Grant McNally

[Standing Orders, February 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing that we are having this debate today, so early into the new parliament. We are talking about a closure motion. We are talking about the government using its majority to change the standing orders so that it might have more power, more control over the way debate occurs in this place.

I will tell a quick story as a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The Alliance, with colleagues from other parties, suggested that we try having a secret ballot vote for committee chairmanships in this parliament. It is a fairly minor step toward changing the tone and inserting a bit of democracy into the committee structure where we spend so much time doing parliamentary work. The government voted that motion down and said that it could not proceed in this piecemeal approach, that it would not be right, and that we need to look at a parliamentary reform package.

There is no parliamentary reform package coming from the government side. It is using the argument it used to defeat our motion. It is proceeding in a piecemeal fashion today with this motion and it is truly disappointing. It shows the government's arrogance. It uses its large majority to stifle what it does not like to get what it wants, and that is unfortunate.

The motion is one that should be defeated by members. Unfortunately I do not think it will be. Over the last eight years the government has used its majority to reduce the opposition's role in debate and stifle debate on dissension in its own ranks among caucus members. It has everything to do with consolidating power and more power for the government.

The government is supposed to be the keepers of this place, the ones who would move forward in a way that would protect democracy and establish the framework for rules of debate in the House, not only for now but for the future. Yet the government is going down the opposite road. It is forgetting the lessons it learned in opposition when it spoke about such moves by a majority government. It is forgetting that one day it will no longer be the government, some day in the future, hopefully sooner rather than later.

l guarantee government members will look back on this day of debate and ask what they did. They took away an opportunity for opposition members to raise legitimate concerns and in effect they will be railing against the motion one day. It is unfortunate that they are not moving in a non-partisan way to make the House a better place, a place where debate is meaningful and individuals can bring forward ideas and suggestions.

Government backbenchers will be severely limited in the amendments they can bring forward to their own legislation. There are few tools available right now for government backbenchers. This is one more that is being removed from them in their ability to table amendments to government legislation. I expected government members would be bringing forward this point in debate today and not supporting the motion.

In the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs meeting today the member for Mississauga Centre, a respected member who does good work in the House, said that there should be a review of the entire workings of the House of Commons. She said that it was time for parliamentary reform. I agree with her, as do other members on this side.

We have put forward some positive proposals. I know my colleague from Langley—Abbotsford worked long and hard for many years on the topic of parliamentary reform. It is something we are continuing to work on.

When our House leader brought forward these proposals, the government's response was that they were half-baked and not even worth considering. What does that say about the government's real intention when it comes to parliamentary reform? Its actions speak louder than its words. The government's actions here today show that it is not interested in and not concerned about structuring a framework that would make this place work better so we could work together on issues we agree on.

Yes, we will disagree on some things, but there must be a way for us to signal to Canadians that we will move forward in a way which demonstrates we are more concerned about what happens in the country and in the framework we put in place for our citizens than we are about our own political careers. We want to structure the framework for today and for tomorrow in Canada and we have that opportunity. I believe Canadians are telling us that it is time for us to move on parliamentary reform. Much to our disappointment, the government's reluctance in this matter demonstrates to Canadians that it has no will to do that.

We in the Canadian Alliance have put forward 12 concrete proposals in our “Building Trust” document, some of which I would like to highlight briefly and some of which have been mentioned by my colleagues.

The first one would be to allow more free votes in the House of Commons. We have put in place this motion:

That the House shall not consider the vote on any motion to be a question of confidence in the government unless the motion is directly related to the government's budget or the motion is explicitly worded as a question of confidence.

We could put that in place. It is a concrete proposal that we are suggesting.

The second one is one which we have brought forward. We borrowed some phraseology from the Liberal red book having to do with the ethics counsellor. We brought that motion forward and it was defeated by the government. It was part of our proposals for parliamentary reform that the ethics counsellor report directly to the House. We know what happened. The Liberals voted down their own red book promise on that particular item.

The third item is to create a new standing committee on privacy, access and ethics:

To facilitate the work of the House and to increase the accountability process of government, an additional standing committee should be created and chaired by the opposition, whose mandate would be to review and report to the House on all aspect of the Acts and Reports of the Privacy and Access Commissioners and Ethics Counsellor.

That is something we could do. We could put that in place.

The fourth item is the introduction of candidates for the election of the Speaker. The rules should be amended to allow and require candidates to speak in an open forum before the election of the Speaker begins. That is something that actually did happen this time, but not as a convention of the House or as a change to the standing orders, which is what needs to happen. My colleague from Langley—Abbotsford was instrumental in putting that process in place.

The fifth point in our plan is the appointment of the Clerk of the House through a non-partisan committee. That appointment would be ratified and approved by all members of the House.

The sixth point in our plan is in regard to the appointment of officers of parliament. We think the standing orders should be changed to require the government to subject all candidates under consideration for these high offices to a committee review. The committee would also be free to recommend candidates of its own. As is the practice now, the ultimate decision would be made by the House and would be decided by the adoption of a motion.

The seventh point deals with the election of standing committee officers by secret ballot. As I mentioned, this was brought forward and voted down already. It is disappointing because this is a concrete proposal.

The eighth proposal in our plan is for less government control over standing committees. This would allow for a more independent standing committee process.

The ninth point deals with order in council appointments. We believe that a committee should have the authority to cause a vote to take place in the House ratifying or removing an appointment made by the government. A committee report recommending the removal of an appointment would cause the appointment to be withdrawn unless the government responded by introducing a motion reinstating the appointee.

The tenth point is one which we are discussing today and that is time allocation and closure. We are actually discussing closure and we think there need to be changes in that process, one of which would be to allow for a question period prior to a minister moving closure or time allocation. We think that is fair. The Speaker should only allow time allocation motions to be put forward if he or she is satisfied that the motion does not infringe on the rights of the minority.

As my time is growing short, I will briefly mention the eleventh and twelfth points. The eleventh point is about spending accountability. We need to make sure we have accountability in the way the government spends money. Lastly, we need to improve debate in this place.

We have put forward some concrete solutions in a concrete plan for change in this place. We hope there is a will among government members to do this, government members who are afraid that their actions are speaking louder than their words.

However, we will stand in this place and advocate for positive change time and again because we believe the will of the people in the country is for us to do so. We will do that.

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, February 27th, 2001]

We need to find ways to work together. My colleague says “It rarely does”. In many ways that is true because we have had many years of dysfunctional relationship in terms of how we do business around here. That needs to change.

The Alliance is the advocate of that change. The Alliance is the advocate of positive change in all areas including how we govern ourselves in relation to this bill and other bills, and how we change the way we do business in parliament. We invite others to join us along that journey because we are committed to it and will continue to work hard for it.

The people of Canada are telling us it is time for change. It is time for a change in the way the business of the nation is done. Canadians want to see that reflected in the House of Commons, the place where 301 representatives are sent to debate pieces of legislation and to make the rules and guidelines that will be set in place not only for now but for our future.

There are some very serious difficulties with the bill. Another problem I see with it is one of the principles it is built upon: voluntary compliance.

The minister's bill is framed within the philosophy that we will set a framework in place and encourage people to comply with it. If they do not comply with it there are some outs for people that are not good for the safety of our country or the well-being of those who come here to be new citizens. There needs to be a look at the use of discretion within the Immigration Act and at which individuals and departments are able to use that discretion.

I will talk about discretion in a case I know about personally regarding a man I met from Afghanistan who came to Canada. His name is Sharif Karimzada. The secretary of state has knowledge of the case as well. The individual came here as a refugee. He was deemed to be part of a regime under subsection 19.1 of the old act. There was no right of appeal for him to be able to explain his situation. He was categorically put in that box and determined to be inadmissible to Canada regardless of anything he did.

The minister has attempted to address that in section 25 of the Immigration Act. That is what I am reading between the lines. I would like to find that out from her.

There needs to be some discretion in terms of inadmissibility because this person demonstrates that the system is broken. We allow people into the country who, we find out later, should not have been allowed in and we exclude others. That is why we need to take a close look at the bill. That is why the Alliance will point out options for the minister, hope that she implements them and will continue to be the voice for change not only with this bill but throughout this parliament and for the future of our country.

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, February 27th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I will begin my speech at the point where my colleague from Lakeland left off, and that is the comments made by the immigration minister during the election. I do not think they are worth repeating, but I think it is worth repeating that the minister has done the House, the level of political discourse and herself a disservice. I hope that not only members on this side disavow themselves of such comments but that government members would say publicly the things they are saying in private about their colleague's comments.

I had the opportunity to work for approximately two years on the citizenship and immigration committee. It was a very rewarding experience. We did a lot of things together, had a lot of heated debates and challenges about different things. Madam Speaker was a part of those debates for some of that period of time. My colleague from Lakeland was our immigration critic for a great deal of that time and brought a lot of salient points to the table in discussing immigration matters.

I will focus on the bill and some of the shortcomings I have noticed in my examination of it, some of which will be expanded upon by my colleagues and some of which have already been noted in debate today.

Of course there are some things in the bill with which we do agree. I give credit where credit is due. There are very few things in any piece of legislation on which we would have wholehearted agreement among all members in the House. In looking at clause 3 in the overall objectives of the bill, we support immigration and the purposes that are set out in terms of enhancing our country and allowing individuals to come from other countries. Canada is built upon the framework and foundation of people coming from other countries and other jurisdictions to make their homes here. We acknowledge that and we want to continue in that vein.

We do notice there are some shortcomings in the bill. We are hoping that the minister would acknowledge those shortcomings in committee. Those of us who have been around the House for a great deal of time are somewhat disheartened when we know from past experience that the suggestions we bring forward have been dismissed out of hand. In some ways we are a little discouraged that the positive changes being presented by members of the Alliance, by other members and perhaps even by members of the government might simply be dismissed. That is a bad thing. Rather than look at things through a partisan lens, we should work together wherever we can in a non-partisan way to find solutions to problems that are obvious to all of us.

The minister has acknowledged in subclause 3(2)(a) of her bill that the act recognizes the refugee program is in the first instance about saving lives and offering protection to the displaced and persecuted. We would agree with that. We would submit to the minister and to members on the government side that so many individuals have misused the process within the immigration system that it desperately needs to be fixed.

Millions of refugees around the world are in need of our protection. They are refugees and therefore do not need to go through any kind of process. The government needs to recognize that individuals in refugee camps are already refugees due to something that has happened in their home nation and would therefore be candidates for protection in Canada. I do not see that acknowledged in the legislation. There needs to be a proper screening process in place. We have been calling for that for a long time.

In committee a couple of years ago I raised the idea of eliminating the tax on refugees when they came to Canada. It is referred to as the right of landing fee. An interesting process occurred with respect to the idea I brought forward. We had a debate in committee on the idea. It was generally supported by committee members on both sides of the House until it came time for the recorded vote. It was like somebody had taken a hatchet and driven it directly into members of the committee on the government side, severing the good working relationship some of us had for up to two years.

All of a sudden accusations and disparaging remarks were being made toward me and my colleagues for bringing the motion forward to which they had agreed previously in committee and privately announced their support for the elimination of the head tax for refugees. However government members came in and voted the motion down by a vote of eight to seven.

It was an awakening process for me to learn that is how things work around here. A good idea, if it is proposed by members of the opposition or even by a government backbencher, will be trounced and never see the light of day.

Almost a year later the minister made the same change. I am thankful she did. That is why I suggested it in committee and brought it forward. I watched the government vote it down and then watched the minister implement it.

We must get beyond that kind of working relationship in this place if we are to do the people's business. We need to get past the idea that a good idea cannot come from the opposition side or, in the minds of opposition members, that a good idea cannot come from the government side.

[Privilege, February 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I raise my question of privilege in response to a letter dated February 16, 2001, from the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot. This letter was distributed to members and to all media. It came to my attention yesterday, February 21. I believe this question meets the criteria as described in Standing Order 48, and Marleau and Montpetit, page 121.

The member's letter contains information discussed in camera among the members of the procedure and house affairs subcommittee on private members' business. This, in and of itself, has been found to constitute a prima facie matter of privilege, as noted in Marleau and Montpetit, page 838 which states:

Divulging any part of the proceedings of an in camera committee meeting has been ruled by the Speaker to constitute a prima facie matter of privilege.

The member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot's Bill C-234 was deemed non-votable by the committee, and he wrote in his letter that the bill “was ruled non-votable by the opposition members on the subcommittee for private members' business”. He went on to say “crude partisanship has thus deprived all MPs of a debate”. He also said “opposition MPs have been complaining about the lack of opportunity of backbench MPs and the relevance of parliament. Yet when given a chance to do something about it, they failed to take it”.

I argue that the tone and content of the letter is inappropriate and that he has divulged in camera details of a subcommittee to other members and to the media. In doing so he has put both myself and all my colleagues in an untenable position of being unable to defend ourselves against such charges because to do so would force us to divulge information from an in camera meeting, which we will not do.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, it is a committee that works much differently than the sometimes more partisan parliamentary committees. I commend all my colleagues for their excellent work on the subcommittee for private members' business. The member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot may not be aware that the decisions as to which bills and motions are deemed votable are reached through a consensus process with representatives of all parties, including his own.

On the matter of privilege, Marleau and Montpetit, page 52 states:

—Members can only claim privilege insofar as any denial of their rights, or threat made to them, would impede the functioning of the House.

I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that my right to defend myself, and for all members to defend themselves against such accusations, have been denied by the member and his actions. His actions have impeded my ability to fulfil my function as a member on this committee.

Marleau and Montpetit point out “The unjust damaging of a member's good name might also be seen as constituting an obstruction”. In ruling on a question of privilege, Speaker Fraser stated:

The privileges of a Member are violated by any action which might impede him or her in the fulfilment of his or her duties and functions. It is obvious that the unjust damaging of a reputation could constitute such an impediment.

I respectfully submit that the actions of the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot have done just that and brought unjust damage to the reputation of all members of the subcommittee and, in fact, to the entire House of Commons. Members who sat on the subcommittee have worked together and given many hours of their time to hear submissions from their colleagues from all parties. Which member in his or her right mind would want to give of themselves for the benefit of their colleagues knowing that they may be faced with indefensible rebukes and the prospect of a damaged reputation from a colleague they have sought to assist?

Should you, Mr. Speaker, find that this is a prima facie matter of privilege, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Ethics Counsellor, February 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister is simply wrong. The Prime Minister owned shares in the golf course through his company, J & AC Consultants. He claimed he put all his affairs in a blind trust when he became Prime Minister.

If all the dealings of his company were really in a blind trust, how did the Prime Minister even become aware that the sale of the shares in the golf course had fallen through? If these shares were really in a blind trust, why did he personally intervene and phone the ethics counsellor on the evening of January 27, 1996, to discuss this matter?

[Ethics Counsellor, February 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we have been asking about the Prime Minister's interest in the Grand-Mère Golf Club for two years but he still refuses to answer questions to Canadians whether at home or abroad.

The Prime Minister has described his unsold shares in the golf course as a debt that was owed him, as a receivable and as an asset.

The ethics counsellor described them as a bad debt and a financial obligation to the Prime Minister. How could the Prime Minister expect Canadians to believe he had no personal interest in collecting on the debt owed to him?

[The Environment, February 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, today in Washington state hundreds and perhaps even thousands of Canadians will be gathering at a public hearing where the decision on granting a permit for the Sumas 2 power plant will be announced.

This power plant will be built within a stone's throw of the Canadian border, spewing its pollution into the air and drifting north into the Fraser Valley of B.C.

Because of the geography of the area, which is surrounded by mountains, and the prevailing wind patterns, the poisonous particulate will hang over the residents of our communities.

My constituents oppose the project because of emissions into the air shed, electrical transmission lines and polluted waste water. This power plant would also violate the spirit of the 1991 air shed agreement signed between our two countries.

The environment minister has dropped the ball on this file and has even said “How can Canada ask America not to build Sumas2?”

It is obvious that our environment minister does not care about clean air in my community. However, I will stand up for my constituents against Sumas 2 at hearings next week, along with my Alliance colleagues, to counteract the minister's muted silence.

[Agriculture, February 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I consider it a privilege to be able to end the debate this evening. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for entertaining the application for the emergency debate. I think that we have made points on all sides of the House tonight on why it is a very important topic. I will reflect for a moment on the speech my colleague from Crowfoot just gave. What he has done is he has given us a human context for this issue.

We can come to this place and debate numbers, failed programs and subsidies that are in place in certain jurisdictions and not in others, and then leave at the end of the night. We will have done our part somewhat in raising these issues, but the fact of the matter is that when we leave this place tonight people across the country will still be in dire straits because of the farm income crisis my colleague and others have mentioned. We need to do something immediately.

The government provided relief with the AIDA program, but we know that has not completely solved the problem, partly because of the administrative quagmire that has ensued where the money has not gone to the people who have needed it. We have heard from individuals, from our own members today who represent the constituents across the country, that it needs to be fixed and needs to be fixed now. We need to get those dollars to the people who need them so that they can put their crops in this year.

My riding is one that is an urban-rural riding. I consider myself a city boy. I spent most of my life in the city, but had the opportunity to spend many of my summers as a young man on my uncle's farm in Killarney, Manitoba, and to see firsthand what it was like to live on a farm and what hard work went into the production of foodstuffs in our country.

We have a network of people across this country that puts food on the table for all Canadians. We need to keep that in mind, no matter what region we may come from or what demographic we might associate ourselves with. We need to put the help out there right now.

I would like to correct a couple of comments that I heard from my colleague across the way who has been here and listening to the debate. The member for Malpeque mentioned that the Alliance does not support supply management. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I have many dairy farmers in my own riding, in Agassiz. We have a research station in Agassiz that does good work and we have producers who work very hard. This is an issue that touches us from coast to coast.

We have heard passionate speeches tonight as to why the government needs to move ahead in terms of foreign subsidies, which other nations are providing to their farmers. Our government seems to have moved in a unilateral disarmament way in relation to subsidies. We need immediate action on that.

We have asked for implementation of measures that would help with input costs, such as reducing fuel taxes and many other measures. As my colleague for Crowfoot so eloquently explained, our farmers are paying the retail price for production. They are putting in the input costs themselves, such as the high cost of transportation, and getting wholesale prices.

We know there are solutions out there. One of our colleagues from the government side said that we need to find a way to help our farmers compete. There are ideas. They are here before us. They have been laid out in debate this evening. We are asking that the government take the ideas that are there and put them in place and do it now. It is only when we take the actions necessary to back up our words that we show with our deeds we are serious about what we say in the House.

Opposition members and government members, we need to move ahead co-operatively. This is not a partisan issue, as we are all aware. We perhaps have different ideas about how to get to the solution, but we know that there are people in need tonight in our country. They are the producers, our farmers and their families, who may not be putting in a crop again, who face personal loss, and not only of their jobs. It is more than a job. It is a way of life for so many and I think all of us have been touched by those who have lived that life.

It is for that very reason that as we leave this place tonight we need to put action to our words. I implore my colleagues on the government side to use whatever influence they may have with the ministers and with those who have the opportunity to move ahead on regulatory changes, input taxes and the foreign subsidies that have been mentioned. I implore them to move ahead on those things and do what they can. People across the country are waiting for that and looking for leadership from this place.

Tonight's debate has been a great opportunity. I hope the importance of this issue is not lost on any of us. It is my sincere hope and wish, as I think it is the wish of all members, that as we leave this place tonight we do not just compartmentalize this debate, put it on the shelf and say that we did our job. It is my sincere hope and wish that we move forward on the initiatives that have been suggested and look for real solutions to help real people who are in dire straits tonight across our country.

[Supply, February 8th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for Prince Albert on his first speech.

I think that the hon. for member for Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey is under the assumption that my colleague has been here for seven years. Perhaps he could be a little more observant. He is in the current pension plan but he does not have a pension because he has only been here for a couple of weeks.

On another matter, I would like to ask my colleague a question—

[Supply, February 8th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I believe the motion that we brought forward encapsulates the meaning directly from red book one. That is my understanding. We took some time to do that, because the Liberals, in bringing this item forward, had a very good idea.

That is why we would be surprised should the government choose to vote against such a motion, which it in fact introduced as a promise to Canadians in red book one. I invite my colleague and all colleagues to support the motion. It would be a positive step for now and for the future.