Debates of April 28th, 1999

Committees Of The House

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

Mr. Speaker, I tend to do that, I am sorry.

I am trying to express to the House what is in this report on sport in Canada. I am trying to express to the House what the problems are with that report.

There are two problems with that report. One of the problems is that members in the House have a great deal of difficulty understanding why it is we go into a committee meeting, a report comes into the House and it is not dealt with.

The other difficulty I am having with it is: Was it necessary for the committee on sport in Canada to travel to Toronto when in fact if it were televised it need not have made the trip?

Therefore, I am trying to express to the Chair how it is that we do not have televised committees. If we had had televised committees, we would not have had to travel to Toronto to talk about sport.

The difficulty the House is having on this side, and I know the government has had this difficulty before, is that when members of the House of Commons go to a committee, for instance the committee on sport in Canada, they expect two things: first, to have good debate on the issue, and second, that something will happen on that issue when a report is tabled in the House. We do not expect it to go into the dustbin of the House of Commons, and that is what is happening. The report on sport in Canada has gone to the bottom of the hockey bag, as my hon. colleague says.

This is much more serious than may be understood by the other side. The problem in the House of Commons is relevance. We are in the House today, and I see five members across the way—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I know that the hon. House leader of the official opposition is doing his best to remain in order, but he knows it is quite contrary to the rules to refer to the presence or absence of members of the House and I invite him to refrain from that sort of comment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. There are six. I will not do that again.

We are talking about the relevance of members of parliament. We on this side expect to attend committees, we expect work to get done, we expect a report to be produced or legislation to be returned to the House, and we expect something to be done with it.

It is no different than issues like petitions. Most people in this country understand that when a petition comes into the House of Commons virtually nothing is done with it. We have time and time again gone across the way and said “Listen, 100,000 people the other day signed a petition”, but all they get back is one letter. There is no action. We have to make changes.

The committee process is the same. We tried to make changes. We tried, for instance, to get television coverage of committees. That was one example and it could have been done at the committee on sport in Canada, but it was not.

This is what we want. It includes this particular report I am talking about. We want, as does the media, equal access to committees; not to show members' faces, but there is more work done in committees than all of the work done in the House of Commons in a week.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

That is why we are not here.

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

I hear that one member is finally backing us up. It is too bad this would not come to a vote. We could get her to vote for it. She is saying yes, and that is where they are today.

The problem is, when members go to committees and get unanimous consent on an issue, like this televised issue, they get unanimous reports, they get all-party agreement, but it comes into the House of Commons and it sits and gathers dust. That is the problem.

How do we rectify it? There are several things we could do. We could do what the media has asked. We could stand today to vote for that. If we all agreed we could allow television cameras into committees.

We had a discussion the other day at the committee on procedure and House affairs. We were discussing leaked reports, when a report had already been leaked on the leaked report.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I hesitate to interrupt the House leader again. I know that whatever discussions happened in the procedure and House affairs committee would be of great interest to all hon. members, however, I hope it has something to do with the sports committee, which is, after all, the subject of this report. I know he will want to draw us back to the report. I steer him in that direction with all enthusiasm.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am getting to that, but I have to set the stage, lay the foundation, by explaining what is wrong with the report on sport in Canada. What is wrong with the report on sport in Canada, in part, is that the report on televised committees has been ignored just as much as the report on sport in Canada.

What happens when the report is tabled in the House on sport in Canada? Where does it go? Who implements it? What standing order is changed? What legislation is changed? What is changed?

We discussed leaked reports in committee the other day. How do we get that into the House of Commons so that it means something? It is not brain surgery that we are talking about. The people on this side of the House are frustrated that the House does not work when it comes to committees. It does not work when it comes to petitions. It does not work when grassroots Canadians want some say in things.

My colleague from Fraser Valley and I spent about a month on one report in the procedure and House affairs committee. It was on televised committees. Nothing happened with the report and we are frustrated by that.

I put this question to the government, to the one member who is here. Where are these people when we want to talk to them? The lights are out over there.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. House leader promised me a few minutes ago that he would not do this again. I hope he will refrain from referring to the absence of members of the House. He knows it is against the rules. If we did this all the time there would be constant battering and bickering back and forth, and that does not lead to good debate. I know the hon. member will want to control his urges in this regard and perhaps refrain from that kind of reference.

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

Mr. Speaker, we could call quorum, but we do not want to.

If the minister, who has now come in, is all ears, I am going to repeat a couple of things for his information.

There are members of the House, including backbench members on that side, who are very concerned about the output and the genuine integrity of committees in terms of whether or not action will be taken when a report is developed in committee. These things are getting buried in the House of Commons.

We do not understand whether it is the cabinet saying “Nice report, but it is not in our interests, so go away”, or whether it is “That is busy work in a committee. You keep busy there, but do not produce anything. Just stay there and we will ignore it”. That is the concern. That is what this is all about.

I know that I have to get to sport. I am on sport, Mr. Speaker. I am telling the government that this report means zero in the House of Commons. It is going nowhere. I am trying to get through to members over there that this cannot continue to occur.

I will give one example. There was a report developed on televised committees on which all parties were in agreement. It came into the House of Commons—

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe the hon. House leader of the opposition may have mistaken the day of the week. I think he is debating the motion that he moved yesterday, not the motion he moved today.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair has been fearful that this appears to be the tenor of the debate. I have done my best to steer the hon. House leader for the opposition to sports and the subject of the report by various means. I know he will want to perhaps use as a for instance the sports report and talk about that since that is the subject of the debate.

There is a motion for concurrence before us on that particular report and I know he will want to address it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I realize the members across do not like the fact that I am trying to give relevance to a problem in committees, but you have to be a bit more patient with the issue. I cannot just stand here and talk about sport in Canada, everybody's business, leadership, partnership and accountability, without telling you what our frustration is.

This report hits the House of Commons floor and it collects dust until the government leaves office. Nothing gets done. All of those people who attended as witnesses from across the country on sport in Canada, everybody's business, think that something is going to get done and it is not. It is just a report. These folks bury it.

Our concern is for this report, the report on televised committees and the report on leaks in the House of Commons. All of those are serious issues.

The government seems to think that it is A-OK to keep our members busy in committees and, when all of their productive work is done, it can just shove it off, throw it in the garbage and say “Let us carry on with something else”. It will write a little press release if it is in its favour and that is it. It is not going to work that way any more.

The Reform Party whip, my colleague from Fraser Valley, and I are already looking at possibilities as to what we can do with committees to make them relevant.

Had the government taken the initiative from one committee, and one committee only, where there was unanimous consent on a report and done something with it, we might not be here today. We are getting darned sick and tired of busy work going on in the House of Commons when Canadian people think there is something going on. We are getting darned sick and tired of it going nowhere.

We are equally sick and tired of petitions coming into the House of Commons with 100 to 300,000 names on them and going nowhere.

This might be a majority government that can pass legislation through the House of Commons because it has more members who stand to vote, but we want more than that. We want input. We want input from grassroots Canadians to go somewhere and to be meaningful, not to be buried in committees.

Why can members across the way not get it through their thick skulls that there is more to democracy in Canada than the people who sit across the way? Only 38% of the population wants them in office and they think they can run the whole darned thing without asking anybody for any input.

I can only say this, Mr. Speaker. You can count on this issue coming up again. We are not going to let it go until we can get some changes made across the way. Either this place gets more in tune with democracy or there are going to be a lot of debates in the House on the issue.

Which is it going to be? Is it going to be the cabinet running everything, while backbenchers do as they are told? Is it going to be the committees, which bring in witnesses from right across the country and develop reports, which deal with these things, or is the government going to shove them in the garbage like it usually does? Which way is it going to be?

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my hon. colleague from Langley—Abbotsford for his thoughtful remarks on sport in Canada. This is an important issue to all Canadians. It really brings to mind the question of the function of committees in this parliament.

There was once a tradition in this place that committees, such as the committee on sport in Canada, were considered to be somewhat independent. They had the ability to operate with some degree of independence from the executive, from the cabinet and from the Prime Minister's office, which, as Professor Donald Savoie recently pointed out in his book on Canadian governance, really runs the entire cabinet as though it is just a focus group.

If the cabinet is merely a focus group, then the committees dominated by the government's majority are just pure optics and have little or no relevance to the actual policy making function of this parliament, as witnessed by this committee decision on sport in Canada.

I would ask my hon. colleague why he thinks it is that committees, such as the one on sport in Canada, have continued to see their importance and independence diminished and marginalized by a government that centralizes all power in the hands of the cabinet and the Prime Minister.

Does my colleague agree with the famous aphorism of Lord Acton that power tends to corrupt and that absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely?

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

Mr. Speaker, that was a good question from my colleague. That is what we are dealing with today.

Some people might ask what televised committees has to do with all of this. Televised committees is just a typical example, such as the report on sport in Canada.

The power of the House rests with a few people on the front benches. The backbenchers may think they have input, but we know full well that is not the case. The backbenchers go to committees and talk a great storm. They talk a great deal about what things have to change. However, they know as well as we know that once their discussions formulate into a report it comes into the House of Commons, the minister looks at it and says “I do not like this”, and it goes in the garbage and is gone.

Some of these committees work for five and six months on an issue, like the committee on drunk driving. What is the government going to do at the end of it? We have a suspicion that it is going to table these reports and leave them there to die, like the report on sport. That is what will happen to this report, like the one on televised committees.

Speaking about televised committees, we want that report dealt with. If it is a vote in the House and the government says no, so be it, but we should not leave it in the dust pile. That is what is wrong here.

In answer to my colleague's question, the problem is that this is all about democracy. This is all about Canadians who come into the House thinking they are going to have great input and change the laws of our lands through reports. They go home thinking that since they were at a committee things are surely going to change.

We had Lee Ellen Carroll and Craig Oliver at a televised committee. They thought something was going to change but it did not. The only thing that happened was that the government House leader came into a meeting that I was at and said that he would make me a deal. I asked him what kind of deal he wanted to make. He said he knew that the report on televised committees had a whole lot of recommendations but that he did not like them. What he wanted to do was make me an offer to set up another room.

When he did that we asked him why would he do it. The committee met for six weeks and the first recommendation was not to do that. It states:

To permanently equip another room for broadcasting committees, however, is not feasible or desirable at this time—

We got that offer for several reasons. I doubt the government House leader ever read the report. He did not attend any committee meetings. He was probably told by a minister to have somebody look at the report, even though he did not like it, and then threw it in the garbage. That is where it sits today.

I can tell the House that there will be a lot of discussions on this until we get some action on it. There will lots of discussions on all other reports. There will be lots of votes in the House of Commons on these issues until we get some satisfaction. That is what is going to happen.

Either we get some satisfaction or the government will have to live with a lot of discussion on the issue. What is it going to be? Are we going to listen to Canadians or are we going to listen to the cabinet over there? Instead of sitting on the backbench, we should be speaking up for Canadians.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to ask the opposition House leader a question pertaining to this report that has been tabled by the Minister of Industry on the study of sport in Canada.

As many people know, the Liberal government has provided huge tax breaks in this year's budget to millionaire hockey players. For example, an average hockey player in the NHL makes about $1.8 million Canadian and the recent budget has given these individuals a tax cut of over $13,000. The Reform Party has been fighting for tax cuts for these individuals for a long time.

The other point I would like to make is that this country has a significant tax expenditure, that is, a tax supporting system at the federal level for our professional sports franchises. For example, a hockey box that a business would buy at a hockey arena for the Ottawa Senators, the Montreal Canadians or the Toronto Maple Leafs costs a business person about $100,000. He or she gets to write that off against taxable income which costs the taxpayers approximately $25,000 to $30,000 per box. This is not for the whole arena but per box per year. We are looking at literally tens of millions of dollars of tax supported sports franchises currently.

Does the Reform Party continue to support those great tax breaks for the wealthy? Does the hon. member intend to keep pushing for additional tax breaks for the NHL franchise teams which are in jeopardy in Canada right now?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. I think virtually everyone in the country knows where the Reform Party stands on taxes. Lower taxes are an absolute must for everyone. A flatter tax would help.

We know that taxes of all kinds kill jobs. We have sons and daughters today who are waking up to that. I have two myself. On just got a job as a digital animator in Vancouver. He has had the job for nine or ten months. He phoned me the other day and said, “Dad, there is something wrong here. I make x dollars and I am not getting much back in return”. I said, “Welcome to the real world, son”. He had an offer from Seattle for a job, making about the same amount of money with a tax rate almost half of ours.

What is wrong in this country is that the tax rate is too high. In particular, we need a flatter tax rate to address that particular issue. What can we say? The taxes the Liberals have put on this country since 1993 are oppressive. Young people are hurting with the tax rates.

[An hon. member]

They are strangling our economy.

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

That is right.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in debate on this most important motion. I move:

That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.