John Harvard

[Interparliamentary Delegations, April 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34 I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, a report from the Canada-United Kingdom Interparliamentary Association concerning the visit to London, United Kingdom, held from March 4 to March 7, 2001.

[Organized Crime, March 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I salute the action taken yesterday by Canada's police forces in cracking down on organized crime.

With up to 150 arrests made, yesterday's operation springtime 2001 is being called the biggest anti-gang operation in Canada's history. This is just part of an ongoing campaign to make it clear to the criminal element that we will be vigilant in demonstrating that these kinds of underworld activities are not tolerated in our communities.

Yesterday's raids came after many months of investigations and groundwork conducted by our police forces. One of the many tools used by police forces was the broader powers granted to them by the anti-gang law passed by the government in 1997.

Putting an end to organized crime remains a key concern of the government. We commit to continue to stand behind our police forces and to ensure they have the powers and resources necessary to keep putting organized crime in its place.

[Grants And Contributions, March 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on March 10 our government announced a contribution of close to $3 million to six community rural health and research initiatives in Manitoba.

I remind the House that these projects demonstrate the ongoing commitment of the Government of Canada to maintaining and improving the health of Canadians. Projects like these, which protect and promote good health, are vitally important and contribute to the commitment made by all first ministers in September 2000 to improve wellness.

This announcement complements the close to $4 million announced earlier by the Government of Canada for Winnipeg based community health and research initiatives, including two telehealth projects that will have a positive impact on rural residents.

These items, in addition to the increase in federal transfer payments to the provinces for the delivery of health care services, represent a strong commitment to the important rural health needs of Canadians.

[Gun Control, March 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, opposition members continue to confuse fact with fiction when it comes to the firearms program. Allow me to clear up any confusion they may have.

The government does not intend to privatize the Canadian firearms program. The government is exploring outsourcing options to ensure that the system is as efficient and cost effective as it can be while continuing to improve public safety. We owe this to Canadian taxpayers.

The government is not compromising the privacy of people in the system. In fact, any new technologies will serve only to enhance the stringent privacy measures already in place.

The government has been clear about the cost and clear about the benefits. More than 2,600 licence applications have been refused or revoked for public safety reasons and 65,000 potentially dangerous gun sales have been delayed for further investigation.

This system is helping to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them. The facts are clear. It is unfortunate that critics of the program refuse to look at them and acknowledge that the system is working.

[Gildas Molgat, February 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, with sadness and heavy heart I rise today to inform the House of the death of Senator Gil Molgat of Manitoba.

Mr. Molgat, who just last month completed a rare two terms as Senate Speaker, died this morning at the Ottawa General Hospital after suffering a massive cerebral hemorrhage Monday evening while on a flight from Winnipeg to Ottawa. He was 74.

Mr. Molgat was elected five times to the Manitoba legislature, where he served as opposition leader from 1961 to 1969. He was called to the Senate in 1970 and was Speaker there from 1994 to January of this year.

Senator Molgat was a great parliamentarian who was driven by the call to public duty. Above all, he was a gentleman and a true friend whom we loved deeply.

We have lost a great Canadian and an extraordinary public servant. He will be missed and long remembered. On behalf of the House and the thousands whose lives he touched, I extend condolences to Mrs. Molgat and the family.

[Standing Orders, February 27th, 2001]

Yes, sometimes. Yes, we are human and we make those mistakes. Maybe we should have stronger rules, forcing us to perform better and to address the issue before us.

I just hope that Canadians who are watching this debate have some understanding of what the debate is about. It is about changing the House order to prevent these frivolous, silly motions that are brought forward at report stage.

Imagine over 400 amendments to the Nisga'a bill in 1999. We spent 42 hours on 469 report stage motions. A year later in 2000, we spent 36 hours voting on 411 report stage motions. It makes no sense. It is silly.

We are just trying to clean this up, so let us not hear this nonsense about dictatorship, about how we are out of control and not being responsible. I think we are being responsible, and I think this work we have put forward deserves the support of everyone in the House.

[Standing Orders, February 27th, 2001]

Examples? The best examples are those where it is suggested that we change a period to a comma or a comma to a period or, as the member for Halifax West mentioned a few minutes ago, where one member at one report stage made more than 100 motions having to do with the timing of the implementation of the bill. That is frivolous and I do not think it should be tolerated.

One of the speakers—and I do not know if it was the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca—said that this particular motion before us would somehow aggrandize the power of and add to the dictatorship of the Prime Minister. This has nothing to do with the Prime Minister at all. In fact, if anybody is going to get power out of this, it is extra power for the Speaker. We are actually deferring to the elected Speaker of the House to make decisions with respect to frivolous, vexatious motions. It has nothing to do with the Prime Minister at all, absolutely zero, yet that is the kind of charge we face.

One of the reasons that we have this kind of debate is that there is a kind of crazy culture in the House. Everything that the government proposes the opposition must criticize. Somehow or other in this culture anything the government does or proposes has to be wrong. In fact if government ever does anything that is disagreeable to even one Canadian, the automatic charge that comes its way is “You don't listen”. It is the most familiar and common charge one can hear.

We could go out and consult 30 million Canadians. We might even find favour with 70% or 80% of them, and guess what? The opposition would say we just were not listening, that we were totally irresponsible, and not only that, probably idiotic. That is the kind of culture we have around here.

We are trying in one very small way to improve the performance of all of us, not just of opposition MPs but of government MPs. When we are having debates of this kind, instead of having these free-wheeling discussions where any kind of allegation and any kind of charge can be brought to the floor, I would suggest that we require members, all of us, to talk about the motion before us.

I remember many years ago hearing the story about a debate that took place in the House probably 40 to 50 years ago. It was a debate about wheat. One member stood up. I know his name but I will not mention it. Apparently in those days members could speak for 40 minutes. The member stood up and talked about wheat for 40 minutes and never used the word wheat once, not even once.

The reason I mentioned this is that I consider the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca one of the best members in the House, but when he can address these frivolous motions we face all the time at report stage and talk about the value of the dollar, health care, aboriginals and unemployment, what in the name of heaven has that got to do with the motion before us?

I believe that by tightening up the rules we would all become much more responsible. I think very often that we on the government side wander off on crazy tangents.

[Standing Orders, February 27th, 2001]

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I hope that is not subtracted from my time.

What has just happened in the last few seconds is quite instructive. I started off my remarks by trying to be positive and by trying to be complimentary toward the opposition. The opposition does play an important role. They are just as important as those of us on this side of the House.

Yet the member from Alberta immediately brought up the issue that the Prime Minister somehow controls every word and everything that is said and done in the House, which is totally irrelevant, especially in this debate and given the motion that is before us.

I listened very intently to the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca a few minutes ago. He is one of the more respected members of the House. When he speaks, I like to listen. I think he gave a pretty darn good speech, but almost everything that the hon. member said had absolutely nothing to do with the motion before the House.

Let me give an example. I think I can make my case quite clear. What are we debating tonight? We are debating a change in the standing orders so that we do not have to deal with these frivolous, vexatious motions at report stage, which we have been experiencing for the last couple of years. I think that is a very legitimate issue.

I would like the opposition MPs to address their remarks to the motion that is before us. What did I hear from the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca? I wrote it down. He talked about the alleged dictatorship on the part of the Prime Minister. I do not know what that has to do with the motion that is before us. He talked about rendering MPs impotent. I do not know what that has to do with the motion. He talked about the value of the dollar, the unemployment level, health care in Canada and aboriginals in Canada. He even talked about non-votable motions.

Maybe in some other debate, maybe in some other context, those remarks would be relevant and make a lot of sense, but we are not talking about those things. We are talking about a motion that would change the standing orders of the House because we have had a problem with these frivolous, nonsensical report stage motions.

[Standing Orders, February 27th, 2001]

What we need is for everyone, wherever possible, and if we can change our rules, if we can enhance our rules, perhaps we can make—

[Standing Orders, February 27th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, first I want to thank my colleague from Halifax West for allowing me to take part in the debate by sharing his time.

The first thing I want to say in my remarks, and I want to make it very clear, is that I happen to believe very sincerely that the opposition parties, not just the official opposition party but all parties, play a very important role in the House and in parliament. Their role is just as important as ours, ours being the government side of the House.