Lost his last election, in 2004, with 37% of the vote.
Supply April 4th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that the member was alluding only to perception and not to reality. We must underscore what he said, but it is not responsible to keep repeating the perception with the hope or at least the unwitting result of creating a reality out of a perception. I am sure the member did not mean that. I am glad to note that he indicated that it was a perception. Of course the corollary is that it is not a real fiasco.
Supply April 4th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the end of the debate of the hon. member and it occurred to me to call to the attention of the House, by way of commentary, that this morning we listened to the President of the Treasury Board inform us of the many initiatives her department has embarked on to further strengthen management control within government.
An outline of those initiatives would include assisting Human Resources Development Canada, which is proper; strengthening the management of grants and contributions; strengthening the internal audit system; and active monitoring. Last Thursday the minister tabled “Results for Canadians: A Management Framework for the Government of Canada”. It is a very important document which describes the various efforts that are taking place to modernize government management practices.
The member spoke about tabling all the audit reports. While it is one thing to ask for them to be tabled, it is another thing to study the reports. Since “Results for Canadians: A Management Framework for the Government of Canada” was tabled on Thursday, has the member had an opportunity to read the report?
Privilege March 28th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a very brief comment.
It is very sad that events like this should happen in the House of Commons and that there would be a breach of privilege. It tells us that we are less mature than we ought to be and that we could break the rules of decorum and procedure. That is very sad.
At the same time, I am heartened that the member for Lakeland is prepared to apologize. The Speaker made a final determination that there has been a breach of privilege. The member for London North Centre deemed it right to refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for a more thorough study of the facts of the case.
When the motion goes to that committee and the issue is brought forward for further study, let me convey a message to that committee through you, Mr. Speaker. The member for Lakeland had a grievance about the behaviour of certain members of the committee. Let me state one principle. Even granting that those things happened and without admitting anything for the sake of argument, let me say with respect to mistakes that two wrongs do not make a right.
For future guidance, if we have a grievance against a process within a committee, let us still abide by the rules that cover all of us in the House. That is my contribution to this debate at this point. With respect to mistakes, two wrongs do not make a right.
Tuberculosis March 24th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I call to the attention of parliament the plight of two billion people in the world who are infected with tuberculosis, 200 million of whom will develop the disease. One hundred million will die if no proper treatment is made available to them.
This may not have the impact that the image of a flood or the exodus of refugees creates, but the scale of human suffering and lives lost is no less.
We cannot afford to be complacent only because the incidence of tuberculosis in Canada is low. One can become infected simply by sharing the same air with an infected person in a waiting room, in a bus or in an airplane. It is an ever-increasing risk in our global village.
The well-being of Canada and her citizens is well served by contributing our expertise and financial resources to combat this menace to international public health.
We have a collective duty to help in the global action. This let us pledge as we mark World Tuberculosis Day today.
Privilege March 21st, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to reinforce one thought and that is the reason the standing orders are there. They should override any decision contrary to them because, as has been said, every privilege of each member of the House will be adversely affected if a report, deemed expressly prohibited to be released, is released. Therefore, as a member I feel aggrieved.
Supply March 21st, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House that, indeed, a public inquiry and study of grants and contributions by the Department of Human Resources Development is already ongoing at the level of an all-party committee, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources Development.
The committee began its study of this subject matter because of a motion put forward by the opposition. In fact, the member of parliament for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques at the committee moved a motion, which we adopted, that there be an interim report by the middle of April.
There was a delay in the proceedings of the committee because of the votes that took place in the House as a consequence of the filibustering of the Bloc. However, today the Clerk of the Privy Council appeared before the committee. It was a televised hearing. Speaking of transparency, an all-party committee of the House of Commons is doing this.
I would like to bring to the attention of Canadians that it was an internal audit of the government which unearthed the problems.
Speaking of police investigations, let us not prejudge. The investigations indicate that, indeed, our police force is determined to ensure the integrity of the system.
I am surprised that there is a motion before us which calls for an inquiry, and for the inquiry to report by September of 2000, many months later. I ask the member, would he like a report on this issue by the middle of April, or would he like it much, much later for political reasons?
Supply March 20th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the member for Calgary East.
I think what we heard from the speech was a camouflage of love and like for our medicare system. The Reform Party is asking for $1.5 billion. The federal government has already increased the budget by $2.5 billion. The Reform Party is too late in asking for something even less.
I call on the consciousness of those who heard his speech filled with emotion purported to be for health and yet not one word did we hear about medicare.
My question to the member is does he believe in medicare?
House Of Commons March 16th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I rise to debate the motion before us. I would like to refocus the debate on the motion itself. I shall divide my time with the member for Brossard—La Prairie. Motion No. 59, introduced by the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, reads:
That this House resolve that it no longer has confidence in the Speaker, since it is of the opinion that the Speaker exhibited partiality in determining that the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis on Wednesday, March 1, 2000 was out of order and in rejecting the point of order raised by the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, to the detriment of the rights and privileges of all of the members of this House.
Thus two points are raised as a basis, in effect, for censuring the Speaker of our House. First, there is the censure language, that “this House resolve that it no longer has confidence in the Speaker—to the detriment of the rights and privileges of al members of this House”. To this I say clearly and unequivocally that you have continued to earn my trust and confidence, Mr. Speaker, although from time to time I might have differed with your interpretation and adjudication of the application of rules. Furthermore, I say with equal resolute confidence that my rights and privileges have not been adversely affected.
I support your ruling given on March 13 on the question of privilege raised on March 1 by the deputy House leader of the Bloc Quebecois. It is this ruling by you, Mr. Speaker, that is used as one of the bases for the censure motion before us. No doubt the Bloc Quebecois did not particularly like your ruling, but I submit that dislike of a ruling in itself does not establish that you were partial when you rendered that ruling.
To allow the censure motion to prosper on the basis of this point would in effect condone a successful challenge to your ruling, an approach which is clearly forbidden and explicitly prohibited in the standing orders of our House. I will read Standing Order 10 at page six:
The Speaker shall preserve order and decorum, and shall decide questions of order. In deciding a point of order or practice, the Speaker shall state the Standing Order or other authority applicable to the case. No debate shall be permitted on any such decision, and no such decision shall be subject to an appeal to the House.
To allow the censure motion on this basis would also in effect say that the member for Rimouski—Mitis who initially raised the question of privilege has an impartiality and a level of wisdom superior to the Speaker.
I would submit that you continue to display superior competence and wisdom. I also believe that you have been impartial at all times. For these reasons I respectfully submit to the House that the censure motion before us loses ground and should be defeated.
I say to my colleagues, through you, Mr. Speaker, that this approach, as unintended as it might be, on the part of the Bloc Quebecois by way of this motion, although it might be an imaginative tool to bring back debate on the clarity act bill, which received third reading and passage in the House yesterday and now goes to the Senate, and although it might be a tool to bring attention to other issues, allows challenge to the ruling of the Chair, the servant of the House. It is clear that to allow that would be in clear breach of our standing orders in the Chamber.
The rule is there and is intended to maintain decorum in and the dignity of the House. Without it there would be chaos. For the same foregoing reasons the House should reject the second point of the censure motion in rejecting the point of order raised by the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry. Indeed, the sponsor of the censure motion said in opening debate that we must investigate and revisit that ruling. That is a clear indication of trying to challenge the ruling itself.
Let me state for the record of this debate, Mr. Speaker, the essence of your ruling on the question as found at page 4376 of Hansard for March 13:
In this case, I note there is no mention of any breach of confidentiality whereby the text of proposed motions of the hon. member or her party has been made known to persons working outside the field of legislative support operations or to other members. Confidential information proprietary to the Bloc Quebecois and several of its members remained completely and absolutely confidential. Consequently, I am unable to find that this constitutes a prima facie question of privilege or a contempt of the House.
Your particular ruling was sound and impartial. It merits the support, confidence and trust of all members of the House in the best traditions of our parliamentary democracy. In compliance with Standing Order 10, a ruling of the Speaker should not be subject to appeal to the House.
Let me now address the argument raised by the House leader of the Reform Party in debating the censure motion before us. He said that the censure motion is not about the question of confidentiality, nor about the performance of the clerks and legislative counsel of the House. The Reform Party House leader went on to claim that the censure motion is a result of the government misreading the Bloc on Bill C-20.
The whip of the Reform Party also claimed that there should be a free vote as we judge our confidence in the Speaker based on the Chair's performance during your tenure, Mr. Speaker, since your election by the House a few years ago.
Let me just caution colleagues that the censure motion before us is very specific as to the two considerations which we have to vote on. They are the Speaker's ruling to which I alluded earlier as well as the timeframe during which the question of privilege and the point of order for which the aforementioned ruling was rendered, which was on or around March 1, 2000.
To extend the timeframe beyond the substantive scope contained in the censure motion as a basis for our voting would be ill advised to say the least. It would be reckless at its worst in the tradition of parliamentary democracy. It would be vindictive. It would be a mockery of our human conscience.
Let me end with a quote from The Procedure of the House of Commons by Josef Redlich. On the question of a vote of censure upon the Speaker it states:
It need hardly be said that such an event is abnormal and happens but rarely, and that such a motion would only be acceded to by the House if the circumstances fully justified it...it would appear seriously to undermine the exalted position and dignity of the Speaker if, in addition to his application of the rules being open to challenge upon special and important occasions, it was competent for every member to call in question the Speaker's authority whenever he chose, and if he was liable at all times to be called upon to defend the correctness of his decisions.
I appeal to my colleagues. Let us exercise due diligence and care. Let us vote based on reason, based on our established rules and order and based on wisdom. Let us summon the reason of goodwill in us. It has been with the gift of the Canadian electorate that we are here in the House. Let us use that gift wisely in a way that present and future generations can be proud of our place in this hallowed Chamber. Mr. Speaker, I continue to have confidence in you.
House Of Commons March 16th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I was amazed by the remarks of the whip for the Reform Party. He said that during the vote we should judge the Speaker on the basis of his tenure since his election.
Let me caution the whip of the Reform Party. The motion before us is very clear on the timeframe with which this motion has been placed. The timeframe relates to the question of privilege and the question of points of order raised by the Bloc Quebecois around March 1, 2000 and for which the Speaker made a ruling on on March 13. It is only around that time, as premised in this motion before us, that we should base our vote of conscience as to whether we must indeed censure the Speaker. I would caution all members to do this with deliberate care. To go beyond the letter of the motion will set a dangerous precedent. We will not be honest with ourselves and we will not be true to our intellect. We will be guided by our emotion and not by reason.
This House is a place for debate and a place where we can vent issues. However, to suggest that we can vote on the basis of the Speaker's tenure following his election and not on the basis of the timeframe within this motion is setting a dangerous precedent. I appeal to members not to do this. We can vote in the way we would like to vote but let us vote intelligently on the basis of the timeframe contained in this motion before us. How would the member explain this?
Stanley Knowles Day March 2nd, 2000
Mr. Speaker, it is good to be on duty in the House today and to participate in two debates on subjects that are close to my heart.
Let me speak about Stanley Knowles. Mr. Speaker, I believe you and I came to the House at the same time in 1988. I then represented Winnipeg North. I understand from the political history that a small part of that riding had previously been represented by Mr. Stanley Knowles. I inherited with great pride the tradition that Mr. Knowles left. I saw to it to have a conversation with him during my first few days on Parliament Hill. I will continue to cherish that memory.
He reminded me of the first speech he gave when he was in California. It was about the Philippines, my country of birth. He was a vivid and caring person. Indeed I agree that he was a visionary and a person of deep social conscience. He fought for the poor, veterans and seniors, the very essence of our political calling. He said that debate gives testimony to democracy and I agree. He spoke of procedure and how to use it to effect a change. But he said that the procedural rules as they existed should never be abused by any frivolous approach to the procedures. He said that within the existing procedures we should use our imagination to advance our cause. In fact, I very much enjoyed reading the book in my first few months on Parliament Hill.
It was my extreme honour a couple of years ago when the Minister of Public Works and Government Services requested that I appear on his behalf and speak on behalf of the Government of Canada in the naming of a building in Winnipeg for Stanley Knowles. It was an honour for me to be with the members of his family.
In closing, by continuing to honour Mr. Stanley Knowles, we are honouring and sustaining the nobility of politics itself.