John Reynolds

[The Budget, December 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I might ask him again some day but I want to tell him that he is not the first Liberal Prime Minister I have ever faced and I can assure him that I will do my best in this role to make sure he is the last one I face.

This year the government will spend $1.9 billion more than it collects in revenue. By U.S. accounting standards, we are already in a deficit.

The auditor general identified $16.3 billion in poorly managed grant programs.

Could the Prime Minister not have found ways to cut rather than pushing us to the brink of a deficit?

[The Budget, December 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, with a 9.3% increase in spending, this is the largest increase in spending since the Prime Minister was finance minister.

The government has not cut waste. It has thrown money away to pet projects of the Liberal leadership candidates and has neglected the real priorities of Canadians.

Could the Prime Minister explain to Canadians and to the auditor general how the government could not find one cent in wasteful spending to cut?

[The Budget, December 12th, 2001]

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, the warmth will last all of about 35 seconds.

This budget was a wasted opportunity for the government and, unfortunately, for Canadians.

[Parliament of Canada Act, November 30th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the NDP member for Sackville--Musquodoboit Valley--Eastern Shore for bringing forward this private member's bill. It brings a good debate to the House.

It is unfortunate the bill is not votable. I believe, as do a lot of members in the House, that all private member's business should be votable. The Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary over there is working hard with members of the House to work toward that. It would be interesting to have a vote on issues like the one we are debating.

It has been interesting sitting here listening to the debate. I was thinking of all the people who have been here during my career in politics. I remember Paul Hellyer leaving the Liberals to join the Tories. I remember Pauline Jewett, a member of the NDP party who joined the Liberals. Some NDP members today may be too young to remember Ms. Jewett.

Other parties have had the same changes. In the last parliament Tories went to the Liberals and to the Canadian Alliance. In this parliament members of my party have gone to sit as independents. I will talk about that a later.

It is a tough decision. Most members of parliament probably think we are the reason we are here. The reality is that few of us would be here if we did not have the support of the party for which we ran. People tend to vote for that.

I have watched pretty good people get defeated. They might get elected once as an independent like John Nunziata. He ran on an issue and his constituents supported him, but in the next election they quickly left him and went back to the party of their choice.

As important as members may think they are, they should realize this. Their egos might tell them they are more important than their party, especially after they have been here a while. The reality is that the party is the most important thing.

I respect the rights of individual members of parliament to change parties if need be, if they think that is what their constituents want. I imagine there are not many who have done that without first sitting with people in their constituencies to discuss their thoughts and why they were doing it.

The member of the Bloc talked about members switching. His party would probably not be here if it had not been for some Tories who started that movement. Byelections would not have been the way to start that party. It started because of the real feelings of members of parliament who could not get along with whatever they could not get along with.

We have to respect the tradition in this place that members have the right to make these decisions. The voters at the next election would be the ones who decide whether a member made the right decision.

The summary of Bill C-218 reads:

This enactment provides that a member's seat in the House of Commons will be vacated, thus precipitating the calling of a by-election, if the member, having been elected to the House as a member of a political party or as an independent, changes parties in the House or becomes a member of a party in the House, as the case may be, at any time during the term for which he or she was elected. A member's seat will not be vacated, if the member, having been elected as a member of a political party, chooses to sit as an independent at any time during the term for which he or she was elected.

The principle is similar to a former Reform caucus policy involving members wishing to cross the floor and join a party without losing their seat. It would reduce the temptation for members to experiment with other parties. If members were to jump to another party they would need to be sure they had the support of their constituents, otherwise their careers would be cut short.

The people who elect members to the House have a fundamental right to reassess their support if the member crosses the floor. It could be argued that this opportunity would take place at the next election. Not only electors would be allowed to express their opinion, but the party could do so as well. Through a candidate selection process the party would be given the opportunity to accept or reject the crossing of the floor.

Crossing the floor is part of our history. It is sometimes cause for procedural debate in the House. Our practice accepts members changing parties. Sometimes a change occurs voluntarily when a member simply crosses the floor. Sometimes it is involuntary and involves double crossing.

The confusion over our most recent crossings in the House may be properly compared to cross-dressing. Like gender identity disorder, some members of the House have party identity disorder. Politically it is no longer clear if they represent the right or the left. I am not sure how the bill would address such dressers. It is not always clear if they joined another party.

I am talking of course about the status of the PC/DR coalition. The PC/DR claimed party status as a party of 20. The speaker ruled it was a group of eight independents and a party of 12 and could only be afforded the resources to which a party of 12 was entitled.

How would Bill C-218 treat members of the DRC? Technically they are independents so no byelection would be required. Ethically DRC members, particularly those who were once Reform members and believed in this principle, should support subjecting themselves to a byelection. They were elected Alliance members and are now trying to be recognized as a separate party while working in a coalition with another party.

Another question that needs to be answered is how the bill would deal with Reform Party members who became Alliance members in the last parliament. They technically changed parties, but I do not think the intent of the bill is to cause over 50 byelections to take place as a result.

These are the issues that are important in Bill C-218. I will use the cost to the taxpayer as an example. In the last parliament over 50 members changed parties. If we had forced a byelection in all those areas it would have been at great cost to the taxpayer. We must think carefully about the ramifications of a bill like this one if there is major political change. We may see it happening in the country now. It happens once in a while to a great degree.

I thank the member for bringing the matter to the House. It is an interesting debate and one that deserves discussion. I hope in the future we can have a vote on something like this so it can go to committee and we can work together.

That is what parliament is all about. We are here to work together for the benefit of all Canadians. Sometimes certain members feel the urge to do something different. It is a good debate for the House to have. It is unfortunate there will not be a vote on it.

Let us remember that we are here because of our parties. Crossing the floor of the House of Commons is a serious decision, but it is the right of members to make that decision after consulting their constituents.

[An act to amend certain acts and instruments and to repeal the Fisheries Prices Support Act, November 30th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I will go back to October 25, 1989, when the present government whip was in opposition. She said she felt the Tory government's use of closure showed it had no respect for the public process, no respect for parliament and no respect for the opinions of the public.

On November 16, 1992, according to Hansard , the present government House leader said in the House that he was shocked by the conservative government's use of closure.

The government he was talking about used closure or time allocation about 23 times. The present government has used them 73 times. Rushing legislation through 73 times is one of the reasons we have a bill like the one before the House today. Mistakes are made and corrections must be made. We should spend the proper time looking at these bills.

The three members I have referred to, the Prime Minister, the government House leader and the chief government whip, are key players in the House of Commons today.

We in my party support Bill C-43 because it would make the necessary changes. However we would like the proper time to be taken in the House and the proper assistance to be given to members to make sure mistakes do not happen.

Parliament does not need to rush 73 bills through on closure. We should let parliament do its job. If it takes a little longer than the government hopes, that is one thing. We would prefer to avoid making mistakes in the first place. This would be achieved by careful drafting.

As I mentioned, when I was on the justice committee a number of opposition amendments to the extradition bill were approved. This proves my point. The member for Red Deer, our environment critic, has had numerous amendments approved in committee. This shows that if we let the opposition and the government work in committee and give them time to do what they must do, we will have better legislation.

Using the heavy hand of government to invoke closure does not bring about good legislation. Bill C-43 is a good example of that. It is a waste of taxpayer dollars. The money should have been spent making sure the legislation was done properly in the first place.

[An act to amend certain acts and instruments and to repeal the Fisheries Prices Support Act, November 30th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it was interesting to listen to the government House leader today. He said that the acts were precise and as up to date as possible, which was the reason for the bill. I cannot help but wonder, if the bills were done properly in the first place, that we would not have to be doing some of this stuff and taking up the time of the House.

Bill C-43, an act to amend certain acts and instruments and to repeal the Fisheries Prices Support Act, amends the following: Access to Information Act, Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Act, Canadian Film Development Corporation Act, the constitution of Telefilm Canada, Financial Administration Act, Lieutenant Governors Superannuation Act, National Capital Act, Nuclear Safety and Control Act, Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act, Privacy Act, Public Service Staff Relations Act, Special Retirement Arrangements Act which I am sure would excite people watching live this afternoon, and Special Retirement Arrangements Act.

The committee will have to get together to make sure there are no special arrangements for MPs pensions or senior bureaucrats. The bill also amends the Telecommunications Act, Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act and repeals the Fisheries Prices Support Act.

We are told the bill proposes minor technical corrections that do not involve any policy changes. I agree with that. The reason the government's legislation is so riddled with mistakes is that it rushes it through the legislative process claiming lack of time. Yet the House adjourns early every other day.

Here is a question we could ask. How many high priced lawyers do we have in all these government departments drafting legislation? It is rather unfortunate that we still have all these mistakes.

I recall being on the justice committee and we had scads of lawyers, 10, 20 or 30 of them. They were all looking at the Extradition Act. I had to hire two professionals to look at the act. About nine or ten amendments were approved that time because we as the opposition hired some top notch lawyers to look at the bill.

I asked these lawyers why, If we could hire two lawyers to do this work for us and come up with amendments the government lawyers accept, they would not pick up on this. They said that government lawyers tended to like things to go to the supreme court for decisions rather than make laws that would never go there under the charter. I sometimes wonder how legislation is drafted that necessitates what we are doing this afternoon: taking up a couple of hours of parliament's time. It is a disturbing trend and this bill is a by product of that trend.

Yesterday the Liberal government attempted to adjourn government orders early due to the lack of government business. Ironically the day before it limited debate to less than two hours on the most important bill to hit the House in years.

I found this to be so offensive, as did most of my colleagues on this side of the House, that we refused consent to adjourn early, giving the Speaker no choice but to suspend the sitting until 5.30 p.m. when private members' business begins. The House was in a state of limbo with no business before it for a couple of hours.

So far this fall the House adjourned early for the same reason on November 22, November 20, November 2, October 26, October 25, October 24, October 22 and October 19. This is why we have a bill like Bill C-43 before us. It is not necessary because we do not have time to deal with legislation in a thoughtful and thorough manner.

Time allocation is not necessary in most cases. In fact there was a time when the Liberal leadership in the House shared that view. As recently as December 29, 1992, on CBC Prime Time the Prime Minister who was then the member for Saint-Maurice declared:

We have closure in Parliament now every day. I think it's completely wrong...And we will have to restore parliament...the parliamentary democracy that existed before.

On January 19, 1993, the same member made the following comment at a press conference in Ottawa. I see that the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary is wondering if I am in order with some of these comments. There is a reason that we talk about bills which are being updated. It is because of mistakes and that is why we have to press these issues. Before becoming Prime Minister he said on January 19, 1993:

I think we should let members of parliament speak their mind as long as it is possible.

If we had the opportunity to get the proper witnesses before committee and took the proper time on some of these bills, we would not make mistakes. It would mean we would not have to be back here bringing in a bill with all these mistakes and trying to correct them.

On October 25, 1989, the Toronto Star reported that the present government whip who in those days was in opposition said she felt the Tory government's use of closure showed it had no respect for the public process--

[National Defence, November 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, militia units in British Columbia are facing a financial crunch with one unit completely out of funds, another which will run out of funds on December 1, and another which will be penniless on January 1. Another unit does not have enough money to buy ammunition to fire a salute.

The minister has been told repeatedly that $1 billion per year is required to keep the armed forces at status quo. The SCONDVA report said the issue of underfunding for those who are expected to make a sacrifice for this country is urgent and critical.

While the minister can find no money for frontline personnel and militia units, he can condone 100 commanding officers from western Canada holding a meeting on December 2 at the Crown Plaza Hotel on the tab of taxpayers and on the backs of those he asks to serve on the frontline.

I guess the Greisbach Barracks in Edmonton, which is a perfectly suitable facility, is not good enough for a one day meeting for the champagne tastes of the commanding officers. Some example they are setting for the young Canadians who are being asked to sacrifice their lives, if need be, in Afghanistan. Some gall. Surely money earmarked for the British Columbia militia will not go to the Crown Plaza in Edmonton to feed and water the commanding officers.

[Nuclear Fuel Waste Act, November 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I find it just amazing that a government that just yesterday had to move closure on a bill, today is adjourning the House early when members of the House so badly wanted to speak on a very important bill.

A government lost an election in 1957 on a closure bill over a pipeline. We had closure yesterday on a very important bill, probably one of the most important parliament has ever seen, yet today it is 3.30 in the afternoon and the government is telling us it is time to go home. It is shameful.

[Business Of The House, November 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, after we have had this delay from the government, when I thought we had more important business to do, I would like to now ask the government House leader what is the business for the rest of the day, tomorrow and next week?

[Privilege, November 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question of privilege cannot be taken seriously for two reasons.

First, everything the Leader of the Opposition said came from a public meeting of the standing committee on November 22, including the motion to report to the House that a breach of privilege had not occurred. I invite the Speaker to review the proceedings from November 22 and compare them to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. Any mention of the report by the Leader of the Opposition was in the context of a request. Again, if you review the leader's request and the report, you will see that they do not match.

Second, the member's question of privilege is out of order because the proper procedure to raise a question of privilege involving a committee is to bring the matter before the standing committee. If the standing committee concludes that a breach has occurred, it could report the breach to the House. I refer the hon. member to page 128 of Marleau and Montpetit:

Speakers have consistently ruled that, except in the most extreme situations, they will only hear questions of privilege arising from committee proceedings upon presentation of a report from the committee which directly deals with the matter and not as a question of privilege raised by an individual Member.

I bring your attention to the fact that the hon. member was in the House affairs committee earlier this day and did not raise the matter whatsoever. The hon. member does not understand the parliamentary procedure and definitely does not understand privilege. It is evident today in the manner in which he raises the issue and by his behaviour at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs when dealing with the question of privilege regarding the premature disclosure of the contents of Bill C-36.

During the public proceedings of the committee the hon. member, as the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary, led his Liberal members to shut down the opposition, gag the privy council and sweep the matter under the carpet. His members made the lamest excuses to discontinue the study such as it costs too much to investigate the matter, the committee has gone far enough and it is too difficult a task.

If the hon. member wants to talk about contempt he should look no further than at his behaviour and efforts today. He should take note of another aspect of parliamentary privilege. Page 26 of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada declares:

“One of the first and greatest of its privileges is free speech and one of the advantages of legislative bodies is the right of exposing and denouncing abuses by means of free speech”.

If any privilege is under siege today it is the right of a member to speak freely in the House and expose and denounce the abuses of the government. The premature disclosure of the contents of Bill C-36 is one example. The lack of action to deal with the matter is yet another. The government use of closure on Bill C-36 is yet another example.

The member's attempt to question the right of the Leader of the Opposition to speak freely in the House is conclusive evidence that the government's contentious behaviour regarding the proceedings on Bill C-36 is pathological. I ask the member and the House to consider the report in question and the Deloitte & Touche findings which my leader referred to. The report stated at page 11:

The disquieting aspect, however, is that a small portion of the article contains or alludes to information, which, at the time prior to the tabling of the bill itself, was classified secret and was subject to protection as a confidence of cabinet.

In addition, my leader made reference to the fact that it was disclosed to the committee that the PCO had the Deloitte & Touche report edited prior to its delivery to the committee. The opposition smelled a rat and moved to use the authority of the committee to obtain a copy of the unedited report. However the member, probably acting on the instructions of the PMO, led his Liberal majority once again to vote the motion down.

All this took place at a public meeting. I invite the Speaker and the public to examine those minutes, not just to clear the air but to expose the disrespectful and contemptuous actions and behaviour of the Liberal government in this cover-up.

It is no wonder that the contents of Bill C-42 were also leaked to the media prior to being tabled in the House. Why should any government official be deterred from leaking information to the media ahead of parliament when the majority in control of the House is too weak-kneed and complacent to take any corrective action to avoid it? There is contempt here today, but you will not find it on this side of the House. You should look to your right.