Elwin Hermanson

[Government Appointments, June 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, week after week we in the opposition have shown examples of Liberal patronage appointments.

The recent appointment of Michel Robert as the new Oka negotiator is a perfect example of the Liberal do as I say, not as I do policy.

Who can forget the howls of outrage and indignation when the former government appointed Bernard Roy, a former Tory aide, as Oka negotiator, yet the Liberals have done exactly the same thing.

My question is for the government House leader, whose government has made a big deal about its ethics counsellor, yet it has proven that it does not have the basic integrity required to live up to its rhetoric. Does the government expect a new ethics counsellor to be its moral conscience or to clean up the awful mess of patronage it is creating?

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, 1994, June 3rd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, today I am rising to speak about the changes that the other place is proposing to Bill C-18. I am glad we have a chance to revisit the issue.

Bill C-18, as it was originally envisioned by the government, was a very serious breach of the fundamental principles of democracy, namely preventing the intervention of political parties in the design, conduct and outcome of elections in Canada.

The electoral process in Canada is probably the most fair, unbiased and most professional in the world. Our electoral process is not perfect and I hope we will have the opportunity to discuss some improvements at a later date.

The intent of Bill C-18 not only threatens the non-partisan aspect of our democratic process but it jeopardizes the reputation that Canada enjoys internationally as a country that can be counted on to set high standards of impartiality in regard to the electoral process. Witness that Canada is very often called on to supervise or observe elections around the world. The Ukrainian and South African elections are two recent examples of this.

I cannot emphasize enough the damage that would be done to Canada's international reputation if Bill C-18 were to have passed in its original form. It should obvious that Reformers were correct in their analysis of the bill. The government should have accepted our amendments.

The reasons why this bill had to be-

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, 1994, June 3rd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, no. We want to either resume debate or give the hon. member the chance to ask a question. I think we are about two minutes away from private members' business. Rather than launching into my speech and only getting two minutes into it, if the hon. member had another question I would gladly defer to him.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, 1994, June 3rd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup mentioned that he had attended one of the public hearings to consider the new boundaries as they were readjusted by the current boundaries readjustment commission.

I too had the privilege of appearing before the commission in my province of Saskatchewan. I found the hearings to be very fair. In fact there were some of the same sentiments in Saskatchewan. Not many submissions were made because of the confusion surrounding the whole issue and the government's mismanagement of the entire affair. I found the whole atmosphere, the environment of the discussion, to be totally non-partisan. I found the committee to be competent and willing to listen to the constructive proposals that were brought forward through the submissions.

Not being very familiar with what was happening in the province of Quebec I wonder whether the hon. member found the same environment and the same competence among the

commissions in his province, at least at the hearings he was able to attend.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, 1994, June 3rd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my hon. colleague from Vancouver Quadra. We happen to sit on that same procedure and House affairs committee which will be reviewing the electoral boundaries redistribution process.

He mentioned in his speech that he has been an electoral boundaries commissioner. What adequate provisions in the selection of all Elections Canada officials, including those who would be responsible for determining who the new commissioners, would he consider might be fair? What would be the best process for determining it is not a partisan process and there could be absolutely no question of gerrymandering or political influence?

[Committees Of The House, June 3rd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Pursuant to Standing Order 54 regarding notices of motions, I invite the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway to give notice of his resolution on the Order Paper so that the House might give due consideration to the matter he wishes to raise.

Some time ago a motion that my colleague brought forward was denied unanimous consent by the House and she was encouraged to follow the usual proceedings. With that alternative in place, I would not give unanimous consent to the motion.

[Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act, June 1st, 1994]

Madam Speaker, today the House has been asked to debate Bill C-34, a bill regarding self-government for aboriginal peoples in Yukon. The bill apparently affects serious issues such as land, moneys, language, rights and freedoms, perhaps even constitutional matters.

Reform members have been most co-operative in dealing with government legislation proposed in the House. We have had regular consultations with the government and a great rapport has been built up between our caucus and the government with regard to the handling of legislation. We often disagree on the content of the legislation but we are very happy to debate the issues in this House. However, we would like to debate them from a position of knowledge.

We have some real concerns about Bill C-34. The bill was placed on the Order Paper for one week before the government finally introduced it yesterday. Members of the Reform Party, knowing the complexity of this issue as I mentioned earlier, contacted the minister's office last week to see if they could be briefed on the intent of the legislation in order to adequately prepare for the debate. I suggest that this was a fair request but it was a request that was denied.

Finally my colleagues received the departmental briefing only this morning, the very day of the debate. Also, we had less than 24 hours to review this legislation. As my hon. colleague from the Bloc mentioned, he was up until three or four o'clock in the morning trying to wade through all of the material.

Probably one of the reasons it has become so complicated is that Bill C-34 is directly connected to Bill C-33. While I have not yet been able to see it, my colleagues tell me that Bill C-33 is nine or ten inches thick. It requires some time to review and to understand the complications and the factors involved with its relationship to Bill C-34, the bill we are debating today.

The Reform Party refuses to take part in this type of debate when it is not properly prepared, through no fault of its own. The government has not been able to properly manage its legislative agenda. It is in the position where all of the bills are in committee, on notice, or have not yet been introduced. Furthermore, it was indicated to our caucus that we would be debating Bill C-18 today, a bill which we have studied at great length and are prepared to discuss.

It is with much regret after having stated these facts that we feel we cannot contribute in the most meaningful way at this time on this bill. We do not want to be a part of the government's ineptitude. With much respect for the House and wanting to maintain quality debate, I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

[Points Of Order, June 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this point of order addresses another matter entirely.

Citation 317 of Beauchesne's sixth edition states:

(1) Points of order are questions raised with the view of calling attention to any departure from the Standing Orders or the customary modes of proceeding in debate or in the conduct of legislative business-

I would like to address my comments to the conduct of legislative business.

In a statement last Thursday, the government House leader indicated that the business for today would be Bill C-18, the Electoral Boundaries Redistribution Act. Instead we were advised at the House leader's meeting yesterday that we would be debating Bill C-34, an act respect Yukon self-government.

Although Bill C-34 was put on notice on May 25, it was not introduced until yesterday.

There is a concern here. How can the government expect the House to properly conduct legislative business when it does not even give members 24 hours to review the legislation before it is debated in the House?

Every Canadian will recognize that aboriginal self-government is an important national issue and deserves proper attention. The Reform Party has shown a willingness to co-operate with the government. We would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to use all powers and influence at your disposal to move the government toward conduct of legislated business that permits the members of the House to effectively fulfil their mandate as elected representatives.

Standing Order 1 states:

In all cases not provided for hereinafter, or by other Order of the House, procedural questions shall be decided by the Speaker or Chairman, whose decisions shall be based on the usage, forms, customs and precedents of the House of Commons of Canada and on parliamentary tradition in Canada and other jurisdictions-

We would ask that you consider this standing order when making your ruling.

[Points Of Order, June 1st, 1994]

A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

[Points Of Order, June 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I will be reasonably brief.

I want to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona for giving notice of his point of order. I would like to make a few comments on it, though first of all I would like to quote from Hansard of November 27, 1990, when a similar point of order was being discussed. At that time Ian Waddell, the New Democratic Party member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, argued in the House with regard to the Bloc Quebecois saying:

It is not a party. It does not have 12 people. Those are the rules. They should stop whining. The House has been very liberal to them and I find it shocking when they get up and whine, bitch and complain.

With regard to participation in question period and in members' statements, the House has been very generous with independent members and the Chair has been very generous, considering that very likely the New Democratic caucus has the poorest attendance record in the House.

I would like to get to some of the arguments that the member made with regard to having official party status. In 1974 the Ralliement Créditiste brought 11 members to the House of Commons. Despite their having less than 12 members all privileges which come with party recognition were given to them except for the extra stipend given to the leaders of the parties, other than the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, with at least 12 members.

In October 1979 Prime Minister Clark was in the process of setting up his new government. He put forward the names for composition of the striking committee and moved approval by the House. Initially one issue raised for decision by the House was whether the Ralliement Créditiste with six members should be represented on the striking committee. Mr. Clark moved approval of the committee with no Créditiste. Mr. Roy of the Créditiste put forward an amendment to the motion to include a Créditiste.

Mr. MacEachen, House leader for the Liberals, raised the following additional issues for consideration: first, whether the group would enjoy the status, particularly the leader of that group, equivalent in standing to that of the Leader of the Opposition, who was Mr. Trudeau, and the leader of the New Democratic Party; second, whether they would have full status of other parties in respect of the question period; and, third, whether they would have full status of other parties in respect of statements on motions in response to ministerial statements.

Additionally, Mr. Knowles, the House leader for the New Democratic Party, who is now a member at the table, reiterated some of the above arguments and added a fourth issue for consideration. He stated:

While it has come to be thought that 12 members were required for party status, we overstepped it when the party had only 11 members last time.

He was referring to 1974. He further stated:

Can a party that has used a name in election come here and claim all of the advantages that go with party status regardless of how small it is?

That is from Debates , October 9, 1979, page 13.

Mr. Knowles, Mr. MacEachen and others argued to the Speaker against party status for a party with less than 12 members in the House. The outcome of this deliberation and the decision of the House rendered by recorded division was nay. The Speaker twice refused to overturn the decision of the House on appeal from the Creditiste even when attention was called to the popular vote which the Ralliement Créditiste received. That is in House of Commons Debates, October 10, 1979.

Other issues are that the stipend which is given to leaders of parties with at least 12 members, excluding the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition, is covered by the Parliament of Canada Act which states:

-to each member of the House of Commons, other than the Prime Minister or the member occupying the position of Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons, who is a leader of a party that has a recognized membership of 12 or more persons in the House-

This can only be changed by a legislative amendment, not by a ruling of the Speaker.

A final issue connected with recognition of parties in the House has to do with research funding. The requirement that parties must have at least 12 members can be waived by the Board of Internal Economy which includes three opposition members.

My conclusion is that if the House were to grant recognition of the New Democrats or the Progressive Conservatives as parties in the House they should first address the precedents against recognizing parties with fewer than 12 members, including the 1979 precedent.

It should be noted that in addition to Messrs. Clark, MacEachen and Knowles, that Messrs. Chrétien, Axworthy, Gray, Kilgour, MacLaren, Masse and others voted nay to the amendment. Further, it should be noted that the Speaker at that time refused to overturn the decision on appeal since the House had raised these issues and put them to a vote.

Therefore a decision of any of the issues given should be given careful consideration by the Speaker of the 35th Parliament. The independent members in the House should not be given recognition beyond what should be accorded by any individual member unless the House agrees to give such recognition.

In brief summation, the recourse of the members of the New Democratic Party is to appeal to the House for changes in the legislation whereby they would be recognized. We believe it should not be an appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to make a ruling on this issue.