Debates of Oct. 29th, 1999

Committees Of The House

[Denis Paradis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade on the subject of the free trade zone of the Americas, for an agreement that serves the interests of Canadians. This is the first report by the Sub-Committee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response thereto.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership and associate membership of the Standing Committee on Transport.

If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the fifth report later this day.

Emancipation Day Act, 1999

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-282, an act proclaiming Emancipation Day.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise on behalf of the constituents of Calgary East to introduce my private member's bill in the House today. The bill would proclaim August 1 as emancipation day to commemorate the abolition of slavery in the British Commonwealth on August 1, 1834.

The recognition of emancipation day will not only acknowledge the work of brave Canadians in abolishing slavery but also the heritage of Canada's black community and the contributions they have made and will continue to make to Canada.

This initiative, I hope, will garner unanimous support from my colleagues and the people of Canada.

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

Committees Of The House

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)

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

moved:

That during its consideration of matters pursuant to Standing Order 83.1, the Standing Committee on Finance be authorized to adjourn from place to place within Canada and to permit the television broadcasting of its proceedings thereon; and that the said Committee be permitted in 1999 to make its report pursuant to the said Standing Order on or before December 10, 1999.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to share my time with the deputy government House leader and Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

For years the House has travelled across the country to listen to Canadians on the very important budget issue. This year, as in previous years, the government and most parties in the House have wanted to repeat this exercise.

We have wanted to consult Canadians. We have wanted, and we still want, them to contribute toward the budgetary process. I for one happen to think that what Canadians have to say about our budget is meaningful. We want to consult them. We want them to participate in the exercise.

However, the official opposition has decided, because it could not get its way in stalling Nisga'a, that it would not allow the finance committee to travel. It wants to punish Canadians. It wants to prevent Canadians from contributing to the budgetary process because it cannot get its way on another bill, namely Nisga'a.

Next Tuesday the committee is scheduled to be in London, Ontario. Unless the motion to have the committee travel can pass the House, it will cost over $200,000 to cancel the previously organized meeting in London, Ontario, let alone the cost of cancelling the other meeting.

The committee has asked the House to go to London, Ontario, on November 2, as I said previously; to visit Toronto on November 8 and 9; and to go to Halifax, Quebec City, Calgary, Vancouver, Regina and perhaps elsewhere to consult Canadians on the budget. I agree that Canadians have something to say about the budget.

Our government promised in the red book in 1993 that we would consult Canadians on the budget. Later Canadians told us that they appreciated this process. The House has voted time and time again to allow the committee to consult Canadians on the budget. The House has voted unanimously on several occasions to consult Canadians on the budget.

This year, should this motion not pass, Canadians will be punished not by the House, not by the government, but by one party which is choosing for its own narrow interest to punish not us as MPs but to punish Canadians by stopping them from contributing to the budgetary process, a process instituted years ago by the House. That is not right.

I urge all hon. members to allow Canadians to contribute to the budgetary process, to allow the committee to travel to British Columbia, to Vancouver and elsewhere, so that Canadians can say what they think of budgetary policy and can contribute in a meaningful way. I do not think Canadians will tolerate being dictated to by the narrow interests of the Reform Party.

I believe all others in the House want this process to proceed. What Reformers are doing is wrong again. What they are doing in Nisga'a is equally wrong, but at least on Nisga'a they have the right to vote against what they want to vote against. They have a right to be wrong, but they do not have a right to punish Canadians the way they are doing now. That is taking this institution as a hostage. I for one do not want our parliament, this Chamber, which is representative of all Canadians, to be taken as a hostage by the Reform Party.

Let us vote on this motion. Let us vote in favour of it. Let us allow Canadians to contribute toward the budgetary process as they have in the past.

This is what must happen, because it is the right thing to do, because Canadians have said so, and because the House has said so on more than one occasion in the past. We are now at the moment of truth.

We will see in a few minutes whether the Reform Party wants to make hostages not just of members of all political parties in this House, who want to consult Canadians about the budget, but of Canadians themselves.

We will find out whether the Reform Party will take the Canadian people hostage and punish them because the motion it introduced to stop the work of the House was not approved.

No. I am sure that, this weekend, Canadians will tell members of the Reform Party that they have no right to do what they are doing, because they are in the wrong, and that they are punishing Canadians and causing taxpayers unnecessary expense. That is what Canadians will tell Reformers.

There is still time. There is still time for the members of the party opposite to say “Yes, we are entitled to our views regarding the Nisga'a treaty; we are entitled to our views on any subject at all, but we will not take this parliament and Canadians hostage”.

We will find out in a few minutes whether this is indeed what they intend to do or whether once again they will show the true face of the Reform Party to all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, that was an absolutely astounding, unbelievable presentation by the member.

If we want to talk about narrow agendas and taking hostages, the narrow agenda of the Liberal government is to ram through the Nisga'a agreement having no regard for the voices of British Columbians. The Liberals do not want to go to B.C. They do not want to hear the voices of British Columbians talking of their concerns about the Nisga'a agreement. That is why they are taking this position on the Reform Party's request that the Indian affairs committee travel to British Columbia so it can hear the voice of British Columbians.

This government is not interested in that. It accuses us of holding parliament hostage. It is holding the people of British Columbia hostage in its constant refusal to listen to their concerns.

Let us be realistic about the wants and the desires of the government to have the finance committee go to London to hear the economic report of the finance minister. It is almost laughable that the member can stand and say that the government is out there to listen to Canadians. We all know that it is only a dog and pony show, an agenda so that the finance minister can go out and tell Canadians what his—

[The Speaker]

That is a statement, surely. If the hon. government House leader wishes to respond to the statement he may do so briefly.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the hon. member. I know he was listening attentively to what I was saying, otherwise he surely would not have asked the question or raised the point.

We brought the Nisga'a bill to the House and it has now been debated on at least two separate occasions, if not three. Let us consider what the Reform Party did. It amended the motion by asking the House to withdraw the bill, and then it amended that motion to allow members to filibuster another time. This was an effort by the Reform Party to filibuster the bill.

When I proposed on the floor of the House two days ago to extend the hours of sitting to listen to more Reform members' excellent speeches on the Nisga'a agreement, members of the Reform Party turned it down. They did not want more debate on Nisga'a. They turned it down. It is not that they want more debate; it is that they want the bill delayed and they want to punish Canadians.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 74(2) states:

The Whip of a party may indicate to the Speaker at any time during a debate governed by this Standing Order that one or more of the periods of debate limited—and allotted to Members—are to be divided in two.

It is my understanding that since the hon. member did not have the whip or deputy whip of his party move the motion to split his time, it would have required the unanimous consent of the House to allow him to split his time. Am I incorrect, Mr. Speaker?

[The Speaker]

In response to the point of order which the hon. member brings up, it is expressly stated in the rules. However, for at least the past five years since I have been Speaker, all members have been allowed to split their time at one time or another. It has become the practice of the House, and I would hope that the committee on procedures would look at it and correct it. Our practice is now, as all hon. members will agree and know, to allow all hon. members to split their time at any time. I see no reason to digress from that at this point.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, for clarification, you said that you wished the procedure and House affairs committee would take this up, yet you have already ruled and made it a rule. Therefore, is it necessary for the procedure and House affairs committee to actually deal with it?

[The Speaker]

In clarification of that, I would hope that the wording would reflect our practices. That is all I am saying to the House. Although I have ruled on this now, because we have been doing this for at least five years, I would hope that the committee would change the wording to reflect the practices of the House.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, are we now to assume that whatever is the customary practice, even though it is not written into our standing orders or Beauchesne's, will be the rules of the House?

[The Speaker]

We are to assume that whatever we have accepted as practice, as a House, for the last five years, is what we have been doing. I think that all hon. members who are here today would agree that this has been our practice and that this particular point has not been raised before. If we have a practice which is working for us in the House, then I think we should follow our practices. I would never change a rule unilaterally, but surely I must interpret what our practices are in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a short preamble to the question I have for the minister. I agree in some ways with Reform that closure and time allocation are used too often. I think we all agree with that. I also do not think it is necessary to have the finance minister go to London to make a financial statement. However, my understanding is that his motion before the House is not just about London, it is about allowing the finance committee to do what it traditionally does, which is to go around the country to consult the people. Unless I am mistaken, I think I have heard the leader of the Reform Party talk about grassroots and consultation with the ordinary folks of this country. I know in my case that people in Saskatchewan are quite anxious for the committee to visit Regina. It will be going to Regina to talk about the farm crisis. I spoke with the president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool yesterday.

I want to ask the minister across the way whether he can confirm that his motion indeed does say that it is not just London, but that this committee will go around the country to sell people in five or six different—

[The Speaker]

The hon. government House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, yes, the motion is for the entire cross-Canada hearings. The proposed itinerary, as scheduled now and as recommended by the Standing Committee on Finance, is that the committee—and this is not exhaustive, but it is the list established thus far—attend to London on November 2, Toronto on November 8 and 9, Halifax and Quebec City on November 15 and 16, Calgary, Vancouver and Regina on November 22, 23 and 24. Those are the seven locations that have already been planned by the finance committee. Of course, Calgary, Regina and Vancouver, those very important western communities, are included in the list which I have just given.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Just for greater clarification, could I ask that I be given a copy of the motion that is now before the House? I would appreciate that.

[The Speaker]

My colleague, it has been on the order paper, as it is now. Would you like a copy of the order paper sent to you? We will have it sent over by the page if you like.

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate. I believe since 1994 the finance committee has had the opportunity to go across the country to listen to Canadians in preparation of the budget so that Canadians could participate in the process.

For years members have asked for this process and now we have implemented it. Therefore, I support everything that my House leader said.

I move:

That the question by the chief government whip be now put.

[The Speaker]

The motion is in order.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It seems like a rather interesting afternoon for a Friday.

I would like some clarification. My understanding, according to the standing orders, is that a member cannot second the amendment if he or she has already been the primary mover of the same motion. Is that not true?

[The Speaker]

That is correct. I do not know what the problem is. Mr. Lee seconded the first motion. Mr. Kilger seconded the second one.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned about this as a member of the finance committee. I have also had the privilege of travelling with the committee to different parts of the country during last fall's hearings. I think it has both merits and demerits. There are a lot of good presentations made by different people who represent different points of view which are very valuable to the finance committee. However, I seriously question whether they are useful in the sense of actually affecting the budget, since over and over again the message that we have heard from Canadians in those hearings has been systematically ignored.

There have been many times when we had a convergence of opinion in a certain direction and it was not done. I think probably the biggest example is the tremendous message we had last year of calling for tax cuts. The government has chosen instead, in every budget that we have had since this Liberal government took power, to increase tax revenues. Therefore, I think going around and listening is largely a public relations measure on the part of the government because it gives the appearance that it is listening, when in fact it is not.

However I still like to say that as a member of the committee I found the input to the committee valuable. It is really what happens after it comes to the committee that is not acceptable. After having funded at great public expense to the taxpayers these trips around the country, most of the time the government ignores what happens in those hearings.

There is a much greater issue. In fact there are several issues.

This motion that has been brought forward asks for, among other things, approval of the finance minister to make a big splash in London next week. I really object to that. I would object to it even if it were not for the Nisga'a deal.

It is just a fact of life. I think the taxpayers out there should know that when the committee travels, it is a very costly effort. It costs a great deal of money. Not only are there the travel and hotel expenses for the members of the parliamentary committee, we also have the support staff. In many instances their number exceeds the number of members on the committee. We have to have translators since our Official Languages Act requires that translators from English to French and French to English be available. I have no objection to that but it is a cost which is greatly increased when we move the committee away from Ottawa.

Here in Ottawa the facilities are all in place. The translation booths are in the committee rooms. We can use the committee rooms. We have the staff who are on salary come in and do the translating and everything else. It is much more economical to do it here.

I do not want to be misunderstood. I think Canadians should be heard. When I say this it sounds as if I do not want to listen to Canadians and that is opposite to what I believe. However, I think there is a much more efficient method.

I would like to see the procedure changed so that each member of parliament is given perhaps a week to go to his or her riding to conduct meetings in every little community hall and listen to the people directly.

The finance committee most of the time hears only from groups, which is a matter of efficiency. It is quite efficient to listen to people who represent perhaps 1,000 or 10,000 people, or even more if they are from other groups that have a large constituency. It is good to hear from them but we fail to hear from the ordinary taxpayers, the people at home trying to make ends meet who do not belong to this or that organization but are taxed to death. We do not listen to them.

I would like to see the role of the member of parliament greatly enhanced. Members of parliament should spend a week or two specifically on prebudget hearings. A composite report should be made by all 301 members of parliament based on what they heard in their ridings so that the voice of the people is heard in this place instead of simply the dictatorship of the Liberal government.

When the vote takes place I would like it to be a free vote. As it is now, members are punished by their respective parties, by the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, the NDP, or the Bloc, if they do not vote the way they are told to vote. The Reform Party stands alone in saying that the first obligation of members of parliament is to represent the people who sent them here. That is paramount.

As a member of the finance committee, I do not mind and in fact I like going to other parts of the country. It broadens my perspective, but I want to get a real perspective. For example last year when we were in Saskatoon everybody went for some fancy lunch somewhere. Everyone can tell from looking at me sideways that I could skip the odd lunch without any permanent damage, so instead of going to a taxpayer paid lunch, I went for a walk on the streets of Saskatoon. I talked to different individuals.

During my walk I met a guy on Second Street. He had an old 1959 Meteor like the one I had. I struck up a conversation with him. We talked about his car. I talked to him about taxes. I talked to him about the finances of the country. He was a senior. He was very concerned about the state of affairs. He was adamant that we should cut taxes. Was he heard? Did the NDP member of parliament who represents him bring that message to cut taxes forward? No, I do not think so. That is what we should be doing.

I also want to address the London trip issue. I hate to say this, but the trip is really not to hear from Canadians; it is a photo-op for the finance minister. Think of what is involved here. It has almost the same logistics as running a war. We have to move all of the people who are involved from the House of Commons to London.

All of the media has to set up in London. They are already set up here. It would be so easy to make this financial statement, this update here, but no, it has to be done in London. The media have to move their trucks, satellite dishes and everything there. I am sure they are willing to do it because it is big news when the finance minister speaks. It touches the pocketbook of every Canadian. The media will be there but at tremendous expense.

It costs the taxpayers money not only to send the representatives and staff from the House of Commons, but there is all of the equipment and the rental of the rooms, all of which are incremental costs. Besides that, taxpayers will pay through the funding to CBC to have its representatives there. It could be done here. The message is the same.

Why do the Liberals want to go to London? I am guessing here but I think it is probably because they have done some polling and that is an area that needs a little bit of propping up with a little bit of activity. So the taxpayer is being asked to fund this.

Whether the finance minister goes there or not is one question. Another question is whether the finance committee travels to other parts of the country. But the big overriding question in this whole issue is one which is even more important.

The House leader of the Liberal Party called this all sorts of bad names with respect to Reform. I resent that. The people of Elk Island sent me here to represent them.

What we have in front of us, and this has to do directly with finances as well, is the government's unwillingness to debate the Nisga'a agreement with the Canadian public. It has been so one-sided until this stage that it is absolutely shameful. Absolutely we have to come to some resolution on these issues. It cannot be done satisfactorily in a democracy, it cannot be done satisfactorily within the finances that we have available to us, unless we have the consensus of the people.

Every time I have entered into an agreement it has been with someone else. For example, I recently hired a new staff assistant. He is an excellent young man and I think he would want me to say that. He will probably send this part of Hansard to his mom and dad. He is a great guy. Before he came to work for me, we sat down and agreed on what he would do for me and what I would do for him. There are two parties to the agreement. We have all sorts of agreements with respect to salary, hours of work, travel conditions, all of those things. Some of them are ruled by the Board of Internal Economy. But we made an agreement.

With respect to the Nisga'a agreement, the Liberal government is failing to recognize that it is an agreement between the two parties to the agreement, not just one. Too much of that agreement was hammered out in secrecy behind closed doors. Even certain members of the government of the province of British Columbia were unable to receive information with respect to the details of it. It was hidden from them. When it was all done, a fait accompli, it was brought to the government by the NDP in British Columbia and it was rammed through.

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

Madam Speaker, I apologize to the member from the Reform Party for raising a point of order at this time, but I want to raise a question of order.

Members of parliament are watching television in the lobby. They are watching the Minister of Human Resources Development make an announcement on employment equity worth about $3 billion to $3.5 billion.

My point of order is that historically major announcements have been made in the House of Commons where the opposition parties can respond. It has been an almost iron-clad practice for many, many years.

Madam Speaker, I hate to put you on the spot, but perhaps you could consult with the table to see whether or not an announcement of this magnitude should have been made here in the House where the people's representatives can respond.