as they do in opposition.

I also appeal to the Reform Party that despite the fact there should be a full debate on any issue in the House or in the committees, I do not think it should hold people involved in issues in other parts of the country hostage for its particular issue. This is really what is happening by denying the finance committee the right to travel.

I will use the example of Saskatchewan. We all know about the farm crisis and the two premiers who came here. Farm incomes are now at the lowest level since the 1930s. The wheat board just announced yesterday that the price would drop another 4% or 5% in terms of the forecast for this crop year. That is a serious issue. I think we all agree with that.

If we do not pass the motion before the House the finance committee will not go to Regina. It will not allow Mr. Larson, president of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, different farm organizations, different individuals, the chambers of commerce, the cities of Regina and Saskatoon or other prairie people, a chance to address the finance committee.

It is like a fight in a schoolyard. The Reform Party is saying that it is not getting its way, so it will punch other people back and not let them get their way as well. At least Reform Party members are being honest that they are using one of the few tools they have, but they are denying the rights and privileges of other Canadians because they feel their rights and privileges on a certain issue are not being met.

I do not think that is the way to achieve justice: “If I do not get my way then by damn you are not getting your way either”. I do not think that is the way we should operate. There are ways of making a point; there are ways of advocating a position.

I have seen opposition parties over the years stop a majority government dead in its tracks. I remember in 1985 the Mulroney government tried to partially deindex old age pensions. Within a week or two, despite the fact that it had the biggest majority in the history of the country at that time, riding at over 50% in the polls, between the pensioners and the opposition parties the government was forced to withdraw the proposal to partially deindex old age pensions. There are ways of doing it, but it is not done by denying the rights of other people, and this is what will happen today.

As an aside, is the Reform Party saying that the democratically elected members that form the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance cannot travel to hear the opinions of people? What does it want to do? Does it want to send the Senate banking committee around the country to hear people's opinions, that undemocratic, unaccountable, unelected chamber? Is that what it wants to do?

We should stop playing games. We should vote on the motion as soon as possible to make sure that the finance committee can travel around the country to hear the views of the people on the fishery, the farm crisis, health care problems, or the problems of the homeless. There are many problems. The Reform cannot hold us hostage because it is unhappy with one particular issue. If we all start doing that this place will collapse in shear chaos.

I appeal to the Reform Party to come to its senses. The Reform Party used to talk about the grassroots. It wanted to hear from the grassroots. It wanted to hear from ordinary people.

Where are these members now? Where is the member from Nanaimo. I am sure he is embarrassed by his party's position that would deny ordinary people to speak about the farm crisis. That is exactly what he is doing by not allowing the finance committee to travel around the country.

[Reed Elley, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member from Saskatoon just made reference to the member from Nanaimo. There are two of us so he may not have possibly been talking to me, but since I am in present in the House I ought to take the opportunity to clarify that I indeed support my party's principles.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am afraid we are getting into debate.

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Madam Speaker, there are a lot of financial implications in the Nisga'a treaty. The federal official opposition represents 24 of the 34 seats in British Columbia. The provincial government put the Nisga'a agreement we are talking about through the provincial legislature using closure. There is a clause in the agreement that hobbles the official opposition federally and provincially.

Both the Liberal official opposition provincially and the Reform Party official opposition federally have some difficulties with the Nisga'a agreement. That is clear to everyone. There is a clause in the agreement whereby no party to the agreement may challenge it once it is ratified. That is a very important clause because it completely hobbles the governments in waiting once they become government. Simply, many of those issues have not been addressed.

I cannot comprehend why the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle would suggest we should roll over and allow the government to ram that agreement through this place without proper debate and without hearing from the people in British Columbia who very much want that opportunity but have been denied it.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, I do not know if the Reform Party member was in the House when I started to speak. I am not saying that at all. I started by saying that there should be a full debate and that the committee should travel and should hear from people. That is exactly what I am saying.

I am also saying that I do not want the Reform Party to hold the people of Saskatchewan hostage and deny the finance committee the right to travel to Saskatchewan, or anywhere else in the country, to hear about the important issues that are facing farmers, fishermen or people concerned about the health care system and so on.

Reformers are a bit mistaken. We are not saying that there should not be a full and fair debate. We are not saying that they should not have an opportunity to express themselves. There have been many times when opposition parties have had a great deal of impact on government policy and have forced governments to back down. They have the opportunity in terms of the Nisga'a debate to express themselves, to mobilize public opinion and to make their point of view known. We have not said that there should not be a committee travelling on the issue.

This debate is about whether or not the finance committee should travel across the country to hear from the ordinary citizens of Canada. We believe it should. We believe the Reform Party is wrong in trying to stop the finance committee from hearing from the good people of Saskatchewan and the people from other parts of the country on issues that concern them. We do not want the Reform Party to hold the people of the country hostage because of its concern over one issue.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is probably one of the saddest days in terms of our parliamentary system and the state of democracy in our country. If we listened carefully we could actually hear jackboots slamming around this place.

I will set aside the government for the moment. I want to talk to my friends in the Reform Party and beg them to come to their parliamentary and democratic senses this afternoon. I know my friend has spent a lot of time as a schoolteacher. He has seen many kids who get angry because they do not get their way. They say “I am going to pick up my marbles and go home. I am not going to play”.

Reformers are saying that because they do not like what the government is doing in terms of its willingness to take a committee out to British Columbia. They will shut down the democratic process in this place for the finance committee and perhaps all others.

These are people who say they believe in the democratic process. They believe in grassroots democracy. They believe in a situation where British Columbians and other Canadians should have a fair shot at policy and legislation that are being developed. They are thwarting or stopping the finance committee from travelling across the country and hearing men and women from one coast to another. That is what the Reform Party is doing. My friends in the Reform Party astonish me because it goes against everything I have ever heard every one of them speak about.

Let us be fair. When Reformers say they believe in grassroots democracy we laud them. Of course it is what we all want to see. I have been on the finance committee for many years. The best times I have spent as a parliamentarian is when we go to St. John's, Newfoundland, Halifax, Saint John, Fredericton, Regina, Saskatoon, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Victoria to listen to Canadians.

Does the government always follow their advice? I would say it does not always but it listens to Canadians. Canadians have a chance to make their views known. People from my community in Kamloops venture down to talk and express their views. They want to see some action on one front and some changes on another. They want the government to acknowledge these problems.

My colleagues in the Reform Party, for some stupid, idiotic and undemocratic reason today are saying that because they are mad at the government they will not let the finance committee travel. That is a travesty of democracy.

[An hon. member]

Let's go to Kamloops.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

The hon. member can yell. He makes a big threat that he will go to Kamloops. If we listen carefully we can hear jackboots pounding in this place, and they are being worn by the members of the Reform Party today.

[An hon. member]

The phones are already ringing from B.C.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

The phones are ringing from British Columbia because the Reform Party is refusing permission to travel to British Columbia to hear input on the finance committee.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know my NDP colleague is excited about this topic. He is demonstrating that and I think he is verging on using unparliamentary language when he makes those comments.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am sure that the hon. member will carry on with his speech in a very reasonable manner.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

A very reasonable manner, Madam Speaker.

It is a dark day in this House for a number of reasons. I will set aside the concerns with the government and the others dealing with the Nisga'a treaty. I am referring to my friends in the Reform Party, and I use that term advisedly. They are my friends and they are going against everything I have ever understood Reform members to espouse in this House, and that is the ability of Canadians to have access to the levers of power.

Members of the Reform Party are refusing the finance committee to travel to British Columbia. They will refuse permission to travel to any part of this country and I suspect we are talking about agriculture, forestry, mining and foreign affairs. In other words, it will shut down the ability of members of parliament to get out of this bloody place and into other parts of the country.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

It is not a bloody place. It is an honourable place.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Madam Speaker, I know Reformers love this place because they do not want to leave. They do not want to go out to talk to the people in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta or British Columbia. In terms of how they are behaving, I would not want to travel out there either.

I think I have made my point. Members of the Reform Party should stop acting like a bunch of children, like immature children. That is a negative comment against children, because if most children do not get their way, they do not pick up their marbles and run away. The members of the Reform Party should grow up and start acting like decent parliamentarians and allow this place to function as it is intended to function.