James Rajotte

[Canada Business Corporations Act, May 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my speech, I ask the House for unanimous consent to split my time with the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

[Natural Resources, May 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, each day this decision is delayed endangers our position as world leaders in materials research and drives away the top scientists who are capable of doing this research.

Years ago the Minister of Industry championed the tiny turbot. This facility is a lot bigger and a lot more important than a fish. Will he commit today to championing this facility and getting cabinet approval by next week?

[Natural Resources, May 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, funding the Canadian neutron facility will not happen without a champion at the cabinet table. Clearly the Minister of Natural Resources is not up to the task.

Will the Minister of Industry commit today in his role as overseer of the National Research Council to champion the Canadian neutron facility?

[Modernization Of The Standing Orders Of The House Of Commons, May 1st, 2001]

Madam Chairman, I was an assistant here with Ian McClelland before I became a member of parliament. In terms of the relationship between private members' business and government bills, one of the researchers for the Library of Parliament told me that before 1911 most of the bills that were passed were private members' bills but that since that time there has been an increasing tendency to spend most of our time in the House on government bills.

The researcher felt that the system actually worked better when more time was devoted to private members' bills. As the hon. member for Elk Island pointed out, we tend to be closer to the ridings than the government bureaucracies are. Perhaps it has shifted too much in favour of government bills and there should be more time allotted during orders of the day for private members' bills. Would the hon. government House leader comment on that?

[Shipbuilding Industry, April 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, that is quite a role reversal.

During his last provincial election campaign in Newfoundland, the industry minister told shipyard workers that if his government did not make the shipbuilding industry self-sustaining, then they could tie metal plates to his ankles and throw him over the wharf. That was five years ago. Now he is the federal industry minister and he still has no plan.

When will the minister either produce a plan or return to the wharf?

[Shipbuilding Industry, April 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, today the Minister of Industry responded to a report on the future of the shipbuilding industry in Canada and ruled out future subsidization of this industry.

Since the minister has firmly committed to not subsidizing the shipbuilding industry, would he explain why the federal government has not fought the American, NAFTA-exempt, Jones act to allow Canadian shipbuilding companies to expand into the United States?

[Privilege, March 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege with regard to a committee matter that is so unique and extraordinary that I must bring it directly to the attention of the House.

My question of privilege charges the chair of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology with contempt. This morning at the standing committee's meeting, the chair abused her authority by ruling out of order a motion concerning her decisions as chair of the committee. Such motions are in order.

Referring to Marleau and Montpetit, on page 858 it states:

Disorder and misconduct in a committee may arise as a result of the failure to abide by the rules and practices of a committee...If a committee desires that some action be taken...it must report the situation to the House. The House may make a decision on disorder upon receiving such a report.

That is exactly what I was attempting to do. How can the committee comply with the practices of the House if the chair rules such motions out of order? What I find most objectionable is the fact that the motion was concerning the actions of the chair.

The motion was to report to the House the matter of the chair's rulings regarding numerous motions concerning the ethics counsellor to the House. Her refusal to allow a motion to report her own actions to the House is a conflict of interest and impedes the committee from being master of its own proceedings.

I would gladly ask the committee to report this conflict of interest to the House, but the chair, based on her decision today, does not entertain motions concerning her decisions. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, my only recourse is to bring the matter to the House directly.

The House is entitled to all reports and has a duty to deal with contempts or misconducts that occur in committee. Since that is not possible, since the chair has impeded the committee's ability to decide to report the matter to the House, I must submit the chair's actions directly to the House. The chair's rulings regarding certain motions were biased and inconsistent with the practices of the House.

The final motion she disallowed was a motion to report her rulings to the House. That goes to the very heart of the question of privilege. The member cannot procedurally or legitimately disallow a motion that might jeopardize her position as chair. She cannot silence criticism against her authority and refuse to implement the wishes of those who elected her.

On page 119 of Erskine May there is a reference regarding a select committee that was appointed in 1977 to inquire into the conduct and activities of members and to consider whether any such conduct or activities amounted to a contempt of the House and whether any such activities were “conduct inconsistent with the standards the House was entitled to expect from its members”.

I consider the chair's decisions at the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology to be conduct inconsistent with the standards that the House and the public expect from a member.

There is a great deal at stake here. We cannot let the matter go unresolved. The hon. member for Essex must be found in contempt by the House. While my rights as a member of the standing committee are immediately at stake, ultimately the threat is to the democratic rights and freedoms of all members of the House.

The member is contributing to the inability of the House to resolve the matter of the appearance of a conflict of interest regarding the Prime Minister's involvement with the Grand-Mère Golf Club and Grand-Mère Inn.

Her role as chair is not to protect the Prime Minister but to protect the rights of all members of the committee and to uphold the rules and practices of the House. In that regard she has failed, and she has no right to impede my efforts to report those decisions to the House.

[Modernization Of House Of Commons Procedure, March 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the member opposite's speech. I thought it was very well done.

In terms of the certain issue of private members' bill, as a member I fully concur that private members' bills should all be votable. It simply does not make sense to have two-thirds of the private members' bills that come up for debate for an hour not votable and then they are off the order paper. That does not make sense. I fully support the member in that.

I would also agree with him that it makes members more responsible. If they introduce a private members' bill that does not make sense, they will be the ones who are held accountable.

I would like to ask the member two questions. First, should the House extend the hours for debate of private members' bills? If we look at the parliament of Canada, for about the first 50 years we had more time devoted toward private members' business. Since about 1911 we have tended to move toward more government business.

The second question is a genuine question for the member opposite. In my short time here I have observed him and take him to be an intelligent and independent member of the House. The fact is we are hampered by a concentration of power in the Prime Minister's office and the Privy Council Office. That hurts those intelligent and independent members like himself.

There was a conference last year in Edmonton that was co-sponsored by the previous member for Edmonton Southwest and the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. A member there said that all that we needed was for the opposition parties to join with a few backbench government members to say to the executive that they were not going to tolerate the control they had over parliament. He called it a backbenchers' bill of rights.

Would it be possible for the backbench government members to join opposition members and take back the rights from the executive that all parliamentarians should have, and should we do it right now?

[Modernization Of House Of Commons Procedure, March 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on a wonderful speech. What really deserves credit is the fact that he described his affection for parliament. That is very important.

It is very important for those who do not want parliamentary reform to understand that those who want parliamentary reform do it from an affection, a love and a respect for this place. We do not do it because we do not respect parliament. It is in fact the exact opposite. We respect and love this place and want it to be what it should be. That is why we ask for parliamentary reform. I very much appreciated that comment in the hon. member's speech.

I want to ask him a specific question about quorum. He mentioned that we should probably increase quorum so that we have more members in the House and the debates are livelier and more deliberative. This place should be a national debating body. The whole notion of deliberation, of give and take, of debate back and forth, and of the tension between the opposition and the government side, is what produces good governance. Would he comment on whether we should increase the quorum requirements of the House of Commons?

[Modernization Of House Of Commons Procedure, March 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in what the member was saying. I know he has very extensive knowledge of how parliaments work and parliamentary history. I know he referenced the famous book Governing from the Centre: the Concentration of Power in Canadian Politics by Donald Savoie.

He and other parliamentary historians have talked about how, for the first 50 years of our nation, we had great involvement by private members. It was really a parliamentary democracy at that point and then it moved into more of a cabinet democracy, particularly in the 1950s. Today, here and now in the 21st century, we basically have what he calls court government, which is exactly as the hon. member described. We are almost back to having a monarch again. We are almost in pre-Magna Carta times.

I fully agree that we should not modernize this place. We must democratize this place. I agree the confidence convention and the free vote are the most important aspects of democratizing this place. Besides the confidence convention and the free vote, what other suggestions would the hon. member make to really restore this place to true parliamentary democracy?