Debates of March 16th, 2000

Business Of The House

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think we have had quite a bit of kerfuffle over the last week or so. We have had extended hours. We have had day and night sittings. Given that the time allocation and all the other things are behind us, I hope after today we are into a new era in the House.

Could the government House leader tell us the business for the rest of this week and for next week? In particular perhaps he would address the fact that we have several supply days coming up in a row next week. If there is a supply day on Wednesday, I wonder if he has any plans to ask to extend the hours to make that more of a regular supply day so that we can have a good debate on the issue of the day.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all let me read the business statement and then I will gladly answer as well the very important issue raised by the Leader of the Opposition in the House.

The business for the next week is actually quite straightforward. The opposition House leader has alluded to it. There are several supply days to proceed with between now and the end of the supply period. Friday, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday shall be allotted days.

Next Thursday I hope that we can deal with the Senate amendments to Bill C-6. I intend to raise this at the House leaders meeting on Tuesday. In any event I would also like to proceed probably even beforehand with the following pieces of legislation: Bill C-10 on municipal grants; Bill C-12, the amendments to the Canada Labour Code, and I understand that a number of members of the House have made representations to proceed with this bill; and Bill C-13 on the health institutes.

On the conduct of business next Wednesday, given that the day as the hon. member has mentioned is somewhat shorter than other days when we do allotted days, I would be prepared to negotiate with other House leaders to offer an extension on that day to make it at least somewhat more similar to other days. Of course that would have to be arrived at by consent. But I think certainly on our side of the House we are favourably disposed to doing that.

Points Of Order

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House and repeated again today in response to questions on whether Alberta's Bill 11 violates the Canada Health Act, the health minister said, “If the hon. member has a legal opinion with respect to it now, I wish she would share that with the House”.

I have two legal opinions commissioned by the Canadian Union of Public Employees, one by Joseph Arvay and Murray Rankin with an opinion on a number of issues in relation to the Canada Health Act particularly regarding the proposed Alberta health care protection act, Bill 11. The second is by Steven Shrybman and is called “A Legal Opinion Concerning NAFTA Investment and Services Disciplines and Bill 11: Proposals by Alberta to Privatize the Delivery of Certain Insured Health Care Services”.

Both documents give the opinion that Bill 11 violates the spirit of the Canada Health Act. Given what the Minister of Health has said in the House, I would ask for unanimous consent to table both documents.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to table the documents?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House, while the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs was giving his speech on Bill C-20, I heard some particularly offensive and pejorative, not to say racist, language.

I am certain that the member who used the expression “bras de nègre”—

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is possible that the hon. member used words in the House that were perhaps disagreeable to her and perhaps even to other members, but the Standing Orders are very clear: a point of order or question of privilege must be raised as soon as possible. This should have been done yesterday and, in my opinion, it is too late today. I hope that we can disregard the problem, if indeed there is one, because it is a bit too late now to raise the matter.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it regrettable that the member for Joliette should not have an opportunity to withdraw these words, because I am certain that he would have wished to do so. But I—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Joliette has undoubtedly heard what the hon. member said and I think that we should consider the matter closed for now.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that earlier the member for Louis-Hébert rose on a point of order concerning what happened this morning in the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I wish to tell the government House leader that I also understand that we cannot intervene when the report is not finished.

However, I wish to point out that the entire issue debated this morning concerned the agenda. It is difficult to prepare a report when the chair does not even respect the points previously agreed to.

The problem is as follows: on December 15, 1999, the committee had already considered a decision and a majority of it had agreed that, this morning, the chair of the committee was to authorize witnesses being invited so that this point could be discussed. But this morning, the committee literally refused to discuss this issue, and it is important—

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. I agree with the hon. member that it is important, but the points he is raising are exactly the same ones the hon. member for Louis-Hébert raised.

I have already made a ruling on this, and it is up to the committee. Committees are masters in their own house, as we say in English, although the way I said it in French may not be the right way. However, committees can reach decisions on these matters, and when a report is tabled in the House after consideration in committee, a ruling will be made.

If some hon. members have problems with the behaviour of a committee or its chair, or anything of that sort, this must be raised in committee, not here in the House. We are not a court of appeal for the committees, except in very specific circumstances, which are given in this excellent work one could spend a whole afternoon consulting.

I would encourage the hon. member to do so, instead of raising this matter in the House at this time.

[Derrek Konrad, Reform, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on two points of orders which both relate to things that took place during Oral Question Period today.

Earlier the hon. member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore was chastised by you for using a prop in the House of Commons. Following that, a question was posed by the member for Mississauga South to the justice minister who basically advertised a book he had written so that all could see it and it would be on camera.

Given that the debate today on a point of order evolves around a perception of a lack of impartiality displayed by the Speaker, I think that also should have received a rebuke.

Second, in the last number of days the Speaker has disallowed several questions posed by the official opposition on the grounds that they were irrelevant to government policy. Today, the member for Brampton Centre questioned the finance minister on the implications of the Alberta tax move toward a single rate tax and never made any connection to government policy.

Neither the questioner nor the answerer, and I use the term loosely, made any effort. This appears to be an abuse of the time allotted to members for asking questions of national import of the government. That question should have been disallowed and we should have moved directly to the next questioner so we could get on with holding the government accountable for the use of taxpayer money.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am pleased to deal with both points of order. The first relates to the use of props. The hon. member is quite correct that the Minister of Justice did make improper use of the prop and she received proper chastisement from the Chair from the point of view of my finger.

In fairness, I was suspicious when I saw the minister pick up the book but I thought she was going to quote from it, which of course would have been proper use of the book had that been the case. She did not. She only held it up and that is why she got a finger lashing from the Chair.

I know that hon. members quail at the prospect. The member for Edmonton North has quailed before when that has happened to her, which is very seldom of course, and I know the Minister of Justice felt the same nervousness. She knows that it is wrong to have done that. A flag is a different thing from a book. One cannot read a flag to the House and that is why I was quick to jump in and it was too late to do anything else.

With respect to the second issue, the hon. member points out that perhaps the Chair should have been a little more vigilant and ruled the question about the flat tax out of order. However, it is fair to say that the Minister of Finance from public accounts in the newspaper has been urged to adopt a flat tax in Ottawa as part of the national tax policy. I suspected that the question having to do with the imposition of a flat tax in another province was perhaps tied into the possible adoption of such a policy at the national level and accordingly allowed the question.

Given the nature of the answer perhaps that was unwise, but the minister had his day and that was that. I cannot answer for any other question periods since I am usually not in attendance.

I thank all hon. members for an entertaining number of points of order this afternoon and we will now go to orders of the day.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

House Of Commons

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Edmonton North.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thought a member of the Bloc Quebecois would resume the debate after Oral Question Period.

[The Speaker]

We are following the same order as we do during debates. I have the list here. The last member to rise was a Liberal; it is now the turn of a Reform member. The Bloc Quebecois will have its turn in due course.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address this historic debate. It is not a debate that I take joy in addressing. However it is one that I believe is crucial to the future of this very institution. As I have stated many times in this place, one of the main reasons I was motivated to run for office was the need for parliamentary reform.

The motion brought forward by the Bloc today strikes at the very heart of the democratic foundation the House is built upon. In the six years I have been in this place, I have witnessed the rights and power of individual members of parliament systematically eroded. This power grab is especially troubling in this parliament where the government has a mere 38% of the popular vote. In an effort to protect its slim majority and to impose its legislative agenda upon Canadians, the government has put its agenda ahead of democracy.

It is your job, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that this does not happen. You have been entrusted with upholding the traditions and practices of the House of Commons, and I say with all due respect that these traditions have eroded under your watch.

Points of privilege have been raised on numerous occasions by members of the opposition. Few have ever been recognized as such by the Chair. A great number of these grievances have been made regarding the government leaking information to the media that is meant for the House and the government implementing measures in legislation before that legislation is even passed. This mocks and misrepresents the role of parliament.

The defence against this attack on the institution of parliament began in 1989, long before you occupied the chair, Mr. Speaker. On October 10, 1989, over the GST controversy, the hon. member for Windsor West, now the Deputy Prime Minister, was quoted in Speaker Fraser's ruling as saying that it was clearly contempt of parliament to misrepresent the role of this House. Speaker Fraser went on to say:

I want the House to understand very clearly that if your Speaker ever has to consider a situation like this again, the Chair will not be as generous.

On November 6, 1997 the present Speaker, when ruling on the controversy surrounding the government's setting up the Canada Pension Plan Board before the legislation was passed authorizing the government to do so, said:

—the Chair acknowledges that it is a matter of potential importance since it touches the role of members as legislators, a role which should not be trivialized. The dismissive view of the legislative process, repeated often enough, makes a mockery of our parliamentary conventions and practices. I trust that today's decision at this early stage of the 36th Parliament will not be forgotten by the minister and his officials and that the department and agencies will be guided by it.

I personally raised the matter regarding the Canadian Wheat Board on February 3, 1998. Nothing was done.

We had the naming of the head of the Canadian Millennium Scholarship Foundation before there was legislation setting up the foundation. It was raised in a question of privilege by the hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill, and the Speaker did nothing.

It was not that long ago when the Minister for International Trade on March 30, 1998 sent out a press release entitled “Marchi Meets with Chinese Leaders in Beijing and Announces Canada-China Interparliamentary Group”. At that time there was no Canada-China interparliamentary group. The minister gave the impression to some one billion people in China that the association existed when parliament had not as yet approved it. Again this was raised and the Speaker's ruling on November 6, 1997 was referred to. Nothing was done.

On April 20, 1999 the matter of the government leaking a government response to a report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs was raised in the House. The next day the government House leader apologized for the leak and assured the House that it would not happen again.

The very next day after the apology the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development stood in the House and quoted from an in camera meeting. There is a litany of cases of leaked committee reports that goes unchecked and unchallenged.

The Prime Minister announced the date of this year's budget outside the chamber. As far as I know this has never been done. It has always been announced in the House.

The most recent case is the leaking of Bill C-23. The act to modernize benefits was given to EGALE before being tabled in the House, allowing an interest group time to release a detailed analysis of the bill before the critic of my party could even see the bill. The member raised it and the Speaker, in my opinion, ignored it.

A number of my colleagues from all parties spoke today of their frustration with the way in which the government operates. I think that is what is being expressed today in this motion.

In all of these cases, the Speaker made speeches on the integrity of parliament yet never took action to protect it. Only on two occasions did the Speaker find it necessary to recognize the severity of a point of privilege; one, involving the former member for Charlesbourg regarding the formation of a Quebec militia, and the other was to censure two members of the official opposition who criticized the Speaker in public.

On numerous occasions the Speaker was called on to defend the integrity of the House and, in my opinion, did not do so.

Each member who is present tonight will be called on to make a very personal decision. First, whether to vote strictly on the basis of the motion or whether to vote based on their perceived opinion of whether or not the Speaker has ruled in an impartial and neutral manner during his tenure.

Second, individual members, if they decide the vote is not limited to the actual motion before the House, will be called on to wrestle with their own conscience as to whether they should vote to censure the Speaker, support him or abstain.

Third, members will have to decide for themselves, should they choose to vote in favour of censuring the Speaker, if their dissatisfaction is more with the Speaker or the government's abuse of power and the Speaker's inability to deal with that abuse.

As I said earlier during my interventions on this debate, I urge all members to consider this matter to be of the utmost importance. I am sure they do. I urge all members in all parties to consider this a real free vote of conscience. Each member will have to grapple with their own conscience because this is an issue of paramount importance to this place.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was amazed by the remarks of the whip for the Reform Party. He said that during the vote we should judge the Speaker on the basis of his tenure since his election.

Let me caution the whip of the Reform Party. The motion before us is very clear on the timeframe with which this motion has been placed. The timeframe relates to the question of privilege and the question of points of order raised by the Bloc Quebecois around March 1, 2000 and for which the Speaker made a ruling on on March 13. It is only around that time, as premised in this motion before us, that we should base our vote of conscience as to whether we must indeed censure the Speaker. I would caution all members to do this with deliberate care. To go beyond the letter of the motion will set a dangerous precedent. We will not be honest with ourselves and we will not be true to our intellect. We will be guided by our emotion and not by reason.

This House is a place for debate and a place where we can vent issues. However, to suggest that we can vote on the basis of the Speaker's tenure following his election and not on the basis of the timeframe within this motion is setting a dangerous precedent. I appeal to members not to do this. We can vote in the way we would like to vote but let us vote intelligently on the basis of the timeframe contained in this motion before us. How would the member explain this?

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

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member across the way had been listening to my remarks he would know the answer before he made his intervention.

I do not take this lightly at all and I do not think the House does. This is not a normal proceeding. This is something that comes up very seldom, as well it should.

I stand by my words. I believe that different members at different times vote on different things in the House in different ways. However, it is up to each of us to decide what is meant by our vote and defend that to our constituents when called upon to do so.

I reject the fact that all we can do with this particular motion is focus strictly on the motion. If we were to do that, if we were to judge this solely on the basis of the motion in front of us, in my estimation what we would be doing is disavowing everything and every rule that you have ever made, Mr. Speaker, and our feelings about that, whether we support those rulings or not.

I do not want to see a case where every time we turn around someone is bringing forward a motion like this; a different party or a different member. This is serious business. This is not something where every time the Chair rules on a point of privilege or a point of order and we get upset about it because we did not get our own way, that we will bring forward a motion to censure the Speaker. This is much too serious for that.

I think everyone knows that because, to my understanding, the last time this happened was in 1956, a long time ago. That is why in my presentation I said that it was up to each and every one of us to decide what we will base our vote on tonight, to take it very seriously and to very clearly understand in our own minds why we will be voting the way we will and to be prepared to defend that to our colleagues, and, if it is a true free vote, to our colleagues in our own party, to our colleagues in this chamber from all parties and, most importantly, to defend it to our constituents.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and address this today and most specifically to thank you for being in the Chair. I think that is important. The most important part about it is the fact that you are sitting in the Chair and that you, probably more than anyone, realizes that this is not about two specific little rulings. This is something that is huge, as my colleague has just mentioned. I think all of us, and especially yourself, should realize what an enormous issue this is.

By way of introduction I want to say that I appreciate everyone's views on this. This certainly goes beyond partisan politics. I know our caucuses had a lengthy discussion about this. Everyone in the House needs to pay particular attention to this. In fact, my own House leader in his remarks this morning talked about the big issue here of government arrogance. He thinks that because the government has had maybe a little too much free rein with too much closure and too much time allocation, a change in the standing orders may be something that should be addressed. I appreciate that and I respect that.

Mr. Speaker, this motion is about you. You know it, I know it and that is why you have been sitting in the Chair all day.

I will go back several years, Mr. Speaker. You and I have both been in the House for several years. You will remember when I came in 1989 we both sat under a different Speaker, Speaker Fraser, who I appreciated very much. I did not get my way all the time. I was treated as an Independent then, but I do remember John Fraser taking me into his chambers and saying, “You have been elected fairly and squarely, and even though you are sitting as an Independent, I have to respect you and treat you that way”.

When you ran after the 1993 election, Mr. Speaker—and I guess we can be honest with each other—you and I both know exactly how and why it is you are sitting in the Chair. There were discussions, everyone had a vote and we supported you. I am not complaining about everything you have done over the years. Frankly, I cannot imagine anyone even wanting your job. I do not know why you went for it but you did and you have sat through a couple of very awkward parliaments, because of the separatist issue more than anything we might think about. We have had very raucous times in the House since you became the Speaker.

Aside from all that, I think we need to look specifically at some of the decisions that you have made. I will not quote at great length from Hansard because I want to speak from my heart today. I could go back to times—before the flag flap and I was still here as an independent member of parliament and the only representative of my party—when we were not allowed to even question anything that the Speaker did.

You and I, Mr. Speaker, if we go back, will remember the time I did an interview and someone asked me if I thought the Speaker was being ruled or whatever by the Liberals. I remember making the comment that perhaps some decisions do look like the Speaker is in the hip pocket of the government. You will remember all too well that when I got on a plane later that day you tracked me to Alberta and you tracked me all weekend and then the day I came back you will remember what you told me, Mr. Speaker.

Now, not many years later, it seems like it is just free rein and it has become very public. There have been page-long interviews about you and some of the decisions that have been made. I do not think it is fair that we can go around willy-nilly and say that the Speaker ruled against me. Dear knows, you have ruled against me many times and you have had every right to. I respect that, Mr. Speaker. Because I am quick-tongued and I am mischievous you have to do that sometimes. I respect that. You know that and I honour that. However, that does not give me the right to say that it was not fair, that he was hard on me so I will bring forward a motion of censure. That is ridiculous and cannot happen every second Tuesday.

You will also remember, Mr. Speaker, a huge thing. Let me just make reference to the flag flap. I do not want to use props, dress up or do fancy things, but there was something that just cut to the quick of my heart when someone, first of all, equivocated for far too long on that issue and then said “No, you cannot display your flag”. If I am proud of my flag, darn it, I want to stand on the roof top. I do not want someone else who happens to dislike my flag to be able to rule over this place and have you under their influence to tell me that I cannot be proud of it. That was the flap and you remember it. We were all probably glad to get through those days.

Probably the most dangerous or frightening one I see is that our legal counsel people have been muffled. You and I are not lawyers, Mr. Speaker, but we know that when lawyers take an oath of confidentiality they mean it. Now I think that not only have we been compromised with the legislative counsel decisions that you have made, but I think these lawyers themselves, who are proud, passionate people and serve this place to the best of their ability, are probably agonizing about the oath they took as a lawyer. I think that your decisions have compromised them.

Would you, Mr. Speaker, like to tell a doctor in this place “You cannot live by, in your very gut, the Hippocratic oath that you took?” You know they could not do that, Mr. Speaker. We were all here when Shaughnessy Cohen dropped among us. It was devastating for us. How can you say to a doctor, “Oh, no”. How can you say to a lawyer “No, I am sorry, the oath of confidentiality that you took just does not matter any more. Partisanship overrides it”. There is something frightening about that and I think something dangerous as well.

I will finish up because we do not have much time to address this and I want other people to be given a chance. Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, because you realize that this is such a serious issue, and I do too, that I have very serious concerns about the very democratic rights of every member in this House regardless of political stripe and so should you.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make the observation. The member brought up the issue of the flag flap. I remember that very well as well. She uses that as an example of an improper decision on your part, a bad decision I guess she is suggesting. Anyway, it is a decision that she certainly does not agree with. I do not know what she is exactly questioning but she is using it as an example to question your integrity as a Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I was there when you ruled on the flag situation and I agreed with your ruling.

What are we to say? Are we going to be questioning your right to sit in the chair? Are we questioning your integrity because members on the opposite side disagree with you when in fact members on this side agree with you? No matter what, when you are a referee or a judge or looking on and trying to make decisions involving human beings, not just human beings in this Chamber but human beings in the entire country, then there is no black and white. There is always going to be disagreement.

I ask the member what is the point of bringing up the fact that you ruled in a way she did not agree with on the flag debate as an example of why you do not belong in the chair at this time?

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, of course you know also that was just one example that I used.

If I could answer in the clearest shortest way possible, I am a July 1 baby and I happened to care pretty deeply about that so I did disagree with your position, but I did not bring forward a motion of censure on the Speaker. I thought I made that very clear in my speech. There are all kinds of things that you have ruled on that I have disagreed with. Who cares? Some of us agree, some of us disagree. That is fine. The member over there can certainly have his decision and say he agreed with you. That is great. I disagreed with you. I got my say. I did not get my way. That is fine. I respect that.

The actual point I referred to about the flag flap decision was the fact that you equivocated for three weeks about it. You probably went through more pain than any of the rest of us. I am not sure if it was three weeks but it was a long time. Who am I to give you advice but if you asked for it, I would probably say the quickest decision is always the best decision. Maybe not the spur of the moment decision but think it through.

I guess I have to go back to high school, Mr. Speaker. You know that if we had students who were misbehaving we could not tell them to just sit there for a while and we will come back by the Easter holiday. You know that if there is to be punishment or a decision to be made they will respect us as teachers better if we think it through, then come back and be decisive. We know that.

The flag flap was just one example. Maybe it was not the best but it is the one I was thinking of because I happen to be wildly in love with those two Canadian flags hanging beside you. They are gorgeous.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious topic we are discussing today. It brings emotions to the surface and we recount different applications of rulings that you have made.

Actually all three of us share the same former profession as teachers. Over time there is application of the rules and there is a person who is in the place of determining the ruling or application of rules to one team or another team, to one side or another side. What would my colleague's perception be on the application of the rules fairly to all groups, whether that be members of different parties in this place or two different teams in a sporting event? How might that factor into this debate as well in the perceived application of the rules fairly to all members from all sides?