Debates of Oct. 24th, 2006

Procedure and House Affairs

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it perfectly clear to this chamber and to all Canadians who may be watching that the issue is not about whether the provisional Standing Orders should be made permanent. The issue is that members of the official opposition broke their word.

At a House leaders meeting on September 19, everyone agreed that the current provisional Standing Orders should remain in effect until November 21. Until that time, senior staffers from all parties would get together and examine the provisional Standing Orders to see whether any amendments should be made. They would report back to the procedure and House affairs committee and then the committee would determine whether to make the provisional Standing Orders permanent or permanent with amendments.

The following day, on September 20, to indicate that the agreement was made, our House leader introduced a motion seeking unanimous consent, which was granted, to extend the provisional Standing Orders until November 21. The truth is indisputable that an agreement was made and accepted by each House leader. However, on October 5, the chief opposition whip brought a motion without consultation to the committee asking that the Standing Orders be made permanent now, not wait until November 21 and not wait until all senior staff had a chance to look at the Standing Orders.

The issue is that the opposition parties broke their word.

Does my hon. colleague not believe that in this House we need to honour our word?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe we should honour our word but when three parties say that they do not feel there was an agreement that nothing would be done until it goes through in November, it does not mean that they cannot come through with a motion like the one here.

That happened in September. We are almost at the end of October and no one has yet called a meeting with the staff of each party to try to come to an agreement. Time goes by. We are now at the end of October and almost at the beginning of November. When is the staff going to talk? When will they put those people together? It was the job of the government to do that.

With all of that aside, it does not stop now because the representative of the government just said there was nothing wrong with the rules themselves, that the only problem was with the break of the intention. We are in the right place to fix it, which is here in this House of Commons. Let us vote on it, make it a permanent rule and then we can go back to the procedure and House affairs committee, sit down and look at what can or cannot be changed.

I believe that is the way to do it because people do not believe that they were not honest. It is a matter of how it is interpreted. If we look in law, for example, we all have different ways of interpreting a contract or a bill but that is the way it goes and this is the way to fix it.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has put his finger on the essence of what is being discussed. The House is still the master of its own fate and the question of whether or not there is concern that we may not get to this issue is a valid one.

I wonder if the member could advise the House if he is aware of any indication by any government member of a measure of concern with regard to any of the provisional Standing Orders that we are seeking to make permanent. Is there any indication on any one of those provisional orders?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the only one we know of was supposedly a small technical one which does not appear in the amendment. That is the one I am worried about. If there are technical problems with the provision, we should talk about that amendment, not about the five days and ten days because we do not see a problem with the five days. The majority of members in the opposition do not see a problem with the five days. We are more worried about the technical one and that is not what the government brought forward. If we have technical problems with the provisions, that is what we should be talking about. If the motion goes through, I hope we can go back to the procedure and House affairs committee right away to look at those technical problems and fix them as soon as possible.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to the 17th report of the procedure and House affairs committee dealing with the provisional Standing Orders, which are the changes that were made to the Standing Orders and hopefully making the provisional Standing Orders permanent.

I heard the parliamentary secretary say to my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst that the issue is not the provisional Standing Orders, that the issue is that the official opposition broke its word. I really want to put this to rest. That is clearly not the issue today. The issue is whether or not the provisional Standing Orders should be made permanent and whether or not they should go forward.

To go back into the history of the subject, we should be very clear that when these items were discussed in the House leaders meetings there was agreement that there would be discussion. That discussion did not take place, but there is nothing to preclude it from coming up at the procedure and House affairs committee, which is an entirely appropriate committee for that kind of discussion to take place.

I find it curious that the government would now say that this is about breaking faith or breaking an agreement. Clearly that discussion was had in the committee. That is why we are here now with this report today. I would just leave that aside, because I think it is a secondary matter. The issue is whether or not the provisional Standing Orders should be made permanent.

From the NDP's point of view we are in agreement that they should be made permanent. They were first brought forward in the last minority Parliament. Ironically it was discussions among the three opposition parties at that time, including the party that is now the government but was then the official opposition, the Conservative Party, which looked at the Standing Orders and brought forward these provisional changes in the last minority Parliament.

Why was that done? The changes were brought forward on the basis that there was agreement among those three parties at the time to actually make this place more democratic. Mr. Speaker, as you well know, being the dean of the House, you have seen the erosion over the decades of democratic practice in this House.

This was actually an attempt by the three opposition parties in the last minority Parliament to look at the Standing Orders to figure out where there was some agreement on what could be done to make some of the procedures and the practices that we live by more democratic and more open. They were important changes. In fact, they were adopted by the last Parliament, but they were not permanently set; they were set as a provisional order.

In terms of whether or not the changes themselves should become permanent, I think they are good changes. Over the last couple of years we have had a great deal of experience with the provisional Standing Orders. We know how they work. I think there is a very strong consensus, at least among three parties, that they should remain.

One of the provisional Standing Orders is that all opposition days should be votable. This is something that is very important to the NDP. In the permanent Standing Orders not all of the opposition days, or supply days, were votable. It seemed to us to be very forward looking to make supply days, opposition days, votable. We have now done that. It is considered to be acceptable and I hope that it is not under dispute.

There is also the setting of the supply days in a regular cycle to ensure for example that our party gets three opposition days. This is something that did not happen before as a smaller party. It is a very important change. It gives a more level playing field to the NDP to ensure there is an additional opposition day. Previously for us this was always very much in question; sometimes we would get it and sometimes we would not. These changes ensure that we get that third opposition day.

The second item is the debate and vote on motions to concur in committee reports. This is very important. This item is likely one which the government now wishes it had not agreed to. It is very interesting how positions can change when in opposition or in government, but at that time, the opposition, the Conservative Party, was very eager to get this change through.

We have had a great deal of experience with it. The idea that a committee can bring forward a report, just as we are doing today, and have a debate on it in the House and then a vote really gives voice to the work that members undertake in committees. Members on all sides have experienced a lot of frustration in that the work that is done in committee, which is often very solid and good work, does not get any expression in terms of being adopted or brought forward in the House. That provisional Standing Order allows for that to happen.

Many reports have been brought forward and have had a full debate in the House, and then we have actually voted on them. It has provided very good continuity between the work in the committee and what comes into the House. It provides members with a sense of encouragement that the work they undertake in committee can actually be brought forward to the House and voted upon.

In that way the provisional Standing Orders are quite substantive. In my opinion the provisional Standing Orders improve the practice and the democracy in the procedure that we use in the House of Commons. Do we need to go further? Absolutely.

Today the NDP held a press conference. We put forward a motion in the procedure and House affairs committee to urge the committee to consider a report from 1992, 15 years ago. I am sure members will remember that report. It was a report of the special advisory committee to the Speaker. It put forward a number of very sensible, intelligent recommendations about improving decorum in the House.

We have certainly seen the situation in the last week, but even since the beginning of this Parliament, there has been a sense of chaos. There has been a lack of respect for each other, a level of debate that has gotten down to name calling. Sexist and racist remarks have been made in this House.

The NDP was very interested to take that report off the shelf, so to speak, to dust it off and bring it forward. That report from 15 years ago when John Fraser was the Speaker was never acted upon and it is time to bring it forward again. In the meantime, I think we can do our business by making sure that the provisional Standing Orders become permanent.

A lot more work needs to be done in terms of the Standing Orders, the procedures that we follow, as well as improving the decorum in the House. We are very interested in seeing another debate take place at the procedure and House affairs committee on this issue of the June 22, 1992 report to the Speaker from the special advisory committee. We hope it will generate further discussion about what we need to do as parliamentarians, what responsibility we need to take individually, within our caucus, as parties and as the government to ensure that this place reflects a much higher standard about how we do our business.

I wanted to bring that issue up because it puts this debate in a broader context. I know that people who watch question period, who watch the debates in the House of Commons, or who visit the House and sit in the gallery are sometimes aghast at what takes place here.

The more that we can take these issues on, not in a way that is sort of dealing with celebrity politics, which is what we have seen in the last few days, but to deal with this in a serious, substantive way that focuses on the changes that need to be made, so that we can show the public that this Parliament is respectful, that it is about serious debate and that we actually confer, I hope, on the Speaker a greater discretion and mandate from the parties to actually keep order in this place.

I am sure that is something that this Speaker would agree with. I think a lot of people think it is long overdue. We will get to that. We have just introduced that at committee today. In the meantime, I think we can do our business by making sure that these provisional standing orders do become permanent.

An amendment has been put forward by the government which basically seeks to undo all of that by sending the report back to the committee. We will not be voting for the amendment because we think that the provisional Standing Orders should become permanent. I would say to the government that if there are some technical issues that need to be further considered, we are certainly open to doing that at committee. There is nothing to prevent the government or any other member of the committee from raising consequential issues and further debate around the provisional Standing Orders.

We are not prepared today to see this go down and be lost. We have an opportunity now to make them permanent. If we need to do more review in terms of technical issues, that is fine, no problem, but on the principle of what these provisional Standing Orders represent, we are behind them. We support them here today and hope that members of the House will support them as well.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I have to take issue with one of the NDP House leader's earlier comments in her presentation. She said that the issue really is not whether word was broken, that the issue is whether these provisional Standing Orders should be put into place now, should be made permanent. I would respectfully disagree with my hon. colleague. It is about the issue of trust was broken, that an agreement was broken. That is so fundamental to the operation of this place that I cannot stress strongly enough that that is the issue.

I will speak in a few moments when I make my presentation about the provisional Standing Orders. Quite frankly, it does not really matter to me whether the current provisional Standard Orders were made permanent without amendment or if there were some technical amendments. That is not the issue.

The issue is an agreement that was made by all four House leaders was broken. There is indisputable proof that it was broken. That is my point. I will go into far greater detail in a few moments, but my simple question for my hon. colleague is, does she not agree that there was an agreement made on September 19 at the House leaders meeting to keep the provisional Standing Orders in effect until November 21 and that during that 60 day period between September 19 and November 21, staff members from all of the parties would get together to see whether amendments should be made?

Does she not agree that there was an agreement made on September 19 by all four House leaders to keep these provisional Standing Orders in effect until November 21?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I guess I and the hon. member will respectfully disagree because as I said earlier, I do not believe that the issue here, as the government would like it to be seen, is whether or not some agreement was broken. The issue here is whether or not the provisional Standing Orders should be made permanent.

Certainly there was discussion at the House leaders meeting about how to proceed on this matter. Certainly there was an understanding that we needed to have an extension, otherwise they would have run out much more rapidly. I do not remember the date, but the member says November 21. There is nothing to preclude discussions by staff, if that had happened, but it did not happen, or a committee legitimately taking up its business.

This is not really about agreements being broken. it is about the House doing its business. It was entirely appropriate that the procedure and House affairs committee should take this up if it so wanted, and that is what it is there to do, and bring it back to the House. That is exactly what happened.

I would suggest to the hon. member that we should focus on the real debate here in terms of the Standing Orders. If there are changes that the member wants to see, maybe we will hear that in his presentation in a little while, and it can go back to the committee for that kind of consideration. Clearly the issue here today is to vote on whether or not these provisional Standing Orders should be made permanent. We think they should be.

What is going on here is quite a big brouhaha that the government would like to make. Does the government think that other parties do not talk to each other? All kinds of discussions take place, at committee, at House leaders meetings. That is the nature of this place.

It is being dealt with in an open and transparent way at the committee and back here in the House. I fail to see what the complaint is.

Again, I would say let us focus on the debate here, which is saying to Canadians that we need to improve the way we do our business. We need to improve the way we conduct ourselves as members of Parliament. We still have a long way to go on that and that is what we would like to focus on.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government whip has made the case that an agreement has been broken. Earlier it was referred to as an informal agreement.

For the edification of the House, could the hon. member advise the House whether this was an agreement with regard to deferring the decision on the Standing Orders until November 21 and on what date was that agreement reached?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not remember the date of the meeting of the House leaders. There might have been a couple of meetings when this was brought up. That would be the nature of those meetings. Because they are generally closed meetings, I will not go into detail. However, in a new Parliament we have discussions about provisional Standing Orders and the fact that they will expire unless some further action is taken. There were certainly discussions about extending them so we could decide what to do. Those discussions have now taken place through the procedure and House affairs committee.

I do not think there has been any violation of any agreements. This has been done in a transparent and open way. We are now debating the provisional Standing Orders, and that is how it should be. I am scratching my head a bit about what the problem is. We are doing what we should be doing, which is dealing with this business, having this debate and making a decision as to whether these provisional Standing Orders are going to go ahead and become permanent or not . The debate and the vote will decide that.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak to what I consider to be an extremely important issue.

First, beyond the issue that we will be discussing for the next few minutes, there is something all Canadians should recognize as well. Despite what my hon. colleague from the official opposition, the opposition chief whip, has stated, the intent of this motion is not to discuss whether provisional Standing Orders should be made permanent. It is not even about whether an agreement was broken. The purpose of the motion today is the official opposition, and I suspect in concurrence with other opposition parties, clearly wants to hijack the workings of Parliament. The members of the opposition are using procedural tactics, which are available to them, to delay proper implementation of government legislation. They are using delaying tactics, in other words, to disallow full discourse and debate on government legislation, which we introduced into this place. They are doing that for their own political partisan reasons and, frankly, that is not only objectionable, it circumvents and undermines the purpose of this place.

My hon. colleague, the chief opposition whip, said in her opening remarks, when she introduced the concurrence motion, that the provisional Standing Orders served a number of purposes. One is to allow opposition parties the ability to introduce motions, to speak and to question government members. However, she also said something extremely important. The provisional Standing Orders or the Standing Orders should allow the government to conduct its business. In other words, it should allow the government to govern.

I totally agree with that. The Standing Orders should allow governments to govern. On one hand, the chief opposition whip agrees with that statement. Yet on the other hand, and proof is in today's concurrence motion, which is the fourth of fifth concurrence motion we have had in the last two weeks, she is delaying the ability of the government to govern. That is the first point and I want to get it on the record.

This is highly objectionable. I think most Canadians would agree with me that the purpose of Parliament is to pass legislation or to at least have healthy debate on the it. Yet by the very action of the opposition members, that debate is not taking place. They are finding ways, through procedural tactics, to shelve any meaningful debate on legislation that the government plans to bring forward.

This aside, that is their right. Under the Standing Orders, they can introduce concurrence motions. They have done so. We are now debating the motion for three hours instead of debating government legislation, but so be it. I will accept that because it is something that is available to all opposition members.

I want to turn my attention to the motion at hand. I again want to emphasize that the real issue in the debate on Standing Orders, whether the provisional Standing Orders should be made permanent, is not the issue. The issue is there was an agreement in place that was broken. I believe strongly that agreements and words are extremely important in this place. We could not operate in this place if we had a culture in which a word that was given could be broken at a whim.

I know you, Mr. Speaker, being the senior statesman in this place, would understand. Over the last few decades you have worked in this place and represented Canadians here. I suggest to you that you feel quite strongly that when one gives his or her word to a colleague, that word should be respected, that word should be honoured and to break that word is extremely serious. This is the issue with which we are dealing.

Even though it has been talked about before, let me give the scenario that occurred, chronologically.

On September 19 of this year, the meeting of the House leaders took place, at which time the government House leader talked about extending the provisional Standing Orders for approximately 60 days, until November 21. The reason the government House leader introduced this was because the previous agreement was that the provisional Standing Orders would stay in place only until October 10. If they were not put into place in a permanent fashion at that time, we would revert back to the old Standing Orders.

The government House leader then said that we should have some all party discussion on whether these provisional Standing Orders should be made permanent or whether they should perhaps be amended somewhat. He proposed to extend the provisional Standing Orders until November 21, an additional 60 days. He suggested that during that 60 day extension, the staff of all four parties get together and discuss whether there should be amendments or whether we were happy with the provisional Standing Orders as written. Then we could adopt them into a permanent state, with or without amendments, by the November 21. All House leaders said that was reasonable and they agreed to it.

The following day, on September 20, the government House leader, in this place, introduced the motion asking for unanimous consent to extend the provisional Standing Orders until November 21, as agreed upon in the previous day's House leaders' meeting. It was unanimously agreed upon. That is why I say there is indisputable proof that there was an agreement made at the House leaders' meeting of September 19.

I have great respect for all of my colleagues in positions such as whips or House leaders, or caucus officer positions. Not only do I have respect for them, I absolutely know they are intelligent people who would not allow a motion to pass unanimously unless there had been an agreement. In other words, if we, as the government, tried to pull a fast one and we asked for unanimous consent for a motion and we tried to slide something through, if there had not been an agreement the previous day at the House leaders' meeting, my colleagues on the opposition benches would not have given unanimous consent. However, they did not do that. Everyone agreed to pass the motion unanimously, which again verifies my contention that there was an agreement in place. That is indisputable.

Now having proved that there was an agreement in place, what happened? Rather than waiting until November 21, rather than waiting for all staff members from all opposition parties and the government to get together to examine these provisional Standing Orders to determine whether there should be amendments made and rather than honouring the agreement, on October 5 of this year, at the procedures and House affairs committee, the chief opposition whip introduced a motion, without prior consultation, stating that she wished to make the provisional Standing Orders permanent immediately. That was in violation of the agreement, which stated they should remain in effect until November 21. This is the issue that I am debating. An agreement was broken.

The reason the opposition whip introduced this motion was payback. Opposition members were upset at us because we used a provisional tactic several days beforehand, Standing Order 56.1, and we caught the opposition by surprise.

The circumstances were this. Bill C-24 was being debated in this place. It was the softwood lumber debate, legislation which we had introduced and we wanted to get passed as quickly as possible. Our colleagues from the NDP, during debate, kept raising amendments and subamendments, and then putting up speakers to deal with those amendments and subamendments. That is perfectly acceptable under the Standing Orders of this place. NDP members were, in other words, using procedural tactics to delay implementation of Bill C-24. They did not agree with Bill C-24, so they were using procedural tactics to delay the implementation of it as long as they possibly could.

The Conservatives disagreed. We felt this bill was an extremely important piece of legislation that would benefit the softwood lumber industry and finally put an end to years and years of litigation and dispute between Canada and the U.S. We wanted to fast track the bill. We wanted to stop with these sorts of procedural delays, get the debate completed, get the bill to committee, and ultimately vote on it in this place.

What did we do? We employed a procedural tactic of our own. It is called Standing Order 56.1(3). For those in the gallery and the Canadian viewing public, it is what I would suggest is a fairly arcane procedural Standing Order, which says that there needs to be 25 members of the opposition in this place to defeat a motion that we were about to bring forward.

One day, knowing that the opposition tends not to show up to work very often, the Conservatives introduced a motion which would, to cut to the chase, effectively limit the amount of debate that the NDP would be able to use. In other words, it would stop the NDP from using its procedural tactics to continue to delay the implementation of this bill.

The Conservatives introduced a motion and all of a sudden, by the rules of this place, all of those opposed to our motion had to stand and be counted. There needed to be 25 opposition members to defeat our motion. What happened? There were only 21 opposition members in this place at that time.

I would suggest that speaks volumes about the intentions of the members opposite who actually do not think it is that important to show up to this place during routine proceedings. Nonetheless, only 21 members stood, so the NDP could not defeat our motion. Consequently, it was stymied in its attempts to delay discussion and debate on Bill C-24.

In other words, because of the procedural tactic the Conservatives used, the opposition was angry. Opposition members were very angry and decided they had to push back, that there was payback and there were consequences. They were angry that the Conservatives pulled a fast one like that, embarrassed NDP members, and stifled their ability to talk about a bill they did not agree with.

What happened? On October 5 in the procedure and House affairs committee the opposition whip introduced a motion to break an agreement. She introduced a motion that would place a permanent status on the provisional Standing Orders. She said no, the opposition was not going to honour the agreement to wait until November 21 and was not going to honour the agreement to allow all staff members to get together and examine the provisional Standing Orders to see whether amendments should or could be made. It was going to say to heck with that, it wanted to break the agreement, and wanted these Standing Orders to be made permanent immediately.

That is the issue. The opposition members broke their word. That much is indisputable. In every question and comment period, I have asked every member opposite the simple question of whether there was an agreement in place and not one of the members has had the courage to stand here and say, “Yes, you were right, there was an agreement and that agreement was broken”. They try to change the channel, skirt the issue, and stand in this place to say that is not really issue. The issue is that we should be discussing these provisional Standing Orders. That is the issue.

When members give their word of honour in this place, I suggest they must honour that word. This place could not operate without it. We all know that. From time to time in committees, opposition and government members get together and say, “We are debating something in committee. Can I count on your support?” If somebody says yes, that word is taken as that person's bond.

If we start breaking agreements and breaking our word, then our word is meaningless. This place will not operate. I will give an example of something that affected me, but will show all members how I try to conduct myself in this place.

I was first elected in 2004. I was new to this place and new to the committee structure. I was on, ironically enough, the ethics committee at that time. During debate of some motion that was coming forward, the hon. NDP member for Winnipeg Centre, I believe, gave me a phone call and told me he was introducing something and that he would like my support. He explained his position to me. I said it sounded reasonable and made sense, so I said I would vote with him and support him when that initiative was brought before the committee.

I found out fairly quickly that perhaps before giving one's word one may want to consult with one's own party because I found out afterwards that it was not the position my party wanted to take. They gave me some very salient and cogent sort of explanations of why we should oppose the initiative that the member for Winnipeg Centre was going to introduce.

It came before the committee and what did I do? I voted with the member. I opposed our party's wishes. I paid for it. I had a discussion with some of our caucus officers who told me that they did not really appreciate my position, but the reason I did it was because I had given the member my word and was willing to live with the consequences. That is how this place must operate, I would suggest.

We have a fundamental issue and that is the issue of the day, the agreement that was made at the September 19 House leaders meeting has been broken. Nothing else matters. These provisional Standing Orders, I could live with them as they are. I could live with them with minor amendments, but that is not the issue.

An agreement was broken and it was done deliberately for partisan reasons, not for the benefit of Canadians, and not because we want to get these provisional Standing Orders in effect today. They would have been effect in any event come November 21 because I would guarantee that all members of the committee, prior to November 21, would have brought forward a motion to deal with it before the deadline ran out. It would have been voted in favour. Those provisional Standing Orders would have been adopted with or without amendments.

However, the opposition party and the chief opposition whip brought this motion forward as a form of what probably may be considered as political payback, but in effect the opposition broke an agreement. It broke its word and that is the issue that we have to deal with here.

We will always disagree on fundamental issues. We will always agree to disagree ideologically, politically and philosophically, but I would suggest, and hope, that every member in this place would agree that when a member of this place gives his or her word to another member, that word should be honoured, and it is not.

We have had, in my opinion again, a serious breach of trust in this place. Some might suggest that the trust has been lacking for a long time. I could agree where some members would suggest that this place is not conducive to trustworthiness. Certainly, all parties are suspicious of the motives of other parties from time to time.

I am quite convinced, even as I speak now, that there are members in the opposition ranks who feel that my motives are politically driven. I just want to assure them, whether or not they take me at my word, that they are not. I absolutely believe that when one gives his or her word in this place, it must be honoured.

We are starting to break down the ability of members to trust one another in the most primary and fundamental environment of asking whether another member will agree to support one and to support a piece of legislation. When a word is broken, when a trust and a bond is broken, I do not believe we can operate efficiently. That is the issue.

I would ask in summation that every member in this place stand during their comments or in their questions, and please accommodate me and answer one simple question. Do they not believe that when one gives his or her word in this place, it should be honoured?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the motion is very interesting, which talks about bringing the issue before Parliament to make a decision. We are being accused of breaking our word because members want to vote on it.

The member is switching it from the real problem about the trust and the honesty of members. He says we should trust each other and when a person gives his or her word in the House that it must be honoured.

Where does he stand when we talk about Michael Fortier? The Prime Minister of this country gave his word when he said very clearly in the House that there should not be any senators in the Senate if they are not elected? He broke his word right after the election because he appointed a Senator. After that the Prime Minister of our country and the leader of the Conservative Party said that to be a minister and represent Canadians the person had to be elected. He broke his word because he appointed a minister who sits in the Senate and was appointed by the same Prime Minister.

Let us talk about breaking our word. I find it more important when the Prime Minister breaks his word by appointing a minister instead of having him be elected in a constituency. Then the Prime Minister says that the reason he put him there is because he is doing a good job in Montreal. How could he be doing a good job when we cannot even question him? Is it only the word of the Prime Minister that is good? Is he the only one who can decide if he is doing a good job or not and not the people of the riding or Parliament by asking questions of the minister?

When members talk about breaking our word, I do not think we have to take any lessons from the Conservative Party. I would like the member to answer directly that question about breaking one's word.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I would point out to Canadians that the member failed to answer my direct question. He answers a question by posing another question.

Let me directly answer his question about Senator Fortier. The Prime Minister said that he believes in an elected Senate and we stand by that. We are going to be introducing legislation in this place which hopefully will have the support of the hon. member for an elected Senate.

What the Prime Minister said at the time when he appointed Senator Michael Fortier to the Senate was that he wanted representation in Canada's second largest city, Montreal. Traditionally and historically, one does not have to be an elected member to be in cabinet. We all know that. Historically, the way to appoint someone into cabinet is through the Senate.

I know the member does not want to listen to this because of course it defuses his argument. The Prime Minister said that he would appoint a Senator so that we can bring him into cabinet to represent Montreal and Mr. Fortier would run in the next general election. That was his commitment.

The member does not want to talk about the issue I have today and it is quite simple. I ask him for the third time, was there an agreement at the September 19 House leaders meeting? Yes or no.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I was not there.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Conveniently, he did not get a report then. The member of course is one of the caucus House officers. He states that he was not at the September 19 meeting. I can only surmise that the NDP members, when they miss a meeting, do not ask anyone to give them a report on the results of that meeting. That is unfortunate. I would hope they would conduct themselves in a slightly more professional manner.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am frankly getting a little concerned about how we got into this morass. I will try to bring some focus to the issue. The House understands that in September the procedure and House affairs committee passed a motion to extend the provisional Standing Orders until November 21, an additional 60 days.

On October 5, at a subsequent meeting of procedure and House affairs, another motion came before the committee. It was in order and was dealt with. It was voted upon and reported to the House. That was that the provisional Standing Orders become permanent.

The two decisions, one in September and one in October, in fact differed. They were a change of view. However, the committee made that decision and reported it to the House.

The member is saying that the decision taken on October 5 to make the provisional Standing Orders permanent violates some informal agreement, but that informal agreement was with regard to the September meeting motion to extend the provisional Standing Orders until November 21.

I believe that the government member is mixing apples and oranges here. The committee did make a decision with regard to making them permanent. It was an order. It was reported to the House and concurrence is now being moved. Why is the member saying that it was a violation of an agreement when in fact the committee made the decision?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member was in his lobby when I was making my presentation but I did say that it was a decision made at the House leaders' meeting of September 19. All four House leaders unanimously agreed with a suggestion brought forward by the government House leader to extend the provisional Standing Orders. The committee had some discussion on this but no motion was put forward. Subsequent to that meeting, the following day the government House leader introduced a motion in this place, which was unanimously approved, to extend the provisional Standing Orders.

I think it is the member for Mississauga South who is mixing apples and oranges, not I. An agreement was made, agreed upon by unanimous consent in this place by all four parties and it was broken without prior consultation by members opposite. Those are the facts.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague was talking about apples and oranges. In the next few weeks the committee will be travelling and if votes are called what will happen then? Where is the agreement on pairing? If it is done among House leaders, will we have some difficulties there? Does the member foresee any future problems with this?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has just given one example of many that could be the start of a very slippery slope in this place. If a person breaks his or her word once, I suppose the person could break it all the time. When agreements have been made to pair when committees travel, for example, and one party does not keep its word because some other party broke its word on another agreement, then we begin to have serious problems, which is why I keep emphasizing and re-emphasizing the importance of members in this House keeping their word when we make agreements with one another.

All of us can give examples of agreements we have made with members opposite on a host of different issues. I would suggest that up until this point in time most members felt they could trust the person opposite. I think most members opposite would agree that if someone gives his or her word on a certain issue, we believe in that person's word and we have confidence that the person will honour that commitment. While it has worked fairly well up until now, I would suggest that the trust is gone, which is extremely unfortunate.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for allowing me to speak today to this extremely important issue.

For those who are watching this, it may seem a rather arcane issue dealing with the provisional Standing Orders but these are the rules upon which we can function and serve our constituents and our country in the House. These are the rules that have been put together to enable us to serve our country and our communities.

None of this is new. These provisional Standing Orders were put forth and supported strongly by the Conservatives when they were in opposition and by us in an effort to open up this place and make it more democratic.

How extreme are the provisional Standing Orders? What are these rules that we are actually talking about? Why do we want them to continue and why does the government wish that they not continue?

One of the Standing Orders would allow individuals in this House to question the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for 10 minutes after they make a speech on a government motion. What is so flawed and so bad about enabling members for the first time to ask questions of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in response to words they have uttered in this House?

This is the type of questioning that is the pillar of our Westminster system. It allows members to represent their constituents and ask the person who holds the highest office in the land the questions that their constituents are concerned about. This was never allowed before under the provisional Standing Orders.

It is logical that the Conservative Party would have supported this in opposition and why my party supported these particular changes. It was a very important move to open this House up and become more democratic.

These rules also allow members to split their time with other members. One of the frustrations I think we all have, because there are limited times and limited slots in which to speak, is that we all wish to have an opportunity to speak to particular motions that occur.

Historically, a member only had 10 minutes to speak and therefore only a few members of Parliament had the opportunity to articulate their views and those of their constituents in this House on a motion. The changes we are talking about today allow members to split their time. It allows more members to voice their views in this hallowed chamber. Is that so bad? Is that so undemocratic? Is that such a violation that the government cannot live with this?

These provisional Standing Orders also allow us to debate concurrence motions. Another frustration I think we all have is that all of us have passed motions in committees. A lot of good work occurs in committee and, in many ways, a lot of the more constructive work on issues actually occurs in committees. The environment in committee tends to be a little more collegial and a little less confrontational than what we have in the House. It is perhaps because we are less than two sword lengths away from each other.

However, the reality is that motions passed in committee are oftentimes constructive motions, policy driven motions and motions in the public interest. Those motions, historically, have disappeared into the aether because we never had a mechanism upon which those motions could come to the House for a more fulsome debate and where the public could be made aware of those issues through the substantive debate that would take place on those issues.

In the foreign affairs committee, for example, we in the Liberal Party passed substantive motions and supported motions dealing with Afghanistan, HIV-AIDS, Zimbabwe, Darfur, the Congo and a number of other crises occurring in the world, and we passed those motions. Sometimes, with the use of these Standing Order changes, those motions and motions like them have been allowed to come to the House so the public can listen to the debates and hear the constructive solutions being offered by members from all sides.

Why on earth would government members not want these orders, which allow members from all sides, including their own, to represent their constituents and articulate their solutions, to continue?

Why on earth would the government desire to quell, quash and stop these democratic interventions that allow a more fulsome and constructive debate and a more solution oriented, policy and factually driven debate where we ultimately get action on the issues Canadians care about?

The Conservatives would block it because we have a government that is unlike any other that we have seen before. We have a government not by the people and for the people. We have a government by one person, for one party. The new Prime Minister is not one who is necessarily cut from the cloth of others. His viewpoint is one that is rooted in ideology, where ideology trumps science, fact and everything but the pursuit of power.

It stems from a type of thinking that comes from an obscure professor in the U.S. named Professor Strauss. This is the Straussian view of the world that is held by a few but important individuals. The intellectual bedmates of the Prime Minister are people like Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld. They are all acolytes of this professor who lived earlier on in the 20th century.

Professor Strauss' view of the world was not one rooted in democracy. He believed that effective government came from the top, from a small number of people driven by ideology, who would force their will through a government structure and implement those solutions for a country. However, the inherent danger in that is that it violates the very roots of democracy and of this institution. That is what we have now. We have a Prime Minister driven by ideology, not driven by science and not driven by facts.

I will give some examples, the most egregious example of which is the issue of drug policy. That was manifested this summer in the almost willingness of the government to not allow the safe injection sites to continue in Vancouver. The government maintained that it needed more studies. These studies were done by some of the top researchers in the world and they were published in The Lancet. The studies showed very clearly that the safe injection site in Vancouver saved lives, saved money and was humane. These studies, which were done by independent assessors, some of the top scientific minds and researchers in Canada, showed that the safe injection site in Vancouver worked.

When I spoke to the Minister of Health he said that more studies were needed and he only extended this safe injection site for one year, not the three and a half years that were required. Why? It is because the government thinks it can hold an election and get a majority and, I believe, stop that safe injection site. The Conservatives will also not allow any other similar sites to occur in any other part of the country. Why? It is because ideologically they believe that safe injection sites are immoral and not in the interests of the public, but that completely ignores the facts.

We have, it is sad to say, a government run by one Prime Minister who believes that he is an omnibus cabinet minister. That is why we are seeing cabinet ministers, some of whom are very bright people and have very good ideas, being asked to shut up and to not offer any constructive solutions on how they can build public policy. All public policy comes from one person, the Prime Minister and a small number of people around him. The cabinet members are simply asked to trot out these solutions that the Prime Minister offers. That is not democracy.

The public who voted for the Conservative Party, particularly those people who are rooted in the Reform angle and who strongly believe in democracy and democratizing this House, would find it anathema to them that their government would not support these Standing Orders that allow members from all sides, including their own, to offer solutions in a constructive way.

It is sad to say that when the Prime Minister calls on his cabinet ministers, it is really to ask them to play the fall person to deal with mistakes that he has made.

The most recent example is the so-called environment bill, which has nothing to do with environmental protection. It has nothing to do with greenhouse gas emissions, the reason being that the Prime Minister at heart has chosen to ignore the signs, to ignore the facts and to believe that global warming is not really occurring. He is trusting his ideological belief over the actual scientific evidence, which demonstrates very clearly that global warming is occurring and is due to greenhouse gas emissions and that we have to act to make the changes necessary to ensure that we will be able to reverse this trend. It is very important for us, given our location in the world and the implications for the heating of our glaciers and our arctic areas, which is having a profound impact not only upon our country, but upon the world.

The other area is the so-called accountability bill. The accountability bill has nothing to do with accountability. It is but another example of many of the Prime Minister couching something in a certain way to lead people to believe that it is something it is not. The accountability bill is going to destroy the ability of the public service to innovate and to do the job it has done so honourably for so many decades. It also is going to prevent good people from joining the public service. We are having now and will have in the future a major problem with respect to attrition taking place in the public service and our need to attract to the public service the smart, dynamic, hard-working individuals we have always had.

Why should people join the public service if Bill C-2, the accountability bill, comes to pass, when they will have to be continually watching over their backs and continually having a hammer over their heads, and when their ability to influence and innovate is dramatically affected in a negative way? There are already checks and balances over the behaviour of the public servants, like there are over the behaviour of the House. We do not need any more of those.

Furthermore, the accountability bill has nothing to do with accountability, because accountability is the obligation of us as elected officials and of senior government officials to tell the public what we are doing before we do it and to respond to what has been done in the public interest. That is not what the accountability bill is about at all. In fact, when asked in the House to define simple public accountability, not one of those members could do that.

Furthermore, there is not even a definition of accountability in the bill. I hope the public recognizes that it is not what it seems and that the government is engaging in a number of behaviours and interventions that are diametrically opposed to the public good.

Not supporting these Standing Orders, not making these Standing Orders a matter of the rules on which the House continues, will be a complete violation of what the Conservatives have always supported and what we have commonly come to know as our basic democratic rights as members of Parliament.

We can also see that the government has been engaging in another pattern of behaviour, one that I have not seen in 13 years. It is quelling and quashing the ability of the public service to deal with members of Parliament, particularly those in opposition. It is very difficult for us to get information about what is occurring in the public service and to have meetings with public servants, who have always been very forthcoming in providing us with briefings in areas of our responsibility.

Since the new government has come along, I think the message has come down from on high, from the Prime Minister's Office, that members of the public service and the bureaucracy are not allowed to speak to members of the opposition. Roadblocks have been put in place to prevent us from being able to attend meetings and from dealing with and addressing members of the public service in a forthright and transparent fashion. That is a complete violation of our ability to do our jobs as members of Parliament in the service of the public.

The government also clearly is engaging in the behaviour of putting forth policies and using issues in a way that can harm Canadians. I will give but one example.

In the extension of the mission to Afghanistan, the Prime Minister framed the argument as being that if we do not support the extension of the mission then we do not support our troops. What an absolute pile of nonsense. That is an absolute use of our troops for the Prime Minister's own political gain. All of us, I think, at least those of us in the opposition, were extremely angry that the Prime Minister would have used our troops, who are giving their lives abroad for us, in such a naked political way.

We asked the Prime Minister's government to have the briefings and the information so we could respond and vote on this particular issue in a way that is responsible. There is no other duty that we have in this House, no other issue that is more difficult and no other issue that deserves more attention than when we put the lives of our troops on the line for the interests of our country.

Yet the government and Prime Minister gave the people of our House, members of Parliament, a mere 48 hours in order to respond. There was not enough time to get the information on issues such as the following. What is the government going to do in terms of the development framework in Afghanistan? What are the government's plans for training the Afghan security forces? What are the government's plans for dealing with the insurgency coming from outside Afghanistan? What is the government's plan to deal with the poppy crop? As Hamid Karzai, president of Afghanistan, said very clearly, “If we do not destroy poppies in Afghanistan, then poppies will destroy us”.

Why, in those four areas, could we not simply get the answers that would enable us to ensure that the conditions for the success of the mission were going to be there? The reason the Prime Minister did not allow it is that the Prime Minister knew his government was not putting out the interest, the attention and the resources to deal with those four issues that are conditional to the success of the mission in Afghanistan. He would rather use the issue as a political ploy to try to divide the opposition and to be able to erroneously show the public that those who do not support an extension at this time are somehow against our troops, which is absolute rubbish.

Behind that is a more evil intention. That evil intention is the desire on the part of the Prime Minister to use our troops for political gain. They should never be used for political gain. I hope the public sees that. I hope public understands that what we are trying to do is make sure that the conditions for the success of our mission in Afghanistan are there.

We also have been very clear in trying to articulate and demonstrate to the public that the policies the government has pursued in some areas are not what they seem. The government has trotted out policies on taxes. What it has done is raise the taxes on the poor. How on earth could any government in good conscience raise taxes on those who are the most vulnerable in our society? That is what the government has done.

The government talks about a child care program. Is the child care program a child care program? No, it is not. It is $1,200 before taxes for Canadians for their children under the age of six. That amounts to less than the cost of the cup of latte a day. That is not child care.

I hope the public understands that what we are trying to do here in this House with respect to these particular Standing Orders is enable and codify these orders in the House, which would enable us to have debates the public can see, give all members the ability to put forth solutions that would enable us to be constructive in the interests of our constituents, and enable us to work in the interests of the public.

We do not have enough opportunities to do that. These Standing Orders will enable us to do that. I think it is quite remarkable that the Conservative government that is now in power is now trying to block the very tools that will enable all MPs to be able to do their job.

I particularly ask members of Parliament who are in the backbenches of the Conservative Party to reflect on why their Prime Minister has muzzled them, has tried to muzzle the press and has muzzled his cabinet. The Prime Minister believes that he is the omnibus prime minister and that he is the font of all good ideas, but there is a dramatic danger there, in that no one person can be the government. It requires the best efforts of all people.

I hope the Canadian public understands that. I hope the government comes to its senses and supports these Standing Orders becoming permanent.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I think the last 20 minutes of comments from the member opposite just underscore my original comments that I made a few minutes ago in my presentation.

In fact, the opposition member is just trying to hijack Parliament. We had a 20 minute discourse on anything but the motion that is before this House, which is the member's total right under the procedures of this House. However, it did not speak to the motion in any way, shape or form, so I again want to let Canadians know that these are obstructionist tactics trying to delay implementation of government bills and in fact even trying to delay debate on government legislation. The member quite clearly underscored that to a level of ability which I could not.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is of course free to make his comments in this House. It is one of the great advantages of living in our beautiful, democratic country, but the member should understand very clearly, and I hope he does, that he needs to look back in history a little and understand that it was his party that supported these Standing Orders.

What we are debating today is that we are supporting the ability for us to have orders upon which we can work and ensure that this House is democratic, to ensure that we as members of Parliament are able to put forth solutions and ideas and have public debates, not to hijack anybody's agenda.

I will give one example. I would ask the member or any person in the government this question. How on earth is it hijacking the government agenda in allowing a rule to exist that enables members of Parliament to question not only the Prime Minister but the Leader of the Opposition in speeches they make on government motions? They are 10 minute speeches. That is not hijacking. That is democracy.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the member opposite that we agree with the provisional Standing Orders. I will repeat it again very slowly: we agree with the provisional Standing Orders. In fact, we helped write most of them in the 38th Parliament, when they were originally created.

The point is not whether we want the provisional Standing Orders implemented permanently, because we do. The point is keeping one's word. The point is lying in one meeting and going to another and doing something different.

I hope the member opposite now can give us a little response as to whether he thinks this place could work if every time we meet we tell a lie.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, he talks about keeping one's word. I think the government has a lot to answer for in a lot of areas, including the issue of Mr. Fortier, who was appointed to the Senate and then became a cabinet minister.

I cannot think of any example of a situation like that, at least not in the 13 years that I have been here, whereby a government appointed somebody who is sitting in the other chamber to be a cabinet minister and who therefore is hidden from the ability of the people in this House to ask questions and also hidden from being accountable while responsible for a department.

The members of the public who are watching us know this very clearly. For those who do not know this, I do not know if they cannot possibly fathom why on earth a government would be talking about accountability. Why would a Prime Minister be trumpeting accountability with one arm and muzzling his MPs and his cabinet with the other arm while appointing members of the Senate to be members of his cabinet, to be responsible for departments but shielded from the type of accountability and questioning that every other cabinet minister in this House is responsible for?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was a little taken aback by the suggestion that there was lying being done here. We do have the presumption of honesty of all hon. members.

We do have a situation here where the House leaders had some discussions and made some agreement. That is one group of people. The procedure and House affairs committee subsequently had a meeting and considered a motion, duly brought before the committee, in order, voted upon and reported to this House, and on which we are now moving concurrence. That meeting of another group of people, being the members of the procedure and House affairs committee, adopted a resolution that we make the provisional Standing Orders permanent.

I do not know how we get to the point where that is somehow a lie or breaking a trust or breaking anything when it in fact is a standing committee of the House of Commons that had a motion or an order before it which was in order and handled in accordance with the rules of Parliament. How could that be wrong?

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Mississauga South for his very hard work on the Standings Orders and on democratizing the House. He has been a respected member of the House for a long time. Members of the government would be well served by listening to his interventions and solutions. He is a very thoughtful individual who has come up with umpteen constructive apolitical solutions that would allow all members of the House to serve the public, our masters, in a more constructive and effective way.

If government members were willing to do so, they would be wise to implement a number of solutions that the member for Mississauga South has offered. He has conducted himself in a very forthright, democratic and fair-minded fashion. He has put forth solutions based on his vast experience and knowledge of the rules of the House. The government would be wise to adopt a lot of those solutions in the House in the interests of the public.