Debates of April 26th, 1999

Privilege

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

Mr. Speaker, as you correctly pointed out, I want to hear information from the hon. member for Provencher, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

It has come to my attention that the information he made available to the House in responding to a question the other day was already in the public domain long before. We will endeavour to get that information.

[An hon. member]

It was not.

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

The hon. member across says “It was not”. I do not know how he can make that affirmation without having seen the proof that the hon. member will be bringing to the attention of the House. I understand from conversations I have had that such was the case.

As soon as the hon. member for Provencher returns, I will ask him to reply directly to what the hon. member has said, in particular bearing in mind the information I received from him which is to the effect that the information in fact was in the public domain already. I will nevertheless ask the hon. member to address that upon his return.

[The Speaker]

I think we have set the stage. We have an allegation by one hon. member about something that was said. He quoted it directly. It was said in the House of Commons. There was nothing written. It was said in the House of Commons and it is recorded in Hansard .

At this point I would like to hear what the hon. member for Provencher has to say, so I will wait until he is in the House and we will hear what he has to say about it.

Government Response To Petitions

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

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

[Bill Matthews, Progressive Conservative, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am somewhat surprised today that we do not have a ministerial statement flowing from the NATO conference in Washington over the last few days.

Certainly with the significance of this conference to the world and our involvement as a country—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It was a nice try, but it certainly was not a point of order.

Interparliamentary Delegations

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian section of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Francophonie, as well as the related financial report.

The report has to do with the meeting of the PAF commission on education, communications and cultural affairs, which was held in Niamey, Nigeria, on February 15 and 16, 1999.

Employment Insurance Act

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-500, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (waiting period).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this bill today, following repeated requests by workers. We know that the Employment Insurance Act provides for a two week waiting period during which people who have lost their jobs are not eligible to benefits.

In the present context, where eligibility rules have been tightened, I think this is a simple way to give an important part of the EI fund surplus back to workers when they are unemployed. A person who earns $400 a week would receive two more weeks of benefits at $220, which would give that person an interesting refund on the EI fund surplus.

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

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-501, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (self-employed persons).

Mr. Speaker, with a view to ensuring that the Employment Insurance Act reflects reality on the labour market as faithfully as possible, this bill is aimed at allowing self-employed persons, a new category of workers who are currently covered by no plan, and do not come under the Employment Insurance Act to get basic insurance, on a voluntary basis, in case they lose their job.

My bill will therefore fill a major gap and allow many young men and women to have basic security, on a voluntary basis, in case they lose their job.

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

Income Tax Act

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-502, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of expenses incurred by mechanic for tools required in employment).

Mr. Speaker, the aim of this bill is to allow persons employed as mechanics to deduct the cost of the tools required for their work which they provide, if it is a condition of their employment.

The deduction includes amounts expended for the rental, maintenance and insurance of the tools, the total cost of tools worth $250 or less subject to some adjustments as may be allowed in the regulations to take into consideration inflation, and for tools over $250 the amortization of the capital cost as set out in the regulations.

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

An Act To Amend The Contraventions Act And The Controlled Drugs And Substances Act (Marijuana)

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-503, an act to amend the Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (marijuana).

Mr. Speaker, this bill seeks to decriminalize, not legalize, the simple possession of marijuana. The reason is quite simple. In our justice system today, the resources our police have to do their job and to prosecute are severely limited. In my province of British Columbia six courts have been closed. As a result, serious offences like rape and assault are not being prosecuted to the fullest extent.

This bill is intended to seek a fine for those who are found with simple possession. That money could then be used to engage in prevention. It could be put into education programs for children. We could deal with prevention and substance abuse issues.

I am happy to introduce this bill which is being supported by the Canadian Police Association.

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

Committees Of The House

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the 48th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented on Tuesday December 8, 1998 be concurred in.

I am not sure how much of a pleasure it is to speak to this motion. I should not have to be standing here in the House today speaking to it. This motion should have gone forward and should have been dealt with in the House some time ago. Nevertheless I am going to take my time and go through several issues relating to this committee that were supposed to have come from the procedure and House affairs committee to speak to the report on televised committees.

Some questions have to be asked. Why is it necessary to begin speaking about a seemingly isolated report from a committee? Why was the report not dealt with by the House of Commons? What is in the report that the government does not want to deal with in the House? Since the report was adopted by all parties, why has the pilot project contained in the report not gone ahead? Where do we go from here?

I will address the question of why it is necessary that we are here today speaking about this issue. This is indicative of most committee work in the House of Commons. A lot of members in the House of Commons spend a lot of time doing committee work. In this particular committee when we were dealing with getting more television coverage in committee, we spent a great deal of time in the House on the matter.

Did we all disagree in committee? No. In fact we all agreed, including the government whip and members opposite who were sitting on the committee. They said that it was not a bad idea, that we were approaching the year 2000 and perhaps we should allow committees to have television coverage equal to other media coverage like newspapers, radio and so on. So we said, why not try a pilot project in the committee. Sounds good. We all agreed on it. If we all agreed on it, where did it go from there?

It came out of the committee, into the House, a report was tabled and non-action. Why no action? Presumably somebody over on the government side, I guess the cabinet, said, “We do not want more coverage by the television networks in committees so let us just drop it”. Nothing happened.

I asked three times in House leaders meetings, “Where is this committee report? What are you doing about it?” The response, “Ho hum, we just do not want to deal with it now”. Finally, I went to a House leaders meeting several weeks ago and the government House leader said, “I have a new deal for you. Why do we not equip one more committee room and spend the money on television cameras and so on and we will treat it like the only other room we have,” which is room 253-C I think it is in the House of Commons.

Out of the blue the government House leader made an offer totally unrelated to the results of the report and the results of the committee. I am going to show that in a few minutes. We are supposed to accept this kind of deal under the table and get on with life. He totally disregarded all of the work of all of the members on the committee. He totally disregarded all of the recommendations and came up with his own little brainstorm.

One has to ask therefore, what is the value of a committee in the House of Commons? Do they all work like this? Yes, many do. A lot of members in this House of Commons go to committees. They undertake hard work on behalf of their constituents and on behalf of people who believe in what they are doing. They think that after a report is dealt with, something valuable is going to come of it. However, once it gets outside and in the House of Commons, zero, nothing. Is it any wonder that we think and are convinced committees are all but useless in this House of Commons. I do not think so.

I guess we can look at it that maybe there are better things to do. Why not look at how petitions operate in this House of Commons. Same thing. People go all around the country getting signatures for things they believe in, things they trust that they can change, and what happens? It comes into the House of Commons and I hate to tell everybody, it goes nowhere, absolutely nowhere. It does not even come to a vote in the House of Commons.

This is going to be more of a discussion on what is wrong with committees in addition to why can we not have televised committees. There are reasons we want televised committees, by the way, and we will cover that as well.

What is in this report? I must say when I was first approached by this, I was quite impressed by the representation in particular from LeeEllen Carroll, the director of the Canadian parliamentary press executive, who is very forthright in her positions and a professional indeed. There were no hidden agendas with this individual. She came to me and said, “Look, what is fair is fair. Why do we not have televised committee meetings in all committee rooms?” It sounded great to me and in fact she made a very professional presentation to the committee, along with Craig Oliver, a well respected and renowned individual in media circles.

All of this information was taken by committee members and thought to be very well done. The end result of course is “Well, that does not matter”.

Let us look at the recommendations. These are some of the comments in the report that came from the committee to the House: “Much of the coverage of the House of Commons is focused on question period. This is only part and, arguably, a distorted view of the work of the House and involves only a handful of members”. That is absolutely correct. Look at the House today. Listen to this. There are more people in a committee than are in here.

A lot of good work in 20-some committees goes on in the House. Unfortunately, the results of those committees are basically taken with a grain of salt by the government.

The report acknowledges that room 253-D is used for broadcasting purposes in the House. The experience appears to have been very positive and has been well received by members of parliament and the public. Are there concerns with the way things are televised in that room? No, there has not been. Should there be concerns with televised proceedings in other committee rooms? I do not think so. Experience has not led us to believe that.

“Members feel that it would now be appropriate to expand the coverage of committee proceedings to permanently equip another room for broadcasting committees. However, it is not feasible or desirable at this time”. This is interesting. Should we have permanent facilities, much like we do in 253? No, we think there is a better idea, we say. Let us find out what that is.

By the way, the report says that there should be no discrimination between electronic and print members of the press gallery in carrying out professional duties. I wholeheartedly agree with that and so did the committee.

What else does it say? “We note that the essential purpose of broadcasting committee meetings is to enable Canadians to better understand the work of parliament and to make the House and its work more accessible and transparent”. This is an excellent idea, a good idea. Let us implement that. That was one of the recommendations.

Here are some specifics: “All committees should be given an opportunity to have some meetings broadcast”. Good idea. “Provisions should be put in place to ensure broadcasting by the House of Commons broadcasting service and that it is balanced among all committees. The committee intends to monitor this”. Great idea.

“The electronic media will be allowed on a trial basis to June 30, 1999 to film any public committee meetings held within the parliamentary precincts in Ottawa, subject to certain guidelines”. Good idea. “It should be gavel to gavel filming”. Great idea. “The filming must respect the spirit of an electronic Hansard and will be subject to the same general guidelines, rules and policies as applied to the broadcasting of the proceedings of the House itself”. Excellent. I would concur with that, as did all members on the committee. “That they”—the electronic media—“deposit with the House of Commons a copy of the complete tape of each committee meeting that is filmed under these guidelines as soon as possible after the completion of the meeting”. Good.

“The cameras must be in fixed positions while the committee is in session”. Great idea. Nobody has complaints about that. “No more than three cameras will be permitted in a committee room at one time”. Good. “Cameras and other equipment must be set up and dismantled as quickly as possible to minimize the disruption”. That is fine, no problems. “The existing room light and committee sound system are to be used”. Who could argue? “Camera operators will be required to be members of the parliamentary press gallery”. No problem. “A member of the parliamentary press gallery wishing to televise a committee meeting must notify the clerk of the committee at least 24 hours prior to the meeting”. That sounds sensible.

“We should respect the principle of balanced coverage to reflect the work of all committees of the House”. No one will argue with that. “Those members of the press gallery who wish to take advantage of these arrangements will be required to first sign an agreement with the House agreeing to be bound by the guidelines”. I could not agree more. “A subcommittee consisting of various members should be set up to oversee and monitor the implementation of this report”. This is great.

If these are not such bad concepts, if these are not so tough, why is it that this is just another report from another committee that goes nowhere in this House of Commons? What is it on the other side of the House that says “If it does not come from our cabinet, it is no damned good”? It is wrong what those folks are doing.

Since the report was adopted by all parties, why is it that a pilot project like the one I have just described cannot be undertaken? Somewhere in cabinet is there somebody who says “I did not think of it so it will not be done”? Is it that the House leaders did not get an opportunity to see it first so it will not get done? No, that is not the case.

Is it just possible that all members, when television cameras get in a room, speak articulately enough that it embarrasses those people in portfolio positions across the way? Is it possible that someone on the other side is concerned about somebody having a bright idea? Is it just fundamentally possible that a committee could work better than the chambers of the House of Commons? I may be treading on some soft ground, but I sincerely believe that is the problem is here.

What about grassroots' input as compared to top down? Is it just possible that people who work in committees and travel around the country for input to bring into a committee know more than the ministers in cabinet about any specific issue? I think it is possible.

Where do we go from here? There is a certain bias against television and the media in these committee rooms. I respect all the media that are in these meetings, but there seems to be a fear on the other side that television will actually display incompetence, bias or a lack of knowledge on issues. If that is the case, would it not be better to have television cameras in the committee and have the skills and abilities of individual members improved?

The committee that is most often on television is the finance committee in room 253. I have never really seen any untoward comments made in that committee, nor have I seen anything inappropriate. In fact, I thought the level of debate was really quite high.

If we are looking at why we cannot proceed from here, the question has to be, why? Backbenchers, in particular on the other side the House, do not get much television time. I think the government House leader was overheard to say “It is just so the Reform Party members can get their faces on television”. If we want that we can come in here anytime and speak to it.

This is not about getting one's face on television. This is about opening up the House of Commons to the real issues and real debates instead of going in camera. I might note that the pension debate we are facing right now is about to head into a committee. This is an important issue and yet it is likely it will not be televised. Why not? What is wrong with it? Why should we not have it open? Why should the Nisga'a agreement not be televised? There is nothing wrong with that.

It is time the House of Commons got into the year 2000 and beyond. I am sick and tired of our members wasting hour after hour, day after day in these committee meetings working on reports that go nowhere and end up in here even after all the Liberals in the committee sign those darned things off. They agree with them and yet they still go nowhere.

I am about to take issue with this. They will be hearing this speech time after time until such time as I get a reasonable argument as to why we cannot deal with this issue. It will be either that or maybe I will just have to start pulling our members out of committees until I get some kind of guarantee from the government that their time will be worthwhile and that the reports will be listened to. Something has to give here because I am not going to put up with it any longer.

Why has this report fallen on deaf ears? Why has nothing happened? For goodness sake, if the media, the very people government members depend on for their press releases and so on, cannot be given respect by hearing the government say “this is why we do not want this and why we are going to vote it down”, or whatever it wants to do, then there is something wrong.

Do not just sit on this and have yet another useless report from a committee going nowhere but into the annals of government. What the government has to do is treat the media and the members of those committees with a modicum of respect. It must make their work worthwhile. Government members should not take the position that regardless of how sound a judgment and how great a decision some of these things are that because it was not their idea they are not going to do it. That is wrong.

The backbenchers over there, however few there are in here today, should have the courage of their convictions and stand up and say “Yes, why do my reports not come in here for a vote?” What is wrong with the people over there? Why do they not insist on it?

This is the first of many times that I will get up and speak to this until such time as I get an adequate answer.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am the chair of the standing committee concerned. We are dealing with concurrence in our report No. 48. The member has picked out this report. Our committee, I believe, is now in the seventies in terms of reports that it has submitted.

I will make some comments about the report that the member quoted from selectively. There are five main recommendations.

The first one deals with the situation the member described. At the present time, as many viewers of CPAC will know, there is a committee room that is equipped for committee hearings and they are televised. Those proceedings are broadcast through CPAC when the House of Commons is not sitting. That has been quite successful. There is a procedure whereby committees go into that particular room. Recommendation one of the report dealt with that.

The second one dealt with the fact that the House of Commons already has portable television equipment which can be moved around and can go into committee rooms and particular committees. There is a procedure for doing that. Their proceedings can be taped and, in the same way, can go out over the CPAC channels at times when this room of the House of Commons is not in operation.

My colleague, the House leader for the Reform Party referred in part to that. Our House leader, very soon after the report was presented, made the suggestion that it might be very useful, as a point of departure for discussion, to discuss fully equipping another room so that committees could be broadcast from it. That was the second recommendation.

The third one, which is very important, was the recommendation with respect to CPAC. A consortium of cable companies tapes the proceedings in the same way as they are taping what I am saying now. It goes out across the entire country on the parliamentary channel. CPAC deposits a tape of these proceedings which becomes the electronic record of the proceedings of the House of Commons. There is a discussion about that.

I would suggest that the CPAC arrangement, if one talks to people across Canada, has been very well received as a creative way for getting what the House of Commons does.

The channel already has very creative programs, such as the scrums, the extended interviews with ministers and other people, and a variety of programs about the way the House of Commons operates. In my experience they have been very well received. The committee's recommendations on that are very important because it is basic to the healthy broadcasting of the House of Commons.

The fourth recommendation deals with the fact that the standing committee was very concerned, as is the hon. member opposite, that members' work in committee be better represented on the airwaves across Canada. We then came to the point of the pilot study, which was the focus of the House leader's speech. A proposal was made for a pilot study by the media with certain constraints, which he described.

The report contains four recommendations, which the hon. member has brushed over. The member was concerned about one of the recommendations, although he admitted that our House leader, very early on, proceeded with a suggestion which actually was a stronger presentation of one of the recommendations; the equipping of a second full time committee room where proceedings could be televised.

From the point of view of this debate, I will go back to the fact that my committee, which is one of 20 or 25 standing committees and subcommittees of the House, has presented over 70 reports. The normal procedure when reports come in is, if they are substantial and involve considerable changes, as this one does—and the hon. member is quite right about that—there is healthy discussion between the parties and the House leaders.

My colleague from the Reform Party is the leader in the House of his own party. Normally there is discussion about the reports because sometimes reports come in and some parties like one part and some parties like the other part. It is a healthy discussion and something comes from it.

In this case, I would suggest that healthy discussion was stifled by the Reform Party which did not take up the opening offer, as it were, of our House leader which was to go beyond one of the recommendations here and fully equip a second committee room.

It is very important that reports coming into the House be thoroughly considered. One of the best ways of doing that is for the House leaders to look at them, discuss them in great detail and then come back to the House and make recommendations which can be supported by all parties.

Although the Reform Party members express great interest in the matter, it is also of great interest to me personally as chair of the committee and to my hon. colleagues on this side of the House. It disappoints me that they did not engage in the normal dialogue that follows the tabling of a report in the Chamber.

I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I will agree with the motion on the proviso that I have the opportunity for questions and comments to the member opposite. He said some things that are quite inaccurate and I have to make some comments on them. Otherwise we will be going to a 30 minute vote.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

There is a motion before the House. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 387

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I declare the motion carried.