Debates of Oct. 4th, 2002

Points of Order

[The Speaker]

Before I call orders of the day I wish to indicate to the House that I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised yesterday morning by the hon. member for Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar concerning Motion No. 2 on the order paper standing in the name of the Minister of State and the Leader of the Government in the House, relating to the reinstatement of business from the 1st session of the 37th Parliament.

I wish to thank the hon. member for Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar for raising the matter and the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader, the hon. member for Fraser Valley, the hon. member for Lakeland and the hon. member for Prince George--Bulkley Valley for their comments and the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough for his submission on this matter.

The hon. member for Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar, in raising the matter, argued that this motion for reinstatement of business contains four separate and distinct parts. She objected to the fact of having only one debate and one vote when the House is being asked to decide on four subjects and she asked the Speaker to divide the motion to permit separate decisions to be taken on each subject.

The government House leader pointed out through his parliamentary secretary that the unifying principle of the motion was to allow several matters to be taken up in this session at the point they had reached at the conclusion of the previous session.

The hon. member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar cited page 478 of Marleau and Montpetit which states:

When a complicated motion comes before the House (for example, a motion containing two or more parts each capable of standing on its own), the Speaker has the authority to modify it and thereby facilitate decision-making for the House.

The passage goes on to state that any member may object to a motion that contains two or more distinct propositions and he or she may request that the motion be divided and that each proposition be debated and voted on separately. Ultimately it is the Chair who must make the determination with a view to ensuring an orderly debate on the subject matter before the House.

The matter of dividing a complicated motion has previously arisen in the House. On June 15, 1964, Mr. Speaker MacNaughton, ruled on a request to divide a government motion regarding a new Canadian flag. After an erudite review of the precedents in British and Canadian parliamentary practice, the Speaker stated the following:

I must come to the conclusion that the motion before the House contains two propositions and since strong objections have been made to the effect that these two propositions should not be considered together, it is my duty to divide them.

I cite the Journals for Monday, June 15, 1964, at page 431.

On April 10, 1991, Mr. Speaker Fraser took a somewhat different approach when ruling on a request to divide a government motion to amend the standing orders of the House. Rather than intervening to divide the motion, he ruled that a single debate would be held on the motion, and its components would be separated into three questions for voting purposes.

Research into Canadian practice reveals few instances where a Speaker has moved to divide a motion. In my view, this indicates that the Chair must exercise every caution before intervening in the deliberations of the House in the manner requested in this instance.

After having carefully examined the precedents and after having reviewed the arguments on both sides of the question, I am inclined to agree that Government Business Item No. 2 does, indeed, present an instance where the Chair is justified in taking some action.

In light of the complex nature of Motion No. 2, it is my ruling that the issues related to the reinstatement of business from the first session to the second session will be debated together but will be the subject of two separate votes.

Specifically, one vote will be held on the matters of the laying on the table of evidence adduced by standing and special committees and the proposal for the reinstatement of government bills; and one vote will be held on matters related to the reappointment of the Special Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs in Canada, the terms of its membership, its powers and its reporting date.

Finally, there is the matter of empowering the finance committee to travel in consideration of the prebudget consultations set out in Standing Order 83(1). In the view of the Chair, this motion is not, strictly speaking, a matter of reinstating unfinished business. Rather it is a motion to consider a sessional order relating to the work of a standing committee whose members have yet to be determined and which has yet to be organized. Our usual practice is to adopt travel motions on a case-by-case basis. I believe that this practice should apply in this case. The motion will therefore constitute a stand-alone motion to be debated and voted on separately.

I hope this ruling will permit the House to debate the matters raised originally in Motion No. 2 in an orderly fashion, to propose amendments, if members wish to do so, and to take decisions that reflect hon. members' differences on these topics.

I thank all hon. members for their attention and their assistance in this matter.

[Carol Skelton, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate all the work you did. Seeing that we have a new proposal on the table, does it not require 48 hours on the table so we can draft our amendments to the motion?

[The Speaker]

I think all I have done is sever the motion. Members, of course, were free to move amendments to what was there. I have divided the motion in two. I think the practical effect of my ruling, as the hon. member will see, is to take the last paragraph out of the motion. Everything else is there but we will have the opportunity to have two different votes, as I indicated in the ruling. When the matter comes to a vote, whenever the debate concludes, instead of just one division there will be two. It is a bonanza.

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was just wondering, at the start of your presentation on your ruling, was that an erudite review that was conducted to come to that conclusion?

[The Speaker]

That is for the House to decide not for the Speaker.

Committee Business and Reinstatement of Government Bills

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

moved:

That, in order to provide for the resumption and continuation of the business of the House begun in the previous Session of Parliament it is ordered:

1. That any evidence adduced by any Standing or Special Committee on any matter not reported upon in the previous Session shall be deemed to have been laid upon the Table in the present Session;

2. That during the first thirty sitting days of the present Session of Parliament, whenever a Minister of the Crown, when proposing a motion for first reading of a public bill, states that the said bill is in the same form as a bill introduced by a Minister of the Crown in the previous Session, if the Speaker is satisfied that the said bill is in the same form as at prorogation, notwithstanding Standing Order 71, the said bill shall be deemed in the current Session to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation of the previous Session.

That, in order to provide for the resumption and continuation of the business of the House begun in the previous Session of Parliament it is ordered:

That a special committee of the House be appointed to consider the factors underlying or relating to the non-medical use of drugs in Canada and make recommendations with respect to the ways and means by which the government can act, alone or in its relations with governments at other levels, in the reduction of the dimensions of the problems involved in such use;

That the membership of the committee be the same as the membership of the Special Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs at the time of prorogation of the First Session of the present Parliament, provided that substitutions may be made from time to time, if required, in the manner provided for in Standing Order 114 (2);

That the committee shall have all of the powers granted to Standing Committees in Standing Order 108; and

That the committee shall present its final report no later than November 22, 2002.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to government Motion No. 2 which states, as you have indicated, a number of issues. I will not repeat them all but I will quote selectively from the motion to indicate its purpose.

The first component of course is to reinstate the bills as they were in the last session, or at least at the conclusion of the preceding stage. I will describe later how this has been done for many years and in many cases was not even subject to a division vote.

The second component is that a special committee of the House be appointed to look at the issue of the non-medical use of drugs. As a matter of fact this proposal was initially brought by an opposition member, to whom I pay tribute because he has been giving a lot of time to this issue, as of course have members on all sides of the House. Presumably then, reinstating that which was a good idea in the beginning must be, similarly, a good idea.

The third component is to empower the finance committee to travel and to hear the views of Canadians on what should be in the upcoming budget. Again, members from across the way have been clamouring for a budget. Presumably, getting the input from Canadians as quickly as possible in order to prepare a budget that reflects the views of Canadians must be a good idea, otherwise people would be left with the conclusion that there was a little less than total sincerity on the other side of the House when this was asked for. That would be a shocking thing, because it has not happened yet in the last 10 minutes, but is one that Canadians will associate with over the longer run I am sure. We will see later, when the time comes to vote on this. In a way I am pleased to see that this is subject to a separate vote because we will see if in fact the people across the way who said they wanted a budget really want one and, secondly, whether they care about if Canadians can contribute to the process. We will see. The vote will come and then of course we will be able to judge all that at the time.

Why is this motion needed? It is needed to expedite the business of the House at the beginning of the new session of Parliament. Under this procedure, bills and committee business on which valuable House time and energy have been expended in the last session may be proceeded with in the new session, the one we have just started, the second session of the 37th Parliament, without the duplication of work and the resultant waste of time and money.

Specifically, the purpose of the motion is to avoid wasting the time of parliamentarians on things that already have been considered. In other words, we have already done the work. Our work is precious and people across the way say they are in favour of modernization, so obviously doing the same work twice can hardly be considered modern.

[An hon. member]

Why did you prorogue?

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

I am sure, then, that the people across the way, even the ones who are interrupting, must be in favour of modernization unless they are in favour of things being more Jurassic, but we will see.

The other purpose of course is to avoid wasting the time of members of the public who otherwise would have to return to the committees in order to present their briefs all over again.

Let me give a case in point: Bill C-15B. Over the last two days I have received 300 letters of support asking us to reinstate that bill. So let us see whether the people across the way take into account the views of Canadians. What about the environment, in which some people across say they are interested? What about getting Bill C-5, the species at risk bill from the last Parliament, back to the Senate and adopting it for the benefit of all Canadians? Also, of course, what about the taxpayers' money? Why repeat exactly the same debate and of course the committee hearings that already have taken place? But of course all that will be determined soon.

I should not generalize my statements by saying that all members across were against reinstatement. As a matter of fact, a number were quite cooperative and I want to pay tribute to them. Of course negotiations are held privately so I am not going to name individual political parties here, but a number of people had indicated their willingness to support it providing that there were concessions in the motion, many of which were put in, that were of benefit to both sides and so on. All of these things were taken care of very carefully. I do thank my very competent staff who assisted me in preparing all of this.

Now, about the procedure with bills. With adoption of this motion, which will be coming up shortly I trust—and could follow immediately on my speech if the hon. members opposite were in agreement—a minister introducing a bill exactly like a bill introduced in the last session, will, within the first 30 days of the new session, be able to make use of the right to ask that it be reinstated at the stage reached at the time of prorogation of the previous session, provided it had attained at least the stage of being referred to a committee.

It would seem to me that we could all agree on such a point. There is no crowd outside this morning protesting against this. If the Speaker deems it to be identical in form, the bill will be declared reinstated at the stage it had reached.

This procedure does not force a minister to reintroduce a bill. In other words, it is optional. It merely offers the possibility of doing so, within a given timeframe. After all, to be completely fair, parliamentarians are entitled to assume that, if a minister has not reintroduced his bill within a certain number of days, it is because that minister no longer wants to do so. That is why there is the 30-day deadline, a procedure that has been used for a long time.

When Parliament was prorogued, here is where we were at in connection with the government bills on the order paper: five had been passed by the House and were being examined in the Senate. For these, the House had already made its decision; the work was done. We have to respect the fact that this was the decision taken.

Four other bills had been referred to a standing House committee. Three more were awaiting second reading. Of course, for those that had reached second reading stage, we start all over again.

Consequently, according to the motion being moved, the five bills that had already gone through the House can to be reinstated and the Senate can begin immediately to deal with them. All of us want the Senate to be able to work as effectively and efficiently as the House. Moreover, the members opposite and the media have been known to say that the Senate does not do as much as the House. I do not agree, for the Senate does a good job. Be that as it may, the Senate could get down to work right away.

These bills include the one on species at risk, which I mentioned earlier, and the cruelty to animals bill. Speaking of the latter, I have received hundreds of letters about it. Maybe Canadians could phone their members this weekend, particularly the members of the Canadian Alliance, to tell them to stop dragging their feet on this issue, to move forward and resume work on it. We will see if they can.

It would be a real waste of time if parliamentarians had to repeat a debate that had already been finished, consultations that had already been done and votes that had already been taken. We agreed on that.

According to the my motion, the four bills that had been referred to committee could immediately be referred to the same committees for this session. In other words, if second reading had been completed, we would not do it again, because it had already been done. It is not really that complicated. As I mentioned, there are not many protesters outside this morning who are against this.

This group includes the bill to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. I think that there are a number of us who support this. It was considered and referred to a parliamentary committee. Obviously, not everyone is happy with it. There are some who are complaining.

If the information I have is accurate, the committee had finished with its consultations on the bill, had heard from witnesses and was about to begin the clause-by-clause review. Why would we make Canadians from across the country come back to appear before a committee that had finished its work?

The other aspect of my motion this morning would make the evidence already given by Canadians available to committees, even though it was from the previous session and we have just begun a new session.

It also includes the bill on assisted human reproduction. Once again, this is an important issue, a very controversial one, of course—as we all know—but whatever one thinks of the specific details, Canadians and parliamentarians are nonetheless entitled to express their views on something this important.

These bills will of course be returned to the House for comprehensive debate at report stage and third reading. There will be recorded divisions at that time, if they are requested. Naturally, the rights of parliamentarians will be fully respected.

The motion I am moving will allow House committees to concentrate on new issues. Rather than doing the same work twice, we will do it once and concentrate on the work that has not been done, because we still have work ahead of us.

We on the government side have just proposed a very comprehensive agenda, including all sorts of good things for Canadians. We do not want to redo work already done. We want to move ahead, and there is much to do. The Prime Minister has laid out a very important agenda in the excellent Speech from the Throne read earlier this week.

[An hon. member]

It is fantastic.

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

Yes, there are some who agree that the Speech from the Throne is excellent. Incidentally, I thank the hon. member opposite for supporting the Prime Minister and the Speech from the Throne.

The fact is that the House expressed its opinion on that speech. We had a vote on the amendment to the amendment, and parliamentarians expressed strong support.

The motion will allow House committees to focus on new issues, rather than on legislation they have already reviewed. For example, the Standing Committee on Justice may want to examine the sensitive issue of marriage or conjugal relationship—whatever people may want to call it—involving persons of the same sex. We know that a court ruling was issued. We also know that it was appealed and that the Minister of Justice has sought the advice of his colleagues, who were duly elected by Canadians. This is an important issue.

This is of course a controversial issue. But the fact remains that such a controversial issue should be discussed by parliamentarians. This is what the Minister of Justice is asking us to do, instead of redoing the work that has already been done, and he is right about that.

Finally, my motion will not have any effect on the three bills that are awaiting third reading. The ministers responsible could decide to reintroduce these bills, to amend them or to not reintroduce them at all since, as I indicated earlier, we are starting all over in such cases.

Let us discuss for a moment the effect of the motion on committee business. The proposed motion will ensure that valuable work the committees began but did not complete can be continued in an expedited manner. It will be important for many committees. The environment and health committees had begun consultation on legislation that was before them when Parliament was prorogued. Under this motion they could resume their work, continue to consider the legislation and the evidence adduced before the committee at that time would be deemed to be before the committee at this time. That is very reasonable.

I know now that this could be part of the other component of the motion dealt with separately, which is okay, but the finance committee had already begun its annual prebudget consultation. If carried, the motion will ensure that the consultation that has taken place and the evidence thereto is adduced and forms part of the public record of the good work that the committee has done.

The public accounts committee, and this is request that came from the opposition, had been investigating the administration of certain contracts under the sponsorship programs. After the House prorogued, it demanded that the work which had been done not be stopped and that it continue. The motion that I propose does just that, that the evidence adduced before that committee continue for the purpose of reporting. Hon. members can see that I incorporated that in the motion after hearing through the media that that was a concern of an opposition member, the chairman of the committee, whom I congratulate for having raised this issue.

The Special Committee on Non-medical Use of Drugs spent a year gathering evidence on Canada's drug policy. I have to admit that this committee is the brainchild of one of my colleagues, the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford, and I also thank him. We are reinstituting this committee under this motion along with the evidence that he has asked us to hear. That sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Just in case someone mistakenly thinks that I am creating a precedent here, I want to indicate to the members that in October 1999, when the second session of the 36th Parliament began, the House adopted a motion that was very similar to the one before the House today. That motion was adopted without debate three years ago, although some members expressed the opinion that they wanted to vote on it. There was a vote but there was no debate.

In March 1996 when the second session of the 35th Parliament began, the House adopted an almost identical motion again. In previous Parliaments similar motions have been adopted since 1991. Our party was not the government in 1991. Of course, the right hon. leader of the Progressive Conservative Party was a cabinet minister in the government that moved a virtually identical motion in 1991.

Further, Marleau and Montpetit says, at page 330 of our procedural manual, that following a prorogation this has been used in 1970, 1972, 1974 and 1986. That is in addition to the examples I raised of 1991, 1996 and 1999.

In 1977 and 1982 the House adopted amendments to the Standing Orders to carry over legislation to the next session. That particular measure lapsed eventually, but at one point we even had a measure right in our Standing Orders to do precisely this. The House unanimously agreed to Standing Order 86.1 which permitted us to do this for the private members' bills, as you very well know, Madam Speaker, because you are intimately familiar with the rules. The previous parliament adopted that exact measure for private members' bills under what we call Standing Order 81.

Surely the practice is longstanding. As I have said, we have done this for private members' bills and, of course, public bills. The procedure we propose in the motion is almost identical to the one that exists for private members' hour.

Therefore what is proposed is not unusual. I know if the hon. member across the tries very hard to think about modernization for just a moment, he will find that this is a very modern thing.

If we want to speak about modernization, we had a unanimous modernization committee report two years ago setting out 26 different amendments. I could read from it. I just happen to have a copy of it in front of me. It sets out all the modernization we have had and the ones which I want to propose to the House in the future. Let us see who is in favour of things more modern and let us see who the Jurassic ones are around here.

The procedure we are discussing today would simply allow ministers and committees to continue their work, the work left unfinished at the time of prorogation. The motion is fair, it is reasonable and it has been the practice of the House for over 30 years. It is identical, to the procedure for private members' hour. Furthermore, it is consistent with the rule changes proposed for adoption in the United Kingdom House of Commons.

The motion promotes the interest of the House. It promotes the interest of the opposition in many cases. It promotes the interest of members of Parliament and, of course, the Canadian public by not wasting the time of parliamentarians and taxpayer money. The motion would allow the House and its committees to move forward on important issues of the day, such as Kyoto and everything else, instead of stalling on things that have already been decided.

For this reason, I ask for the support of all hon. members. Perhaps today, if we can come to an agreement, we will not even have to vote on it. Let us come to an agreement. Let us support the measure, which has been supported many times by all parties in the House, in this procedural motion. Let us do so in a way that protects the interest of taxpayers, the House of Commons, and let us concentrate on the issues facing Canadians today.

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the comments of the House leader with interest. I noted a couple of glowing tributes to members of the Alliance Party. That is not all that common coming from a Liberal member. I would like to thank him for his candour. The members for Langley--Abbotsford and St. Albert are two members to whom he paid specific tribute.

I look upon a motion like this as though I were not a part of the Parliament of Canada. I look upon this as though I were a citizen simply reviewing this. Motion No. 2, which would return bills at the same stage that they were at the in previous Parliament before prorogation, makes pretty reasonable sense. Reinstating the committee on the non-medical use of drugs, an issue that I am personally interested in, makes sense. Re-establishing prebudget consultation by the finance committee makes sense.

I would like to say to the House leader that this debate would not be necessary if this place were more democratic. I would like him to listen to this portion. He can depart if he wants, but this is the part of this debate that would be sterile if this place were more democratic. Liberal members across have come to me and said, “I have disquiet about a particular bill because I was forced to vote on it by a somewhat autocratic process”. I choose those words in a gentle sense: a somewhat autocratic process. I have had Liberals say to me, “I cannot vote my constituents' wishes on this bill. I am in fact forced to vote otherwise”.

Let me mention two things that would make this place more democratic, and the House leader knows that this is not a debate on everything, if we had free votes in the House of Commons on issues that were not campaign platform issues for the Liberals. If we had an elected Senate, the Senate would be more accountable to the public.

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

What does that have to do with reinstatement?

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

The House leader asks what that has to do with reinstatement. I am trying to explain to him why my party and I have disquiet about reinstating specific bills. I will move toward the specific bill that I personally want to focus on today and why I have disquiet toward that specific bill.

The re-introduction of Bill C-5, the species at risk bill at the stage where it is at gives me disquiet and, more important, gives my constituents disquiet. Effectively, prorogation results in that bill being stopped. My constituents say, “Please stop it where it is at. Please listen to our concerns about this bill.”

From the perspective of someone who loves the environment, species at risk is important. It is a broad societal goal. Diversity of species is important and is a broad societal goal. The trouble with this bill is that species at risk are not being looked after by society as a whole. They are being looked after by certain specific individuals. When I say looked after, I mean economically.

Genuine diversity has enormous benefit. I think of tourism. I think of people coming to visit our country specifically because of grizzlies in a wild state in our mountains. It is an indication of how man-made activity affects the planet. We can make a change in that regard. Man-made activity does affect the planet. We can have an impact in that regard.

I think of the success story of the whooping crane, a bird that Canadians decided to look after, to protect. It was almost extinct. What a wonderful success story that was; protecting them, finding out more information, tracking them, raising whooping cranes in a tame environment, releasing them to an external environment. We now have a population of whooping cranes that is much more likely to survive. For these reasons and more, I support protection of and action on species at risk and their habitat.

If this is a broad societal benefit, it should be paid for by society in the broadest sense. I believe that Bill C-5 will be a failure because society as a whole is not taking the responsibility. One group in our country will be asked to inordinately bear the burden. That group is the landowners.

I listened to the Prime Minister talk about establishing new national parks. I know that in some cases those new national parks are going to take in land where there was previously private interests, forestry interests. Forestry companies went in, explored, spent money putting in roads and had started to harvest timber. There is an economic interest in that area. What will the government do as it takes away those interests in establishing a brand new national park? It will extinguish that right of the timber company and it will pay for it. It will pay back the lumber company for that interest. What would happen in the instance of a species at risk where there was an economic interest? There is no provision for compensation.

I think of another example of a landowner who buys a property on a beautiful habitat by a river to build a senior citizens home. He goes to the architect, goes to the municipality, gets approval for all those things and is ready to build. Suddenly it is found that there is a special habitat in that area and the process cannot proceed. It is reasonable in my view if there is a societal benefit to protecting that habitat, to give that landowner fair compensation for the purchase of the property, the architectural design, the municipal process, and the time and effort expended in that process. In the bill there is no provision for that to take place.

In the bill there is no provision, and I will say this as plainly as I can so that everybody--

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Compensation is in the bill.

[Gerry Ritz, Canadian Alliance, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

It is not market value, Peter.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I am sorry, but it is very hard to hear the hon. member when there is shouting across the aisle. I would appreciate, if the hon. members have anything to say to each other, that they take it outside.

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Madam Speaker, for the benefit of those who could not hear what the comment was, it was that compensation is going to be put in the regulations. That is not fair market compensation. This would be so easy to fix with the phrase “there will be fair market compensation if there is a withdrawal of proper use”. The member opposite knows how easy that would be and my disquiet on the bill would evaporate.

Let me move to probably the most significant area where land is likely to be taken out of use. That is for my rancher. I represent a very large ranching community and my rancher--

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Self-interest.

[Reed Elley, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

That is what is wrong with the government.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Have hon. members had enough? I would appreciate the opportunity to hear the hon. member and his comments.

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will say to the member opposite as directly as I can that representing my constituents is not self-interest.

Let me go to the specific rancher who has 30,000 acres. That sounds like a lot of property to someone who comes from an urban environment. Thirty thousand acres of dry land. This is a specifically large ranch. On that ranch he is able to run one cow for 300 acres. It is a very dry ranch with not much feed. Someone comes along and says, “Society needs to protect the habitat that happens to be on your 30,000 acre ranch and it will mean taking out of production 4,500 acres”. Could it happen? It has happened. The impact on that ranch might make it economically impossible to operate.

I ask members opposite, should not Canadian society as a whole take the responsibility for that economic impact? As long as that rancher does not have the assurance that will take place, he will not support Bill C-5. It is profoundly important that he do support Bill C-5 for the advantages that I spoke of before, for the broad advantages of having diverse species. Until that happens, the bill will fail.

It does not matter how many times the Senate looks at it, this specific issue must be addressed by the Liberal government. I wish it were.

This raises the broader issue of property rights in this country that are not enshrined in our Constitution and should be. That is something the Alliance would be very quick to look at when we form the government.

I mentioned the issue that human activity has an impact on the environment. I noted that a couple of my colleagues who I consider to be very keen on the environment were nodding their heads when I said that. Let me give a couple of examples.

A delegation came to Parliament this week and showed that lamprey had a profound effect on the Great Lakes fishing environment. This was an imported species that came from the ocean. It was imported because of the canals that we had built as humans, from boats that we had brought in and the discharge of water. So here we have a species that was not normally in the Great Lakes.

That species, because there was no natural enemy, literally destroyed the wonderful fishery in our Great Lakes. We have taken action against the lamprey, we have actually found where they reproduce and had an impact there, and the fishery has returned. That is an example of human activity having a negative effect on the environment and then a positive effect.

I had an opportunity to be at a lecture by a scientist who looked at botanical indications of human activity. It is interesting to note that downwind of Toronto the lichens, the strange-looking crusty things that grow on trees, are almost non-existent. They do not end up flourishing until almost at Ottawa. It is a huge area downwind. Upwind of Toronto, the lichen population is very healthy. It is another indication of human activity having an impact on the environment.

There is a great interest in wild horses. People love the idea that horses have broken free of man and are roaming the wild. Wild horses are not natural to the environment in some places where they are involved. It is an emotional issue but human activity, releasing those horses into the wild, has had an impact on the environment.

If Bill C-5 had fair market compensation in it, this member of Parliament would have no disquiet whatever.

I am thankful for the opportunity to explain why I am not in favour of Motion No. 2 as it relates to reintroduction of Bill C-5 at the stage it was at.

I move:

That the motion be amended by adding after the words “prorogation of the previous session” the words “provided that Bills C-15B and C-5, introduced in the previous session, be excluded from this process”.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The amendment is in order.

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

Madam Speaker, first I want to say a word tangentially about the ruling of the Chair with respect to Motion No. 2 and welcome the judgment of the Chair with respect to this motion. It seems to me that the point of order the other day was certainly a good one. That has been recognized by the Chair in that we now have an opportunity to deal with elements of what was an omnibus motion in a more appropriate way by voting separately on two different dimensions of what remains of the motion, and of course, by having to have an entirely new motion with respect to the finance committee.

I listened to the government House leader who talked about the fact that it is quite common for there to be a motion like this before the House after prorogation by which legislation is reinstated in the new session at the stage it was at in the last session. I agree with the government House leader that this has certainly been common practice. However, he will have to accept that this time around that was not possible.

We have just seen from members of the official opposition that there were at least two bills which they were not willing to cooperate in reinstating, Bill C-5 and Bill C-15B. Although that is not the case with the NDP, we felt similarly about other legislation that would have been reinstated through this motion.

We were particularly concerned not to cooperate in the reinstatement of that legislation which proposed a new regime for first nations governance in this country. We do this out of agreement with the position of the leadership of first nations that what the government has in mind here is inappropriate and is being imposed on them in a way that gives the lie, if you like, to the notion of first nations governance. It is really just another amendment to the Indian Act imposed on the aboriginal community by the federal Government of Canada.

I indicated to the government House leader when he first proposed to me the idea of reinstating all the legislation in the rather easy way that we have done so before, that the NDP would not be able to cooperate in the way that we have in the past. I indicated that we would seek an opportunity to vote against reinstating all the legislation as the only way available to us to indicate our non-support for the reinstatement of the first nations governance legislation.

Of course, the members of the official opposition have chosen not to single out that piece of legislation for opposition. They have singled out other pieces of legislation: Bill C-5, the species at risk legislation; and Bill C-15B, which is the amendments to the Criminal Code having to do with cruelty to animals.

It seems to me that there is not a great need for the House to consume itself with this particular motion. We have had a remedy proposed by the Chair whereby we could vote separately on certain items.

Certainly we are in favour of reinstating the Special Committee on the Non-medical Use of Drugs. This is a committee that has done a lot of good work. We look forward to a Commons report as a complement to the report that has already come out of the Senate on a similar topic. We hope that after both these reports are available and have been studied by members and by the government that we might actually see some action on the part of the government with respect to the non-medical use of drugs, particularly with respect to the continuing inadequacies in the policy for the provision of medical marijuana, the need for some action with respect to the decriminalization of marijuana and whatever else the government has in mind.

It signalled in the throne speech that it is considering action in this direction. We would not want it to act until such time as the work of this committee was completed. We are happy to co-operate and vote for the motion which reinstates that committee.

[Philip Mayfield, Canadian Alliance, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate what the member had to say. What concerns me about the reinstatement, speaking generally and not about any particular bill, is the process used by the government. It brings in legislation and more frequently than any other government uses time allocation. It whips its members to vote for the legislation and it gets through one stage at a time of course.

As a result of prorogation we are faced with the prospect of the same whip whipping the Liberal members to vote for the legislation. It seems to me that there is a juggernaut process that denies the democratic process.

I find it objectionable that bills, whether we agree with them or not, are put through in such a fashion that limits debate and limits representation from constituents. In the end it is not a democratic process that puts legislation through but the will of whoever is leading the government. I would like to have the hon. member's comments on that to see if I am on the right track.

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

Madam Speaker, the member's comments reminded me of something else I intended to say about this. The reinstatement process does permit the government to get away with all the drama of a new throne speech while not losing anything legislatively. The member makes another good point about closure.