Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like the record to show that when a chance came for a federalist party to be heard on the floor of this House of Commons, given all the crocodile tears by the Reform Party, they were silent.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 51% of the vote.
Points Of Order February 28th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like the record to show that when a chance came for a federalist party to be heard on the floor of this House of Commons, given all the crocodile tears by the Reform Party, they were silent.
Points Of Order February 28th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I think all of us would acknowledge that this is a difficult time for our country given the problems we have experienced with respect to national unity, et cetera. I think all Canadians would want to know that in the House of Commons as wide a spectrum of views as possible generated by them through elections and the electoral process is expressed. In view of this, I rise on a point of order to seek the unanimous consent of the House that following the spokespersons of the three official parties in the House in the address in reply to the speech from the throne that a representative of the New sDemocratic Party be allowed to speak. With a view to increasing the representativeness of the House at this difficult time, I think everyone should be heard.
I ask that we be allowed to be heard after the first three speakers.
Government Business February 27th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the government has been very cute in proposing a motion which ties
private members' business to government business in a way that obviously gives the government House leader the opportunity to make the Reform House leader feel uncomfortable.
However, I would like to speak to what I think is the larger point which is the fact that this is in effect, as was argued earlier by my colleague from the Reform Party, something in the nature of an omnibus motion.
Certainly the government House leader will recall, having been here in 1982, when an omnibus piece of legislation, albeit legislation and not a motion, provoked 16 days of bell ringing. It is not just in this House but in many other legislatures and most recently in the Ontario legislature where omnibus bills provoke a particularly strong reaction on the part of elected members. Why is that? It is because it goes against the tradition established by Speaker after Speaker in so many contexts that the House should not be forced to rule on more than one matter at a time. People should not be put in that kind of position.
It is somewhat misleading, although not deliberately so, for the government House leader to suggest that the framework which the motion establishes provides an opportunity for the question to be put on each and every piece of legislation that would be reinstated within this framework. What will happen is that the bill will be reinstated at the particular point at which it was when the last session came to an end. There will be no question put.
The government House leader suggests that there will be individual questions put on whether or not legislation is reinstated. That is the question we are debating here; not the questions that will be put at the various stages of legislation, but whether the legislation itself will be reinstated. That is the question that opposition members want put and those are the questions that will not be put if this framework motion is adopted.
The government House leader suggests that somehow there will be individual questions put with respect to these 30 bills. The point was rightly made that we are talking about 30 bills, not just the five that we found so offensive and which the Liberals found offensive when the Conservatives tried to do a similar thing in May 1991.
Is there no end to the parliamentary hypocrisy, call it what you like, which we see from Parliament to Parliament to Parliament where people get up on the government side and do in spades what they condemned in an even smaller form when they were in opposition? Is there no end?
I have seen this happen on a number of occasions. I have seen Conservatives condemn Liberals and then do it. I have seen Liberals condemn Conservatives and then do it. In this case it is the Liberals who condemn the Conservatives and who now come before us with a motion which does in a much more exaggerated way the very thing that they found so heinous in May 1991. We had a bad decision in May 1991. That motion never should have been deemed acceptable by the Speaker at that time, a Speaker for whom I had a great deal of respect, but I have to say I did not agree with him on that occasion.
We should not let that precedent be magnified now by the advancement of this particular motion. Basically if it is adopted it will create a situation in which the end of session and a throne speech really becomes just a PR opportunity for the government. It is not the end of a session and the beginning of something new. It is not what the end of session and the beginning of a new session used to be. It is basically just a little photo-op for the government because nothing stops. It does not have to take responsibility for the parliamentary timetable. If it cannot score with the goal posts the way they are and get its legislation through, this motion simply says move the goal posts.
It says we can do anything we like with the standing orders any time we like. There is too much of that going on. Too much of it went on under the Conservatives for nine years where they just moved the goal posts. I remember one time they had a motion where they just said they could change any standing order any time in any way they liked.
What we have here is a kind of parliamentary dictatorship when it comes to standing orders. The Liberals saw through it at the time. Yet now they do a very similar thing and it is very distressing. They ought to think twice before they do this. For once somebody should not do in government what they condemned in opposition. Indeed they should say that was wrong and we are not going to do a similar thing when we are in government. Would that not be a refreshing change?
Committee Of The Whole February 27th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me this whole unfortunate mess could have been avoided if the government had shown a little imagination and innovation by living up to its own commitments. They are not radical commitments but things that have been done in other Parliaments and other legislatures that were quite doable.
Having said that, I regret that the Reform Party has made this a personal matter with respect to the appointment. I say on behalf of the NDP that we will continue to vote against these motions as a way of registering our objection to the fact the government did not
take the opportunity to bring in these reforms. It is not because we are making any statement about the person who has been suggested by the government.
Committee Of The Whole February 27th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate to those members of the House who may not know that the recommendation that the speakership be more non-partisan by having members of the opposition appointed to various positions in the chain of command from the Speaker on down was considered by a standing committee of the House in the last Parliament. It was unanimously recommended by a standing committee of the House of Commons in the last Parliament and was approved by the Liberals at that time. It did not originate in the red book nor did it originate with the people who are now on the government side. It originated from a careful consideration of what would be in the interests of Parliament by members of all parties in the last Parliament.
The recommendation was made and I see no reason why it cannot be lived up to. Therefore, I would like to join in whatever criticism is being offered to the government for not living up to that promise.
I might also say that when we listen to rhetoric about the House and co-operation and non-partisanship, I as the NDP House leader have been around all day and no one from the Reform Party took the time or the courtesy to let me know this was going to happen. If we want to work together and we want to talk about non-partisanship, then let us work together and not surprise each other in these ways.
Nuclear Disarmament December 12th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, there is increasing concern among Canadians concerned about nuclear disarmament that the Canadian government, despite its official support of various treaties, is not as serious as Canadians want it to be about bringing an end to nuclear testing, about the proliferation of nuclear weapons and about the destruction of existing nuclear warheads.
The post cold war era was to be an opportunity for the world to put behind it the fear of nuclear war. The public has been lulled into thinking that significant progress is being made.
In reality, the nuclear club permits certain of its members like France and China to continue threatening the planet with nuclear testing. This same nuclear club, with which Canada is associated through NATO, also refuses to countenance the significant destruction or elimination of its nuclear capacity, thus encouraging other countries to seek such weapons.
The doomsday clock is being advanced once more. The Liberals need to wake up and show some courage on the issue instead of speaking out of both sides of their mouth, saying one thing at the UN and another thing through NATO.
Violence Against Women December 6th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, five years ago former NDP MP Dawn Black gained unanimous support in the House of Commons for her bill making December 6 a national day of remembrance and action on violence against women. As we have each year since 1990, today we remember and mourn the lives of the 14 women killed six years ago in Montreal.
Today is not just a day of remembrance but a day of action. In this respect the Liberals have not lived up to their commitments to women. In the past year the federal government has wiped out the Canadian advisory council on the status of women. While the government says it is committed to ending violence against women, it dismantles the very programs that provide vital support to women.
Many such programs are funded through the Canada assistance plan or federal transfer payments to the provinces and territories, payments which are being cut back drastically, threatening the survival of emergency shelters for women, child care and other programs to help women and their families.
The Liberals must show their commitment to women through action, not words.
Medicare December 5th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, today I was glad to join with the Moderator of the United Church, Dr. Marion Best, and the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce in supporting the drive by CAW retirees and the Congress of Union retirees to save medicare.
We played a take-off on the TV game of Jeopardy, answering questions about health care in Canada. At the end we were presented a T-shirt with a caricature of the Prime Minister on it dubbed "Medicare Nightmare".
The Liberals are slowly starving medicare and with it the ability to maintain or enforce national standards. They have reneged on the commitment to repeal Bill C-91 and do something about the spiralling cost of drugs and what those costs are doing to our health care system.
The NDP congratulates the Canadian Health Coalition and the CAW retirees and the Congress of Union retirees for the creative way in which they have sought to educate the public and the Liberals about the threat federal cutbacks are posing to medicare.
National Unity November 28th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the NDP federal caucus calls on the Liberal government to realize that it cannot save Canada if it is busy undermining its foundations at the same time.
Recognizing Quebec's distinct society when the socioeconomic and institutional realities that make Canada distinct from the U.S. are being harmonized or rationalized out of existence is a tragic irony. Talking about vetoes and sovereignty is a cruel joke when we have abandoned real control of our lives to the global marketplace and the money speculators, not to mention that the veto proposal completely misunderstands western Canada and should have recognized B.C. as a region. Finally devolution of training as a facade for federal offloading and the privatization of labour market strategies is further cause for cynicism.
The Prime Minister should give Canadians something to believe in other than the bottom line mentality and they will be in a better frame of mind to deal with what Quebec and the rest of Canada need to do to keep Canada united.
Railways November 22nd, 1995
Mr. Speaker, recently constituents who work at CP Rail and VIA came to me about safety concerns they have about the way the recent collective agreements are being interpreted and enforced.
Canadian Pacific locomotive engineers are concerned about what is called turnaround combination service. VIA running crews are likewise being made to work when in previous times they could have booked rest without penalty.
Making tired people drive trains is not progress; it is tempting fate in the name of a false bottom line. I urge the Minister of Transport to look into the situation and tell CP and VIA to smarten up for the sake of the employees and in the interests of public safety.