Reg Alcock

[House Of Commons, March 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I will keep my comment very short. I believe the Bloc member has a question also.

Certainly I underscore everything that the member just said. In fact it was the member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia who first introduced me to the Speaker and acted as a reference really when I was trying to sort out who would be the person we might choose as Speaker. It was an absolutely open vote. I have always respected the choice that I made.

[House Of Commons, March 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you how pleased I am to be able to participate in this debate. I was not aware, earlier this morning, that it was being called today and had to negotiate fiercely in the back rooms to get here. I wanted to be here because this is an issue that I feel very strongly about.

I was first elected in 1988 in the provincial legislature in Manitoba at a time when our party had only one member in the House. All of a sudden, we became the official opposition overnight, not unlike what occurred with the Reform Party. I was made the House leader and, in the course of a very few hours, had to learn and understand all the rules, the procedure, the precedents and the history of the House in order to get a feeling for how this place must work.

As I was sitting here earlier today listening to the member for Edmonton North, I was interested when, toward the conclusion of her remarks, she made a comment about being concerned about a reduction in the democratic rights that exist in this House. I forget exactly how it was phrased but it was in that general area. I want to say that I agree with that. I think there is a problem. I do not think it is a problem that occurred this week or this month. I think it is a problem that has been growing over the last 30 years. Some who are better would go back further than that.

Because my particular interest is in the way in which communication moves in the world, I argue that it is because the world has speeded up so dramatically and there has been such a demand on this place to change. It has resisted change so much that one of the consequences has been that we have twisted some of the ways in which we function in order to accommodate these demands for speed by the external world rather than reform our institutions internally. I think we have to do that. It is an issue I study, an issue I write about and an issue I will be speaking about a great deal more. I wanted to take note that there is an important issue underlying this.

I am the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs and I did not feel good going into committee and proposing the motion for time allocation on its work. It was something that did not make me feel good. I do not think that is the best way to function in a democracy but I did it. Nobody told me to do that. I did it.

I stood up and voted for time allocation every time it was proposed because I think this place is broken. However, if that is the situation we are in, if that is the situation that has been created and if that is the situation we have to live with, then I will support those things that we need to do at this time in order to make this place work.

One of the reasons I supported it as strongly as I did with the Bloc members was because they had said that this place was not working the way it was supposed to work. It was not “Let's come together and debate ideas and see if we can find a constructive way to build a better country”. Instead it was “We are not going to allow this thing to happen, regardless. It doesn't matter what you do, what you say, what you propose, or how long. It is not going to change anything. All we are going to do is obstruct”.

I supported it and I did some things that I hope, over the course of the next two years, will bring some reform. It may take longer. Our esteemed clerk will have a better sense of how long it will take for this glacier to move. I think there needs to be reform in how we function in the House.

Having said that, I want to tell all hon. members of the House that it is not the role of the Speaker to do that. It is our responsibility to do that. The referee does not make the rules.

There is something else I find interesting. When I served as a house leader it was in a house where the Speaker was appointed by the government and there was always a sense that the Speaker really played on the other team. For the time I was in the House, the Speaker was the Hon. Denis Rocan, whom I think you know, Mr. Speaker. He became a good friend of mine because he was so even-handed in the way he handled the work he did, even though he was appointed by the government of the day.

Here that is not the case. This Speaker is our Speaker; not our, as in we, the government, but all of us. We elected him. In fact, if I recall, Mr. Speaker, in 1993 you ran against Liberals, so you were elected by all of us. There were members from all parties in the House who elected you.

I want to tell hon. members opposite that we do not agree with everything he does. I have heard more than one member over here express a bit of annoyance. It happens, but as the Prime Minister often says, if the left is mad at us and the right is mad at us, maybe we are doing the right thing.

It is a tough job to herd cats. It is a tough job to make this place work because it is a feeling. We have a set of rules and practices, but the Speaker also has the ability to understand the House organically. If anything, I would argue, Mr. Speaker, that at times you have gone too far in urging a member to retract a statement and in trying to give somebody an opening to back away from something they have done to transgress the rules. However, I think that every time you have done it, you have done it out of respect for the House and what the House is all about.

This is a fight between the Bloc and the government in this particular case. We do not expect the Speaker to fix that fight. All the Speaker can do is referee and manage. We do not expect him to solve those problems. We set the rules. This Chamber sets the rules. This country sets the rules in the Chamber. It is not for the Speaker to do.

I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I hope there will be opportunities over the next few years to debate how the House might evolve and how the rules of the House and the operations might evolve.

I profess to have not much but a little experience in this area. I want to express my personal support and my absolute confidence in you, Mr. Speaker. I am very sorry we are even having to debate this motion today.

[Tara Leigh Sloan, March 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian national swim team lost one of its leading members this weekend as Canadian Tara Leigh Sloan succumbed to serious head injuries suffered in a car accident on March 3. She died on March 11 at Foothills Hospital in Calgary. She had been en route to visit her grandmother in Swift Current, Saskatchewan when her car left the road.

Twenty years old, she was a national team member for four years and is currently the Canadian short course record holder in the 100 metre breaststroke. She was a five time national champion and won 17 international medals.

She competed in the Pan Am Games in Winnipeg last summer, placing eighth in the 200 metre breaststroke. She was currently training and preparing the Canadian Olympic qualifying trials which are in late May in Montreal, with a dream of qualifying for the Olympics. She was a member of the University of Calgary swim club and was coached by Mike Blondal.

She is survived by her parents Gayle and Fred Sloan. Our condolences go out to them.

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, March 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, at this point I will use the three minutes I have remaining to remind the House of why we are here and why we will end up in the position we seem to be inexorably heading toward tonight.

After the 1995 referendum there was a decision to ask the supreme court what we might do in the event of another referendum. The court said very clearly that in a democracy like Canada, should there be a clear expression of the will of a population in a region of Canada on a clear question about the secession of that province, the Government of Canada would be obligated to negotiate. The government has come forward with a piece of legislation that puts that decision into law and nothing more. It adheres very closely to the decision of the supreme court.

From the moment it was even hinted that we might undertake to do that, at every opportunity the Bloc indicated there would be no co-operation, no discussion, no debate and no attempt to work together to improve legislation as is often done in the House. That is the purpose of this Chamber. I note that the New Democratic Party and its House leader, who was a member on the committee, worked hard to review the bill and put forward amendments. I note that even the Reform Party came forward in support of the bill and also looked at ways in which the bill could be improved.

Unfortunately, we end up where we are, responding to the unending stream of statements and actions by members of the Bloc who say “It does not matter what the debate is. It does not matter what the logic is. We are going to do everything we can to stop this”. Therefore, we end up in a very sad place, a place where it is no longer possible to debate. I am sorry that we are here, but we are here. Let me be very clear on this. We are here because of the consistent and continuing actions of one party in the House.

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, March 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot said in the last little while about democracy in the House. There have been great protestations about what is taking place in the House, how the government is moving and the kinds of tactics that are being used in order to get the business of the House done.

There is a reason to be concerned. The House has not been a happy place in which to work or in which to have a legitimate debate for some time now. When considering that, we have to look at where that feeling arises from.

The government has spoken for a long time about the need to do something to clarify the rules for secession. The Prime Minister spoke about it during the 1995 referendum. I recall that he repeatedly stood in the House and said that 50 plus one was not enough. This did not come to the floor of the House this week or last week; it is a position that has been held by the government for a very long time. There was a discussion of this last summer leading up to the renewal of the session. In the Speech from the Throne there was an indication of the government's desire to do this.

Each step of the way one of the parties opposite, rather than seeing this as an opportunity to debate a fundamental question of fundamental importance to the country, has said that it does not matter what occurs in this Chamber. That party has said it does not matter what is put down by the Government of Canada, that its members will not involve themselves in the process and will do everything they can to stop it. That has been stated over and over again by members of the Bloc Quebecois.

At a certain point we are left to decide whether we want to let one party hijack the House. It is unfortunate that the tools one has to deal with are heavy handed. The tool to limit debate is not one which anybody in the House likes to see used but it is a necessary tool in the face of the activities, particularly in this place, of the Bloc Quebecois.

Let us look at this. If we are talking about democracy, if we are talking about legitimate debate on legitimate questions in front of the House, let us look at what we are debating today. We entering into debate on 411 amendments to Bill C-20. We are debating 12 of those amendments and now a subamendment to one of them. What are these earth shattering important amendments that we are going to take up the time of the country to debate?

Motion No. 1 is “That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting the title”. This is the quality of the debate the Bloc wants to put on the floor of the House. Motion No. 3 deletes lines 1 to 37 on page 1 and lines 1 to 33 on page 2 of the bill.

Let me read some of the lines that members of the Bloc would have us delete. “Whereas any proposal relating to the break-up of a democratic state is a matter of the utmost gravity and is of fundamental importance to all of its citizens”. That is what they want us to delete, but there is more. “Whereas the government of any province of Canada is entitled to consult its population by referendum on any issue and is entitled to formulate the wording of its referendum question”. That is what they want us to delete.

At the same time we hear them arguing fiercely that the Government of Quebec has the right to ask any question that it wishes. When I read “Whereas the government of any province of Canada is entitled to consult its population by referendum on any issue and is entitled to formulate the wording of its referendum question”, it seems to meet the test that the Bloc would have us consider. Yet Motion No. 3 calls upon us to delete that from the preamble of the bill.

Just in case people have not understood that, Motion No. 7 is a very narrowly drawn motion. Motion No. 7 says “That Bill C-20, in the preamble, be amended by deleting lines 11 to 15 on page 1”. What are lines 11 to 15 on page 1? “Whereas the government of any province of Canada is entitled to consult its population by referendum on any issue and is entitled to formulate the wording of its referendum question”.

[Strauss Communications, March 1st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to congratulate a fine young company from Winnipeg which has been nominated to receive the Canadian Event Industry Award for best conference.

Strauss Communications has been nominated for this award for its efforts in organizing the Manitoba “Place to be, Place to Stay” conference.

The conference brought together over 350 students and 59 guidance counsellors to hear from 48 senior business leaders of Manitoba based companies. The idea was that Manitoba business leaders could best provide today's students with valuable information regarding the tremendous opportunities that exist within Manitoba, and that the future is there.

I stand to offer my congratulations to the entire team at Strauss Communications and to remind hon. members that Manitoba is the place to be.

[World Sprint Speed Skating Championships, February 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Canada retained its position as a speed skating force this past weekend when Jeremy Wotherspoon of Red Deer, Alberta, and Mike Ireland of Winnipeg, Manitoba, placed first and second overall in the World Sprint Speed Skating Championships.

Mr. Wotherspoon, silver medalist in the 1998 Nagano Olympic Games, is the dominant sprinter in the world having won two consecutive world titles. He leads a very strong Canadian team that in long track speed skating won five medals at the 1998 Winter Olympic Games and will once again be the team to beat at the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City, Utah. Congratulations to these exceptional Canadians who make us all proud.

[Supply, February 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his comments. Let us see what we can do. The purpose of this place is to debate ideas. The purpose of this process is to try to come to a common understanding of how we might build better legislation.

The member raised the question that his party raised. Is 50 plus one a sufficient majority on which to make this decision? Three witnesses came before committee this morning, not the minister but constitutional experts from universities in Quebec, who argued very eloquently on that question. The member was there and listened to the arguments put forward on why 50 plus one was not enough. Is the member able to hear that, or does he feel he must support the first position put forward by his party?

[Supply, February 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the irony of this party lecturing anybody on clarity on this particular issue is not lost on anybody in the House. “Exactly what is the policy on that? I am not quite sure what it is”. It depends, of course, on which member we ask and on which day of the week.

Let me quote the former leader of that party, who is now the leader of the opposition in Quebec, who said: “the Quebec government's strategy has less to do with having the national assembly speak with one voice than with reviving the sovereignty thrust of the party in power”, which is trying to manufacture a crisis so that it can call a referendum. That is what that party is supporting.

[Supply, February 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but the member's answer lies in the words of his former leader. If he wants that kind of honesty and open discussion, then why does he say that we framed the question this way because we know that more of the population will vote for it than if we framed it another way.

If at the end of the day the question is the separation of the country, what is the problem with clarity? What is the problem with saying “that is what we want”. If that is what he wants then he does not need to be playing games with the question. The intention of the question, in the words of his own former leader, was to confuse.