Debates of Feb. 16th, 2000

Gasoline Prices

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

Mr. Speaker, gasoline and diesel prices are at record levels and home heating oil has doubled. Consumers are being shafted by the OPEC cartel and the big oil companies and the Liberals do nothing about it.

Today the U.S. energy secretary ordered extra home heating oil into New England and offered emergency aid of over $250 million to help low income families pay their heating bills.

The industry minister found $20 million for millionaire hockey players, but will he do anything to help consumers being gouged by the big oil cartel, or will he allow Canadians to freeze in the dark?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to hear from a member of the New Democratic Party from Saskatchewan, knowing the responsibility that the provinces have, if they wish to do so, to impose regulations on retail pricing.

The province of Prince Edward Island has chosen to do it, but in Saskatchewan the NDP do not seem to have the will to do it. Perhaps the hon. member might like to address the question to his own government.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the Liberal government believes this issue is serious, it would call in all the provinces and all the oil companies and hammer out a solution or lay down the law. Instead, the minister passes the buck.

The Bank of Canada is warning that rising energy costs can push our inflation rate over 3%, threatening everyone from families to businesses and local school boards. Energy is the underpinning of our economy.

What is the Liberal action plan to defend our economy from OPEC and to defend Canadians from the impact of record energy prices?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, that was a lot of rhetoric. If the hon. member had looked at the newspapers he might have noticed that a year and a half ago crude prices were about $10 a barrel and today they are quoted at $30 a barrel.

I know that the NDP believes governments are omnipotent and can control world prices. I do not think that we can do that.

That is not to say that this is not a problem which consumers across Canada are concerned about. It is one which we have in fact worked on with the provinces. Provincial and federal governments have discussed this issue together.

I think it would be helpful if the hon. member did a little homework on this before rising in hysteria.

Human Resources Development

[Jean Dubé, Progressive Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of HRDC keeps referring to her riding as having pockets of unemployment which qualify for the TJF.

I called the HRDC offices in New Brunswick and when I said “pockets” they asked “What are you talking about?” They do not seem to exist in all provinces—

[The Speaker]

I ask that members address all of their remarks through the Chair, please.

[Jean Dubé, Progressive Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, why was her riding given special consideration? Why the favouritism?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member would be interested in knowing that another pocket of high unemployment was found in the riding of the hon. member for Saint John. She too got transitional jobs funds as a result of outlying high unemployment areas in that community in which opportunities were provided.

[Jean Dubé, Progressive Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday the minister responsible for HRDC used selective data for Brant to justify HRDC grants.

Let me tell the House the rest of the story for five months: August, 11.8%; September, 11.8%; October, 10.8%; and December, 11.4% With these numbers she does not qualify.

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, let me confirm that indeed the riding of Brant did qualify according to the rules.

I again stand in my place and say that I am proud, as a member of parliament, to have had these programs that have made a difference in the lives of many of my constituents. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that back home they know the value of transitional jobs funds and Canada jobs funds.

Presence In Gallery

[The Speaker]

I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of four very distinguished visitors, my brother speakers from the different provinces of Canada:

The Honourable Murray Scott, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Nova Scotia;

The Honourable George Hickes, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba;

The Honourable Ron Osika, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan; and,

The Honourable Anthony Whitford, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Points Of Order

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to inform the House that I am designating tomorrow, February 17, as an allotted day.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thought I would rise on a brief point of order related to what has been happening in question period the last few days. I rise partly out of concern for the whole House, but partly to make a specific case for the smaller parties. It is a case I have made before.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, if you have to take a lot of time standing, waiting for order, that uses up time which would otherwise go toward questions and answers. If we do not get to the so-called third round, that is to say, the third opportunity for the smaller parties, the smaller parties then lose a much larger percentage of the time for questions that is available to them than the Reform Party and the Bloc.

I submit empirically, and not in any partisan way, that it is just the nature of the place, that most of the banter, the noise and the shouting—although we contribute from time to time, the same as the Conservatives—takes place between the government and the two major opposition parties. In effect, we as a smaller party are punished for behaviour to which we are only minor contributors, if you like.

I think this accumulates day over day into a form of unfairness which I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, to address. I am asking you to be tougher with the House in this respect, in terms of order. I am pleading with my fellow House leaders and fellow colleagues. We do not need the level of racket in this place that has come to characterize it. We cannot hear each other. There is too much cheap hollering going on when people are trying to listen. I do not like a lot of the answers that are given, or for that matter a lot of the questions, but I would like to hear them. If we cannot do that, then what is the point of being here?

I implore you, Mr. Speaker, to be tougher with members. If you ask members not to say something and they say it, move on. Do not stand there and plead with them for minutes and use up minutes that belong to the smaller parties. If you ask people to move to their question and they do not move to their question, if the next sentence that comes out of their mouth is not in an interrogatory form, move on. They will get the message. They will stop doing it. I think we need less exhortation and more punishment. That is what has to happen in the House.

I would urge you, Mr. Speaker, to consider what I have said.

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but echo the same sentiments of the House leader of the New Democratic Party. There is a disproportionate price that is paid by the smaller parties as a result of the system and the process that has evolved. When question period is cut short due to the racket, it is the two last questioners in the House who inevitably lose their questions.

As has already been pointed out—and I think the government House leader would support this position—there should be an intervention on the part of the Chair because the acquiescence, in essence, hurts parties that are not causing the problem and we are paying a disproportionate price. To lose one question out of a possible five or six is a huge portion of the amount of floor time that we have in the House of Commons.

I would echo that sentiment and ask that the Chair be more diligent in interventions if questions are not posed properly. If time is being wasted we should move to the next party or the next questioner.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is something being lost, which is the fact that if members on the government side make a lot of noise and I, as was the case today, am penalized because of their noise, I cannot get my question out and I cannot make the points that I carefully considered before even asking the question. If I am then cut off and directed to move right to the question because of the misdemeanour of Liberals, that is not fair. I carefully consider what I want to put to the minister. I have a complete package and if I am cut off because of their misdemeanour that is not equitable.

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that when you consider this point of order you also consider the fact that my rights are being interfered with inappropriately when I am cut off because of noise from the government benches.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make three comments on the matter we are addressing at this time.

First of all, I must say that I feel a great deal of sympathy with the views expressed by the NDP and Progressive Conservative House leaders. I do feel that time wasted in this House results in missed opportunities for questions, not just for the two smallest opposition parties, but also for the other two opposition parties. This is indeed most regrettable.

I would, however, like you to also take into consideration the point of view expressed by our Reform Party colleague, who has just said something I am in complete agreement with. As members of the opposition, when we ask a question, we must not be taken hostage by the lack of discipline of the Liberals, which might result in question period being speeded up. We have to be careful about that.

The third point I would like to raise is that, while I have every sympathy for the point of view of the NDP House Leader, I strongly deplore the tone in which she addressed you, Mr. Speaker; it was cavalier to say the least.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let me add my thoughts to the debate on this point of order. I agree that decorum is a bulwark of democracy. Civilized behaviour during question period enhances our image in parliament.

Mr. Speaker, when you make a ruling and advise any member, whether the member occupies a position of title or not, that ruling truly must be upheld immediately. With that kind of decision, Mr. Speaker, the Speaker's chair will earn the greater respect of parliament and Canadians.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I too empathize with the House leaders from both the NDP and Tory party who have described what happens when time is wasted in abundance.

Today during the intervention by the member from Nose Hill it took nine minutes for the government side to quiet down long enough for the member to get out a truncated question because of the delaying tactics. It took nine minutes. We could sit here as quiet as mice during that time, but if the uproar continues over there, not only do the smaller parties, but all of us, including Canadians, get short shrift because other good questions get lost in the hubbub.

It is very true that sometimes when asked to go directly to a question when a member has done nothing wrong, Mr. Speaker, you can make the judgment call on who is creating the fuss. However, often when someone has been interrupted two or three times, not by any noise made on this side of the House but by standing ovations and carrying on over there, if the ruling is delivered “You are finished, go directly to your question”, that is not the fault of the member asking the question, it is the fault of the government, in this case, which chose to take up nine minutes with general hubbub and carrying on. That is not right.

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

Mr. Speaker, an important point has been raised here. I do think it is not just the responsibility of the Speaker, but it is the responsibility of all of us in the House. I think we were all encouraged when a time limit was put on questions and answers. It allowed more participation in question period and it certainly helped pick up the pace of question period. On both sides of the House there is some fault and some correction to be taken. Inflammatory language in questions simply stirs a response. Perhaps that response should be more contained than it is, but I do encourage you, Mr. Speaker, to do whatever you can.

I want to speak on behalf of Liberal members who do not usually get their first question on until at least 2.45 p.m. We are the ones who are most penalized if question period drags on longer.

I support some of the comments that have been made but I also encourage all members in the House to support you, Mr. Speaker, in trying to do your job.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a brief comment about this point of order.

I commend you for extending question period today by a few minutes. I know it is difficult for you to make that judgment call, but perhaps that is one avenue you could choose in the future. If the majority of the disturbances in question period are coming from the government side, then obviously as many have made the point, it is the opposition that primarily is penalized. If you were to extend question period by another five or ten minutes or whatever time they want to take up, I do not think it would take very many days before the government side would learn the lesson that questions will still get asked.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, certainly, when decorum is absent from our deliberations during Oral Question Period, fewer questions are asked.

It must kept in mind, however, that the objective of question period is not just to ask questions, but to get answers. The public's expectation of Oral Question Period is that it will gain a better understanding of how government and parliament operates.

I do deplore the lack of decorum, which results in not all questions getting asked. Unfortunately, answers are rarely forthcoming, and I realize this is beyond your control, Mr. Speaker, and not affected by decorum. Please excuse me for saying what I think.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

I rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I think representations to you suggesting in any way that your demeanour has not led to expeditious handling of these matters in the House would be totally unfounded. I think you have demonstrated exemplary behaviour in the way you have tried to bring order at times. I think the solution to the problem lies with members themselves on all sides of the House.

[The Speaker]

I will hear three more interventions and then I will go from there.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I think we all agree that we have confidence in the Speaker. I want to pick up on the minister's comments as well.

It is incumbent upon us as members of parliament when we are putting the question that most of us in the Chamber are mature enough to know what words are unparliamentary. When we choose that type of language we should be shut off completely from getting up and going over the question once again because it is time delay. I think both sides of the House would agree on that.

We are under time restraints as individual members. There is a 35 second limit on our questions. Mr. Speaker, I think you have been very, very good in enforcing that. Whether it is our party or some other party, including the government, but when the members use spontaneous applause and standing ovations for their members, the stopwatch should begin. If they are on their feet for 30 seconds, question period should be extended by 30 seconds.

I think a set of rules that will work are known to all of us, but we have to set the rules and live by those rules. I think we would all be supportive of that.