Debates of Oct. 7th, 2002

Committee Business and Reinstatement of Government Bills

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

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the use of time allocation, in the U.K. house actually every bill is allocated to the same date it is read. In other words, at the end of every day, whatever is being debated, there is a vote.

The hon. member is complaining about free votes. I know that there is a problem in his party in that regard. I wish he and his caucus the best of luck to sort those things out. We do not have that problem on our side of the House, but if he does, I have some sympathy for his problem.

On the issue of Bill C-15B, and this is a more serious part of what the member says, I represent a very large agricultural constituency, as does the hon. member--

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

So you ought to know better.

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

I believe I represent my agricultural constituents as well as the hon. member for Wild Rose, who I believe is doing a good job representing his constituents.

Bill C-15B is a good bill. The minister has been quite clear in saying how he would not object to further clarification. Obviously we have the Senate and whatever the Senate feels is appropriate will be done. However the minister has been quite clear.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, certainly the question of closure has come up a number of times with the government. It is rather disappointing for Canadians to see this being implemented once again. Many of us will recognize that over the summer a poll came out indicating that democracy in government was now a major issue with Canadians. That is a sad legacy for any government to leave a country at any point in time. Certainly it is an issue.

I have a key point that I want to ask the hon. House leader about, and that is in regard to the corporate liability legislation which the government promised to bring forth. Nowhere was it mentioned in the throne speech. Something as important to Canadians, and to all members in the House who supported that legislation, has not been mentioned.

If the government really is committed to doing what has been requested of it, it would be nice to have seen it brought forth. I would like his comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no news about this legislation. This is a very important question raised by the hon. member. I certainly would not mind verifying whether the introduction is scheduled. I do not think introduction of that bill is scheduled before the adjournment at Christmas.

With regard to the agenda for the new year, I will gladly verify that for the hon. member.

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in a constructive vein in terms of these questions, I would like the Canadian public to know just exactly what the Alliance's disquiet is with Bill C-5 and Bill C-15. I would like the House leader to explain why these two simple things could not be done.

Bill C-5 talks about reasonable compensation. That is subject to a very broad discretion. The Alliance would be very pleased with this bill if fair market value compensation was in the bill. My question to the House leader on that bill is this. Why would the government not put in fair market value compensation for landowners whose land is withdrawn because of society's broad goal?

On Bill C-15 our concern is that farmers and ranchers will have their operations impacted by frivolous animal rights activists. My question to the House leader is this. Why would the government not exclude in the bill normal agricultural practices?

These are two straightforward questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, both those bills have been voted on by the House. Some amendments were proposed at various stages in committee and elsewhere. Members on all sides of the House considered those amendments. The minister considered those amendments in the case of both bills. Accommodations were made on a whole number of amendments to Bill C-5. Everyone recognizes that. As a matter of fact, the hon. member's colleague a few moments ago talked about the fact that we studied the bill for too long. I think he said something like nine years. Obviously, many points of view were considered at that time.

As to why the House voted a particular way or a committee voted a particular way on a particular amendment, obviously that is not for me to say as government House leader.

On the issue of Bill C-15B, I said before that the government very much wants the procedures to occur in a way that do not adversely affect the agricultural community. That has been said. The minister has said it in speeches in the House and elsewhere. Everyone knows that is the case. Of course, the bill will go before the Senate and the Senate can propose at that point amendments that it deems necessary, if it deems any amendments to be necessary.

[Rob Merrifield, Canadian Alliance, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the House leader on the opposite side has tried to avoid answering the questions on Bill C-15B and Bill C-5 that my colleague addressed to him, which are very straightforward. It goes to the root problem of why we are sitting in this place. It is because we are here to make good legislation that applies appropriately across the board to all citizens.

The problem that we have right now and that we have been discussing for half an hour is a democratic problem. When I go into my riding people tell me all the time that this place is dysfunctional and that they feel they have no voice here. That is why 40% of them checked out of the last election. The government is going for a legacy, a legacy of invoking closure or time allocation 78 times. The last government did it 72 times.

Why would the government want to continue that legacy?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not avoiding anything. I participated in the committee that created the instrument being utilized right now so we could answer questions on particular issues, not to spend half an hour asking ridiculous questions. The hon. member was not part of that committee. Someone else represented his party. He and his colleagues voted in favour of having this instrument.

There is nothing democratic about obstructionism on the part of opposition. That is not democracy. It is the denial of it. There are instruments that say we can move to limit time. Every bill in the U.K. House is limited to one day. The motion that we are proposing now carried without any debate just a couple of years ago. It is an abuse of the time of the House to want us to restart every bill. That is the kind of thing the opposition wants us to do, and it is not democratic. It has nothing to do with democracy at all.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is beyond hilarious to hear the government House leader calling following the rules an abuse of process, rules that he himself participated in putting in place not a year ago. However, I digress.

My direct question for the hon. House leader deals with legislation pertaining to the Indian Act, Bill C-61. I note with interest that the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, who is now heading up the sixth party in the House of Commons, is musing publicly about the need for further consultation with the aboriginal Canadian community on that bill, yet the government is prepared to reintroduce it without any further consultation. Why does it want to reintroduce Bill C-61 unchanged, given the discontent expressed by members of his own party? I am assuming they are still members of his party.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will forget the last part about the assumption of who belongs to whatever party. The hon. member's caucus grew by 40% and shrunk by roughly the same amount in the space of a few weeks.

Bill C-61, which is a more serious issue without the added insults, had been referred to committee before second reading, if I remember correctly. When that process is utilized, it is utilized in a way to permit the widest possible amendments whereby the concept beyond the scope of the bill, which usually prevents amendments to a bill, does not apply so that good comments made by Liberal MPs possibly, and of course there will be some of those we know because they do their job so well, and members across the way, if there happens to be some of those too, can be incorporated in the bill if that is the wish of the committee. That is why Bill C-61 has the same feature.

I can tell the hon. member that it would be referred to committee before second reading, the same as before, to accommodate that which he wishes.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my question is on the same bill, Bill C-61. It is a question I was asked last week by the first nations veterans who came to Ottawa and sat in the gallery for question period. They had a press conference on the Hill. They wonder whether they will be included in Bill C-61 when it comes back before the House.

They were discriminated against after the second world war and the Korean war. Non-first nations people fell under Veterans Affairs and got all kinds of benefits, while first nations people fell under the Indian Act and got virtually no benefits whatsoever. This is a wrong that must be righted. They have made the case for many years. They are now wondering whether, when the bill comes back before the House, there will be clauses included to apologize to them, to provide them adequate compensation and to do justice to the aboriginal and first nations people because of what went wrong many years ago.

They want an answer as to whether that be in the bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has read the motion that is before the House, it is to permit the government to reinstate the bill and the minister to stand in this place and affirm that the bill, as reintroduced, is identical to the bill where it was left off. Obviously, it would not have amendments before we start. That is prevented by the scope of the motion that we will be voting on later this day.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I guess there is one thing that really has not been cleared up, not from any of the comments I have heard from the member.

The idea of a prorogue is to prepare for a new session to bring in a new set of initiatives through a throne speech. We all know, even the Liberals know, that the throne speech was not new. There were no new initiatives. It was the same old stuff. Now we know that everything that was on the table prior to prorogation will now be brought back exactly the same as it was. Therefore, we had two weeks of everybody earning a big, fat salary doing nothing when we should have been here dealing with some serious problems like agriculture. This minister knows how serious the agricultural problem is in so many areas. He ought to know because I know his own farmers are doing a very good job of educating him about that.

My question once more, just to try to get it straight in my mind, is this. Why did the government prorogue? There was no reason to.

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

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of the situation involving the drought in western Canada, I want to take the occasion to thank the member for the good relationship that he and I have worked under this summer to ensure the aid offered by my constituents and several others. The initiative of Hay West started as a result of a phone call made to me by two constituents through their municipal councillor, for which I congratulate them, by the way. We have been working together in that regard.

The hon. member refers to a two week delay. There is something wrong with that question. Perhaps the hon. member is unaware that there is an alleged two week delay. The hon. member said that we should be getting started to work sooner, yet over a week after we have started we still cannot get the committee membership list from the opposition to do the work. There are still delays going on. Having said that I do hope the opposition produces its lists.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Bélair)]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Bélair)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Bélair)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen: