Elwin Hermanson

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, May 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party would be happy for the hon. member for the Battlefords-Meadow Lake to complete his speech and then we should move on to private members' business.

[Bosnia, May 30th, 1995]

It is almost June.

[Supply, May 30th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the Reform Party put forward today the following motion:

That this House deplore the government's employment equity policy as unnecessary, ineffective, costly, unpopular, intrusive, discriminatory and harmful to designated and non-designated groups; that this House recognize the equality of all Canadians by affirming that hiring and promotion be based solely on merit rather than on gender and race; and that discriminatory employment practices be more vigorously pursued on an individual case by case basis.

I come from a family farm in rural Saskatchewan. Whenever work was available it did not matter much what one's gender or colour was. My sister was involved in the work on the farm. It did not matter what task was at hand. She was able to do it as ably as anyone else on the farm. We are proud of her abilities to tackle any task at hand.

It is with that approach we should be looking at employment opportunities. We should be looking at the skills of the applicants rather than at the colour of their skin, their gender or some other distinguishing mark or blemish, if one would be so bold as to use that word.

It gives me pleasure today to speak on the issue of employment equity or what I would rather call preferential hiring or affirmative action, a concept that is failing around the world wherever it has been tried. The specific area I should like to address is the government's definition of equality. Equality has been loosely defined as equality of numerical representation in the workforce.

For example, if 5 per cent of our available workforce is made up of visible minorities each employer's workforce should reflect the 5 per cent. In order for the government to move toward equality of numerical representation, it must obtain an accurate statistical base showing the representation of designated groups.

However, accuracy of statistical base depends on self-identification and here we have a huge problem. The government has stressed that self-identification is the backbone of the employment equity program. There are a number of problems, however, with the self-identification process.

The Stentor group, testifying before the human rights committee, stated that employee data collected by means of the self-identification process was unreliable. Many employees are reluctant to participate in the self-identification process because often there is a loss of legitimacy in the eyes of fellow workers. Most individuals would rather have their promotions and benefits based on merit than on gender or race.

I will use an example that is very close to home. The Clerk of the House of Commons appeared before the committee on April 27 and stated that a voluntary self-identification survey was sent to 1,700 House of Commons employees. Shockingly, only 23 per cent of the employees returned the survey. Of that number less than 50 identified themselves as belonging to a designated group. From these numbers it would be next to impossible to implement an accurate employment equity plan.

It does not work. It does not work on the Hill. How will it work across the country? Yet the Liberals are committed to employment equity. They think they can legislate it. They are absolutely wrong.

Difficulties also arise in determining who should belong to the designated groups. For instance, should a person of mixed parentage be counted as a visible minority? Why? Why not? Should a third generation visible minority Canadian be thought of as disadvantaged as a new citizen from the third world? Why? Why not? These questions need to be addressed by the government.

There are also problems in defining what constitutes a disability. If I were to wear glasses I would be considered disabled. It is ridiculous. This list goes on and on. It shows how complicated and interwoven the problems surrounding the whole employment equity affirmative action programs become. Yet the Liberals in their red book are committed to this terrible policy, this impossibility.

Another concern is with regard to intrusive behaviour in the identification process to know who are the minorities. To get the statistics surveys have to be done, which means employers and employees have to comply. Yet the right of individuals to refuse

self-identification is an important privacy right. The boundaries of consent to self-identify are already being blurred.

In March 1995 the Department of National Defence issued a diversity questionnaire to all employees. The first section was compulsory, requiring personal information such as name and address. It was pretty basic stuff. The second self-identification section was voluntary. By requiring partial information the department obtained knowledge of all those who refused to self-identify. It is a serious problem. It is an invasion of a person's privacy.

They already know now who refuses to identify themselves as being in a visible minority, a group that might qualify for special assistance under any kind of equity employment program. It is intrusive. It is wrong. It is a violation of some basic rights as Canadians. Some members of designated groups can now be approached by the national defence managers and be pressured to respond or asked to agree to be identified under the authority of section 17(3) of the proposed Liberal legislation, Bill C-64, where only those employees who agree to be identified are to be counted.

Employers can use a variety of informal methods and pressure to persuade employees to give consent for self-identification. To make any part of a self-identification questionnaire compulsive is coercive. The use of personal information for anything other than department wide statistics should be unacceptable. Any that are made necessary by requirement are inherently wrong and are another weakness of employment equity.

The government is saying that if a person is a visible minority there is a greater likelihood that person will be disadvantaged. I do not accept that. I think that is wrong. Why should certain visible minority groups which earn some of the top incomes in the country qualify for employment action programs? It does not make sense when others who are not visible minorities are passed over.

I would like to give the House an example of how ludicrous the whole concept of employment equity, gender equity or race based equity can become. A law program at a university in the province of Ontario undertook what it called an equal opportunity approach to education. Essentially it was trying to get a certain number of visible minorities into the law profession, which is an admirable goal. However, what it did was not so admirable. On the law school application was a question whether the applicant was a visible minority. I am not too certain why being a visible minority would make someone a better candidate for law school. I do not understand why that would be the case.

That is just the tip of the iceberg. The students in the law school are segregated during exams between those who are visible minorities and those who are not visible minorities. Those individuals who are visible minorities are given eight hours to write exams, while those who are not visible minorities are given four hours. In addition, visible minorities are given special access to tutors that is not available to other students. To make matters worse, those who were not visible minorities were kept in the dark about the university's policies.

The type of approach taken by the university is doing visible minorities a disservice. Can you imagine getting a law degree from that university and it becoming common knowledge that you had twice the time to write the exam or that you were given special tutoring? I am sure the demand for those students would be half as great as for those who followed the regular course. Employment equity or equal opportunity, when it becomes based on gender, race or some other distinguishing mark of a visible minority, it is ludicrous and ridiculous.

It is insulting to visible minorities that the only reason they are in law school or they are hired is because of their skin colour, their gender or any reason other than their ability and their merit. Instead they should be given the message that they are qualified to be there, that they have skills, intellect and the determination to get the job done, whether it be to get a law degree or to get a job.

In conclusion, I would like to talk a bit about something which is important to me, results. In the last election a bunch of nonsense went around that somehow the Reform Party was male dominated and that the party was only interested in the male segment of the Canadian population. Actually the statistics do not bear that out.

It is very interesting to find out that of our candidates, the female candidates had a higher success ratio than the male candidates. We had no equity program. We did not demand that half of our candidates be female. Maybe if we had we would have had twice as many members here.

We left the choice of the selection of candidates up to the local constituencies, which looked for the best person for the job. They did not look at the colour of their skin or their gender. They looked at their ability to represent their constituents. They looked at their ability to come to this place to try to change it. We were more successful at electing women candidates than we were male candidates. A lot of Canadians do not know that because they have been given misinformation by the Liberals and by others who have a vested interest in the whole issue.

As employers, let us choose people based on merit. As government, let us promote a policy that will let people succeed because they deserve to, not because they are pampered on some unreasonable grounds that forms the basis for employment equity programs.

[Royal Canadian Mint Act, May 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I tried to follow the question but I missed a little bit of it there.

It seemed to me that the hon. member was talking about the opportunities to market the minting of coins which would stimulate jobs and would have some economic spinoff. Certainly, if we can do that internationally that is fine. If the Mexicans want to mint a new peso and they ask us to provide the technology, that is wonderful. If we can have a long term plan to improve the minting of our own Canadian coin that would be wonderful.

However, there are flaws with this survey. It states that there are two main concerns with the implementation of the $2 coin. First, it seems as though there is no overall strategy with regard to our currency. We are talking about different weights and the

fact that we may have to re-mint all of our coins. Why are we going to implement a new $2 coin and then find out that we have to change our loonie, quarter, nickel and dime because the weights are not right?

It is going to be a cruel joke on Canadian business. Certainly it will be a cruel joke on those who are manufacturing vending machines because they are going to have to refit those machines annually or every two or three years. It is just not well thought out. We also have to consider the cost to the Canadian consumer which would be immense, far more than $250 million and far more than any economic stimulus generated by the minting of new coins in Canada.

[Royal Canadian Mint Act, May 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I was speaking about the penny in answering the hon. member's question. I suggested we should view whether or not we need the penny in circulation because it is of an extremely high cost to Canadians because they hoard them.

The real problem why we need the penny is rather ironic. It is because we have the GST which adds 7 per cent to everything. The Liberals promised to do away with the GST. I am sure that retailers and businesses across the country would be happy to deal in increments of 5 cents and we could do away with the penny. But how do they not charge GST on 39 cents or 59 cents of goods? If the government had kept its promise to eliminate the GST, perhaps we could be talking about not only doing away with the $2 currency but doing away with the penny as well and saving considerably more than $250 million for Canadian taxpayers and consumers.

[Royal Canadian Mint Act, May 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I took a stab at answering that question in my speech but I would be happy to review some of those facts with the hon. member.

As I said in my speech, all the options were not considered in that survey. We really should have asked Canadians whether they felt there should be a $2 currency at all. Maybe we should eliminate the $2 bill, which is very expenses, and not replace it with a $2 coin. Perhaps in five years with inflation having done its thing there would be a recommendation for a $5 coin. Then we would have to revamp all the vending machines, mint a new coin and go through the procedure once again.

We should be talking how we can save Canadian taxpayers the most money. I suggest in that consideration we look at whether there should be a $2 currency period, coin or bill. If it were determined we do not need that it would save much more than $250 million. That is what I was trying to get across to hon. members on the other side, had they been listening a little more closely.

Another thing we should be looking at is whether we still need the penny in Canada. Pennies are extremely expensive. We have been minting pennies because people hoard them. Pennies are put into jars and never get back into circulation. It is even worse

than the loonie which apparently is being stored in bank vaults. There are millions of them.

[Royal Canadian Mint Act, May 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to speak to Bill C-82, a bill that would see the Canadian Mint issue a new coin for use by Canadians. This would be a $2 coin to replace a $2 bill.

There apparently was a survey done by the mint that stated that Canadians would support converting the $2 bill to a $2 coin. It also stated that if this was implemented it would save Canadian taxpayers $250 million. It may seem odd that perhaps Reform would oppose a cost saving measure, but I do not think the whole story was told when this survey was implemented. It almost seemed like a bit of a fixed survey. Obviously the $2 bill is costing Canadian taxpayers because of its short shelf life. However, there were a lot of questions that were not asked in the survey such as whether Canadians are in favour of having a $2 denomination at all. Do we need a $2 denomination? In fact if we were to remove the $2 bill and not replace it with a $2 coin we would save even more dollars. However, I do not believe that option was included in the survey the mint used.

I think it is important that we not let this thing quickly slip through but that we do point out that perhaps there were some flaws in the survey and we do need to consider this matter a little further.

Before I get into this, it does surprise me that this is a high priority on the government's legislative agenda, that we are talking about the minting of a $2 coin. The House denied unanimous consent to debate the Bosnia situation. I guess the government members felt that the debate of a $2 coin was more important than our concern for our peacekeepers in Bosnia, because this is on the Order Paper and we are debating it now rather than debating the work of our peacekeepers in that very ugly situation.

One would have thought the government would have hurried the drunk defence bill through committee and to the floor of the House so we could debate that. There are several justice bills that the government tabled months and months ago. However, it seems to be willing to let them lay dormant until the very end of the session. It must want to just ram this legislation through at the end of the session to try to avoid public exposure to its bills.

Here we are today, very near the end of the month of May with just a few sitting days left and we are debating the minting of a $2 coin. I wonder what Canadians think of the Liberal government's priorities in this case. One would think that it would be more important to be talking about balancing a budget than creating new coins. This is just more money to go into the hole with. It is really strange that we are debating the minting of a $2 coin.

There has been lots of discussion as to what will be on this coin. I may get to that later in my speech. However, I do want to talk a bit about the survey the Royal Canadian Mint submitted. Approximately 80 per cent of respondents in the survey favoured the introduction of a $2 coin to replace the $2 bill. However, as I said, this result was achieved only after telling Canadians that they would be saved $250 million of their own taxpayers' money.

The Reform Party is not questioning the fact that the government will save the $250 million, which is over 20 years by the way, but we are having a problem with the Liberal government not taking the time to examine particularly what the cost would be to the private sector. At odd times the government pays lip service to the private sector and says it is supportive of the private sector. But when the rubber hits the road, actions always speak louder than words. Here we go again: the Liberal government is making a proposition that will cost the private sector a big bundle of their own cash.

My colleague from Elk Island outlined many of the different groups that were not consulted in this survey and that had opposition to the bill. The vending machine operators will take the brunt of the cost. It is vending machine operators who are dependent on coinage in their machines. The conversion of existing vending machines to accept the new $2 coins could cost up to $800 per machine. That is an additional cost to the private sector, small business.

What will it do with these added costs? Will it swallow them and see lost profit? I doubt it very much. Business is usually a little smarter than that. It will more than likely pass that cost on to the consumer. It will come out of the same old pocket again. The consumer taxpayer will be paying not only for the minting of this coin but the additional cost passed on by the vendors.

It is interesting to note that soft drink manufacturers such as Pepsi and Coca Cola are furious about the changes. Vending machine operators have still not converted all of their machines to accept the loonie. It has been eight years since the loonie was introduced. We still do not have all the vending machines accepting loonies and now we are talking about minting a $2 coin and all of the vending machines have to be adjusted to accept the new coinage.

The Canadian Banking Association has concerns. I know there is a member on the other side who was involved with the Canadian Banking Association. It has some real problems with issuing the new $2 coin. It estimates that right now it has

between 30 and 50 million surplus loonies in its vaults. That is a lot of money. If those are recirculated perhaps we would not need a $2 minted coin.

Heather Sinclair, president of the Canadian Banking Association, suggested recirculation of the surplus loonies would provide all the coins needed during the removal of the $2 bill from circulation. We may be able to save Canadian taxpayers much more than $250 million if we take a longer look at this and do the right thing. The cost of this survey was approximately $20,000. It seems a shame to spend $20,000 on a survey that was incomplete and perhaps leads us to the wrong conclusions.

In the survey the mint also asked what 10 themes Canadians would prefer on the tail side of the coin. That is an interesting question to ask Canadians. I can imagine some of the answers. I imagine dead politicians were on the list, perhaps heroes, wildlife, landscapes. I wonder if anyone suggested putting Brian Mulroney's picture on the $2 coin. Nobody would use it in that case. It would be a symbol of bad luck, bad taste and would settle the matter right there and the coin would not be issued.

It seems the government wants to mint a new $2 coin and that this bill will follow the usual passage through the various stages. The Liberals will line up and like little voting machines they will vote for this piece of legislation without giving it very much consideration and we will have a $2 coin.

A number of groups have proposed designs for the new $2 coin. Some of them are rather plausible and certainly have some credibility. Others we kind of smile at a little and say we doubt very much whether Canadians would want that image stamped on to the new $2 coin. Apparently Glendon, Alberta has proposed the new coin take on the likeness of the town's symbol, a giant perogie on a giant fork. That would be great. We also have a big oil can in the town of Rocanville, Saskatchewan. I do not know if it has submitted that but it would be another worthy suggestion. There is the Ukrainian Easter egg from Vegreville. I am sure if we had the former finance minister with us that would be his suggestion.

I thought of a great Canadian symbol, probably the greatest symbol we have of a white elephant in Canada, the Mirabel airport. I do not know how we would stamp Mirabel airport on a $2 coin, but I am sure our former Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, would be very happy to see that stamped on a $2 coin in memory of his great project, probably the most under used airport in Canada.

We know the minister of public works is looking at a number of plausible suggestions for design on his coin. Perhaps the minister would want a dingy on it. Perhaps the minister of fisheries would want a turbot on it. If it were a turbot we would have to make sure it was not a small one. I am sure the minister would insist on a sexually mature turbot. That would be only reasonable.

We know the Liberal government is to implement this new design. It is very unlikely it will change its mind. It seems to be bent on minting a new $2 coin. I thought in all seriousness, if the House goes against my wishes and decides to mint a new $2 coin without looking further at the cost perhaps it would be time to have a prairie symbol stamped on a coin. The prairies have often been overlooked and they have much to contribute to the national perspective. We have contributed a great amount of money to the national economy, as my hon. colleague from Lethbridge has said. Canadians hold the prairies in high esteem and it is only fitting the new $2 coin, if it is passed by the House, be stamped with a prairie symbol.

I am sure even hon. colleagues from Ontario and Quebec, the Atlantic provinces and our western maritime province in the north realize they have had their fair share of symbols stamped on our currency. Perhaps it would be time to show some more recognition to the prairie region.

I have a proposal for the new coin. It is in the image of a white tailed deer. These deer are common species on the prairies. They are one of the primary game animals of the region. They are still plentiful across the prairies and can be found in northern Ontario and northern Quebec.

They are beautiful animals. They are enjoyed by sportsmen, by shutterbugs, by artists and by nature lovers alike. They are synonymous with Canadian history and the development of the prairie region. They helped sustain our aboriginal peoples long before white man even discovered the prairie region.

They were important to the pioneers who settled the area in the late 19th century. They are very much an appreciated species on the prairies.

White tailed deer hunting brings more money into Saskatchewan than any other hunting or fishing activity. The Saskatchewan ministry of the environment and resource management calculates $800,000 per year is put into provincial coffers alone from the sale of deer licences and a further $3 million is brought into the province each year by out of province and out of country hunters.

In 1993 a constituent of mine, Mr. Milo Hansen of Biggar, Saskatchewan, a progressive community in the Kindersley-Lloydminister constituency, was fortunate enough to shoot the world record white tailed buck. The old record was set in Nebraska in 1914.

That is an incredible accomplishment on the part of Mr. Hansen. It has become famous in my part of the world and it needs some national exposure. Since the Hansen buck was taken, hunting activity in the area has increased and more American hunters are coming to Canada.

A new $2 coin featuring the Hansen buck would be a fitting way to commemorate this internationally acclaimed achievement of my constituent.

Here are some historical reasons why a prairie symbol should adorn the new coin. While other parts of Canada have been represented on our coins in the past, none have strictly represented the prairies. For example, the maple leaf on the penny and the beaver on the nickel represent central Canada for the main part. The sailing ship on the dime, the beautiful and famous Bluenose , represents the Atlantic region. The moose on the quarter and the loon on the dollar represent the Canadian shield in the north. Putting a prairie symbol on the new $2 coin would create a regional balance on our nation's coins.

I understand the mint has done some public consultation about the nature of the new coin and I trust the continuing tradition of representing Canadian wildlife remains a popular option. I assure the House that the town of Biggar, Saskatchewan is supporting this proposal, as are many other Saskatchewan and prairie members of Parliament.

The Hansen buck is truly a great Canadian achievement and therefore I propose the new coin be designed in the image of a white tailed deer as nearly as possible in the minting of coins to the actual Hansen buck. I have a poster of it in my office. If any members would like to see this beautiful animal they are more than welcome to stop by. I would be very happy and very proud to show them how beautiful this specimen is.

I have been a bit facetious in some of my remarks about some of the potential images that could go on the coin. Probably we should not even mint the coin unless we are absolutely sure Canadians understand all the alternatives.

If that does not happen, if that dialogue is not permitted, if the mint goes ahead with this plan after it is approved by the House I would ask the House and the mint, the department of public works, to give serious consideration first and foremost to a prairie symbol being on the coin. Second, if it pleases Canadians, members of the House and the mint, and I hope it would, I ask they give serious consideration to stamping an image of the Hansen buck on the new $2 coin.

[Business Development Bank Of Canada Act, May 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-91, the motion to refer the bill to committee prior to second reading.

I know other members before me including my colleagues the member for Edmonton Southwest, the member for Okanagan Centre and the member for Kootenay East have spoken to the contents of the bill and what they hope to accomplish in committee, the weaknesses and strengths of the bill regarding the Federal Business Development Bank.

I will take a slightly different attack. This motion refers the bill to committee prior to second reading. As members know, this is a new process which has just been implemented in this 35th Parliament. We are doing some experimentation with regard to how we pass legislation.

The Reform Party agreed with the procedure of sending bills to committee prior to second reading because the Liberals had promised that under this new process there would be ample time for substantive amendments to be debated and discussed in committee before the bill was approved in principle as it is during second reading debate.

I will read what the standing orders say with regard to referring bills to committee prior to second reading. Bill C-91 falls into this category. Standing Order 73(1):

Immediately after the reading of the order of the day for the second reading of any public bill, a minister of the crown may, after notifying representatives of the opposition parties, propose a motion that the said bill be forthwith referred to a standing, special or legislative committee. The Speaker shall immediately propose the question to the House and proceedings thereon shall be subject to the following conditions:

In the case of Bill C-91 these requirements were followed. The minister did make a request that the bill go to committee prior to second reading and there had been consultation with the other parties.

Standing Order 73(1)(b) says: "the motion shall not be subject to any amendment".

That means as we debate this motion today we cannot implement any amendments. I can understand that because we are not dealing with the substance of the bill. We are dealing the

procedural matter, whether the bill should go to committee prior to second reading. The standing orders preclude any amendments to this motion.

Standing Order 73(1)(c) states no member may speak more than once nor longer than ten minutes. Standing Order 73(1)(d) states that after not more than 180 minutes of debate, three hours, the Speaker shall interrupt the debate and the question shall be put and decided without further debate.

We are not having a second reading debate right now. We are debating a motion to refer Bill C-91 to the Standing Committee on Industry. The committee will be challenged with the task of reviewing the bill, listening to witnesses, proposing amendments and having a vigorous debate on the value of Bill C-91; whether it is a strong and good piece of legislation, whether it needs to be substantially changed or whether it should be defeated. I am sure when the bill goes to committee these issues will be looked at.

I am really concerned about whether we can take the government at face value when it says it will permit open and complete debate in committee prior to second reading. When we agree to this process we forego debate at second reading.

We are not really having a full blown debate right now because we are limited to 180 minutes. We cannot make amendments because we are dealing with a motion, not with the bill. It is critical that if we also lose our second reading debate we have a committee that functions well, is open to amendments, takes time to consider the bill and will not rush the bill through committee stage without proper analysis, without enough witnesses being called and without time taken at the clause by clause review of the bill.

I am concerned, not because of Bill C-91 and the industry committee, but about what happened in the human rights and disabled persons committee which also received a bill through this process. The member for Kingston and the Islands said that bill was before the committee for five months. Let me tell the House what the committee did for five months.

I think members of the committee allowed only four witnesses Reform suggested to appear before the committee. All others were government witnesses. That does not sound like a very open process. Maybe the Bloc had a few, I am not sure. Certainly the appearance of witnesses before the committee was restricted. That does not sound like the spirit of Standing Order 73. It certainly does not fall under the spirit of the red book. We are having some real problems with the credibility of the red book in light of all the broken promises we see amassing at a rapid pace. Almost on a daily basis we see new broken promises.

The bill came before the committee and it refused to hear our witnesses. We were let to sit a simmer for a long time. Suddenly it was time for clause by clause debate. Our members brought forward amendments, some prior to the clause by clause debate and some on the day of the clause by clause debate. These amendments were refused contrary to Standing Order 62 because the chairman said they were only submitted in one official language. I hope that does not happen with Bill C-91.

I understand the industry committee functions a little better than the human rights committee. It almost sounds like an oxymoron to use the term human rights when we are talking about the actions which transpired in the committee the other day.

The chairman ruled contrary to Standing Order 62 and refused to even consider debating amendments put forward by my Reform colleagues. Initially the committee refused to accept amendments from the floor, saying they had to be submitted ahead of time. It is contrary to the rules and spirit of the motion to submit these bills to committee prior to second reading.

There were some other problems. Suddenly a motion was passed limiting debate per clause to five minutes. I hope this does not happen with Bill C-91 because this makes a sham of the committee process. That five minutes included reading the clause; some clauses were a whole page, some clauses were difficult to complete in the time limit. After reading a clause all three parties had far less than five minutes to comment on each clause. That is not meaningful debate. It is not in the spirit of Standing Order 73. It is not why Reform supported this change to the committee process.

I trust this will not happen with Bill C-91. If this reoccurs it will indicate the government did not bring the changes to the standing orders forward in good faith. It was using this as a mechanism whereby the debate on bills could be shortened, particularly on contentious bills such as C-64, and therefore prevent the House from dealing with the bill at a second reading debate. This is a very serious matter and why I bring it to the attention of the House.

Furthermore, in the committee the chairman refused to hear points of order. I know, Mr. Speaker, you have never in the Chamber refused to hear points of order; neither have the Deputy Speaker nor any of the acting speakers. The standing orders indicate points of order must be heard. The chairman in the human rights committee refused to hear points of order, again a breach of the standing orders and the common procedures we follow in the House.

Therefore I hope Bill C-91 when it goes to committee prior to second reading will not face this type of abusive procedure on the part of the chair of the committee. I am sure it will not because I understand that committee works quite a bit more co-operatively.

In this committee the chair, if challenged on a point of order, said: "Do I have the agreement of the committee to proceed? Is my ruling sustained?" The Liberal members would jump up and say "sustained", and there was no debate on the issue.

The debate on the Federal Business Development Bank is important. It could be equally as important as the debate on employment equity, although the employment equity bill is certainly a more emotional issue. However, all bills are important. If they are brought to the House we expect them to be dealt with in a serious manner. We expect the rules of the House and the rules as they apply to committees to be followed.

I implore the government to review whether it is really open to honest debate in committee prior to second reading. When we use Standing Order 73 and refer bills to committee prior to a second reading debate, I challenge the government never again to implement draconian measures which would restrict debate on a particular clause to five minutes or less. That cannot happen. That takes away all credibility from the legislative process. It is demeaning to members of Parliament and, most important, it is absolutely wrong.

We will in good faith agree to send the bill to committee prior to second reading. I expect the discussion will be of a far higher quality than was the case in the human rights committee. Not only would I expect it, I think the House should demand it. Members of Parliament deserve to be heard and deserve to have their positions adequately expressed so there can be a vote taken after full and free debate. I recommend that for Bill C-91.

[Privilege, May 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I hesitate now to comment in light of the comments you just made. Would you give me permission to very briefly answer the concerns made by the parliamentary secretary?

[Privilege, May 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I guess I need some clarification from you on one instance.

I want to bring forward another very important issue. First of all my understanding of the standing orders is that a question of privilege must be brought forward at the first opportunity. How can we justify saying we have to wait until a report is given before a member can put forth a question of privilege when he at the same time must put forth a question of privilege at the first opportunity?

My hon. colleague has brought forward what is a very legitimate question of privilege at his very first opportunity. I appeal to you on that basis.

The other thing I would like to bring to your attention is that there are changes in the standing orders. This is the first Parliament in which these changes have been implemented. It may mean that a new precedent is being established and it may be very important for you to play a role in establishing a proper precedent.

When bills are submitted to committee prior to second reading, this House forgoes second reading debate. The House is sacrificing an opportunity to debate in the House so that would happen in committee. There are 180 minutes permitted of debate on a motion to submit the bill to committee prior to second reading. There really is no second reading debate. The vote on second reading is held without debate.

Therefore, it is very important that a precedent be established to allow proper debate at second reading. The spirit of the agreement to change the standing orders was so that amendments could be brought forward at committee and that proper time could be taken to deal with the clause by clause study.

Mr. Speaker, on that basis I ask you to consider very carefully what precedent is being established here, whether or not the rights of members are protected under the standing orders as they now stand in light of this new procedure. I think it is very critical and may be repeated many times in the future in the House and in committee. I just want to make it very clear that we are concerned.