Debates of Oct. 4th, 2002

Committee Business and Reinstatement of Government Bills

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Call in the members.

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

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I declare the motion lost.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is clear in this House that the rules state when a vote is taken all members of the House must be in their seats at that time. Even though we lost the vote on this one the precedent can be dangerously set, Madam Speaker, if you allow the member for Peterborough's vote to stand. He was not in his seat. He does not deserve the right to vote on this particular aspect.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

On a point of order, the hon. Minister of Industry.

[David Collenette, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Minister of Transport, Madam Speaker. I mean, do I have hair, Madam Speaker? Am I running for the leadership?

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Everybody is running for leader these days.

[David Collenette, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Congratulations, Madam Speaker, I will see you on the court. I have noticed, contrary to the days of yore, that this particular rule is being applied somewhat laxly and therefore I thought that one could come into the seat as long as one's side was not starting to vote, but I have consulted with my colleague, the government House leader, who deems that my vote was inappropriate. I ask that it be withdrawn.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you are on the wrong track with the Minister of Transport. I do not know what the Standing Orders say about excuses, and it is not easy for me to explain with you in the chair where I was, but I was in a small room off the foyer and could not in fact get here in time. I withdraw my vote.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

We appreciate that the Minister of Transport in his honesty did say that he was not in his chair while voting. The rule does apply. Members have to be in their chairs when the vote is actually called, from the beginning. Accordingly, the vote is yeas 46, nays 51. I declare the motion defeated.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have a real problem with this place today because of the fact that Parliament has become so irrelevant when we look at the number of members present for the vote and the fact that the government is trying to jam through legislation and introduce bills that Canadians do not want. The government is making announcements outside the House. It never uses ministers' statements.

It is really very unfortunate that the House is behaving in this way. We need to make very sure that the House works on behalf of Canadians. We need to be here to debate the issues, to make thoughtful decisions and to vote the wishes of our constituents to make sure that Canadians have the best possible rules and laws. I really deplore the fact that Parliament has become so irrelevant that members here actually believe that we might as well just adjourn and go away. It is really sad that this has happened and the blame for that lies entirely on the side of the government. Two weeks into September, the Prime Minister said he did not think he wanted the inconvenience of Parliament, or else it had just become an annoyance to him, so it was postponed for two weeks.

There is a whole bunch of issues we should be dealing with. We think of the farm crisis. We think of the falling dollar. We think of the crisis with our families and children. We think of child pornography. Why can we not be seized with that matter and solve the problem?

Instead, the Prime Minister just said that the government would wait two weeks and come up with a throne speech. The throne speech of course was the most limp throne speech ever, just a regurgitation of a whole bunch of things which were either previously promised and not kept or which are just not high on the people's agenda.

It is very unfortunate that Parliament has degenerated to this level. I am very sorry that we cannot function as a real genuine board of directors for the company called Canada and do so in dignity, in great respect and with great honour. I will simply close my speech by saying that I deplore what this Liberal government is doing to the reputation of Parliament.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Madam Speaker, I just want to say that much as I respect the member opposite for his kind contributions to this place, I think that when we constantly put it down and constantly deride this place for partisan reasons, and his speech was very partisan, we do a disservice not only to this place but to all Canadians and to this country.

In fact we on this side feel just as passionately about Parliament and the need to debate issues, and we do debate issues. I wish that the member opposite would find another way to score a political point.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, I respect the hon. member opposite as well. I appreciate his expression of his respect for me. However the fact of the matter is that this place has become totally non-functional.

Whenever we want to address a problem and solve it, we are totally stymied, whether it is in committee or whether it is in the House. I know that it tends to feed the lowering of the respect for this place in the public. However if it is the truth, we need to correct it in this place and then ensure that the people of Canada know it has been corrected.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Secretary of State (Rural Development) (Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario)]

Madam Speaker, in a similar vein, as with my colleague, I too respect the member. He spends a lot of time working very hard in the House and as a parliamentarian, and I respect that. However there is an inconsistency here.

He talked about a number of very important issues, and I share with him that they are important issues. However, if we go back and look at the transcript of question period today, we would see that the Alliance did not ask many questions on what he himself identifies as important issues. We have had a debate on the Speech from the Throne and there have been many opportunities to bring forward these issues.

As I said, I respect the member, but the inconsistency is this. I believe he just got up a couple of minutes ago to vote for adjournment rather than to have the House continue to debate the issues. Therefore, it is tough to say on the one hand that he wants Parliament to work and that he wants us to deal with those issues, then on the other hand, a few minutes ago, stand in his place and vote to stop this place from operating before the time it is due to adjourn. Could explain that inconsistency?

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a very good question and I appreciate that. Why did I vote in favour of the adjournment of the House? Because of the fact that we somehow have to club the government on the head in order for it to understand what is going on.

Does the government and that member think that a minister of the Crown giving untendered, sole source contracts to his friends, his official agent, is irrelevant? Is he suggesting that we should go to the Canadian people and tell them that now has become the norm and that is what the government is defending. Is he saying that we should leave it, that it is fine and that we should go on and talk about other things? If that is what the government members are willing to defend, no wonder Canadians are not showing up at the polls to vote. No wonder people are losing faith in the Canadian government. It is time that we fix that.

I would love to be on that side of the House. I would love to be a minister. I am looking forward to the time when I can write a memorandum to every member in the department of which I am a minister and say that if there is any political interference with the process of procurement, they will not only be permitted to but will be obliged to make that public, to expose it and to stop it because it is totally wrong and it is shameful.

Yet the government says we should let it be and that we should talk about something else. Then it comes in and invokes closure as soon as the new parliamentary session begins.

I am afraid I cannot apologize. I do not think that us voting in favour of adjournment of the House on a Friday afternoon when it is irrelevant is much different from the Prime Minister saying, “Let's shut down Parliament for two weeks while I continue my golf game”.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have listened to the member for Elk Island debate in the House many times. I think he is present for many of the debates and he takes an interest in all of the matters that are before the House.

I rarely agree with the member for Elk Island but in these circumstances today, he has made some very interesting observations. He has laid out very well that as an opposition member, whether it is himself or myself or other members of the opposition, we operate in this place with incredibly restrictive rules that are generally laid down by the government. We look for every opportunity to move and stretch those rules to bring some sort of balance into the House to ensure that the opposition is heard.

Therefore, I entirely agree with the comments the member has made and I am frankly very surprised that the government members would be so concerned about a member voting to adjourn and then voting another way. Surely they must have some political smarts about these things and understand what the role of an opposition is. We are doing our job.

In the business that is before the House today we will use every opportunity and every procedure that we can to ensure that there is a little balance that is brought to the debate in the House. That is a very fair point. I congratulate the member for Elk Island, which I have never done before and I do not think I will ever do again.

Would he care to illuminate on some of his concerns about the motion? I would be most interested to hear further what he has to say, which is a surprise to me because I have never been interested in what he has said before. I am suddenly extremely interested in what he has to say.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is like salt and pepper. There were insults and compliments mixed tightly together. I regret that she has never been able to agree with me before but I suppose I will keep on talking and she will eventually come to her senses. There, I have had my shot in.

However, it is really important. I remember in the previous Parliament when we had that very long vote on the Nisga'a agreement. Some people thought that was acting foolishly. The House leader for the government is applauding this.

Why did we do that? This was an issue of such great importance to people in British Columbia and to people right across the country. We said to the government it could not just jam it through. What did it do? It invoked closure right off the bat.

[An hon. member]

Just like today.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Just like today.

The government said that it would not discuss Nisga'a or debate it. It was going to jam it through. We said that it was so important that in one way or another we were going to spend a week on it. We asked the government to allow us to debate it according to the House rules, so we could express ourselves and so Canadians could express themselves. The government said no, that it would not do it. Then it turned around and said our using the week for voting was foolish. I contend that its use of forcing us to use that tactic instead of using it for debates in the House was where the foolishness was, and that is what we need to correct.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is more like it. It is all about the opposition attacking the government. The reason for my original intervention was the member for Elk Island was attacking Parliament. I realize, when I hear the debate that has ensued, that he really meant to be attacking the government. We have to, as parliamentarians, protect this institution because we are extremely fortunate as Canadians to have a place where we can engage in this type of debate and rhetorical conflict.

If I may say so, what gave me great joy was not just that the opposition members were attacking the government but that they were attacking one another. That is Parliament at its superb best.