Peter MacKay

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. member.

He spoke of his government's accomplishments. He spoke of the fact that the budget has now been balanced. He mentioned that the unemployment rate is now coming down. These are all positive things and Canadians should be pleased with them.

However, I wonder if the hon. member will acknowledge and recognize that it was the previous Conservative government that implemented many of the very important economic policies, like the free trade agreement and the much hated and maligned GST, and for those brave initiatives there was a great electoral price to pay.

Will the hon. member not acknowledge that it was those policies, which were adopted and expanded by his government, that really share much of the credit for what he would have us believe is his government's initiative?

[Questions On The Order Paper, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to rise quickly and pose the question that I have posed on numerous occasions here in the House with respect to Question No. 21 that languishes further on the Order Paper, eight months and counting. We are very anxious to have this question answered.

It is a very straightforward question but we have been told time and time again that it involves a great deal of investigatory work on behalf of the government. There are 30 departments and we want to know where ministers were at a certain set period of time. Perhaps we could get an indication from the parliamentary secretary when an answer will be coming.

[Petitions, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, similar to the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona, I also have a petition that touches on the subject of the MAI and the manner in which the Canadian government has negotiated or attempted to negotiate this agreement behind closed doors.

This petition calls upon the government to have more open participatory discussions in the public forum that are transparent. They urge the government to do so forthwith.

I am very honoured to table this petition on behalf of the constituents of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and do so pursuant to Standing Order 36.

[Business Of The House, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the remarks. Facts do matter. There is one important thing that should be put on the record which is that the Conservative Party has but one member on each committee. When we have one member there, we have 100% of our membership on that committee present. That is a very important fact which should be on the record.

I guess a lot of the members on the government side have chosen not to be in the House to hear the vitriolic, adrenalin driven remarks of the hon. member. I am recalling a phrase my grandfather used to use. To mix metaphors with a big stick here, he used to say that occasionally one could find a good stick of wood in a pile of manure.

One point that was made was that members should do their duty in committee, but they should also do their duty in the House. On balance, I would like to know from the hon. member for Bourassa if he is saying that a member should be at committee when there is important debate going on in the House. We have been in that position a few times when ministers were in committee and important debate was happening here.

[Business Of The House, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that question. As always he brings a great deal of history and a great deal of knowledge to the debate, even though he is a relatively new member to this Chamber. He is not as new as I am, but I always respect and enjoy hearing the hon. member speak.

He has a great depth of knowledge of the history of the Conservative Party of Canada, which leads me to believe that there may come a time when he will be back in the party. I am very encouraged to hear the hon. member speak in such glowing terms of some of the past glories of the Diefenbaker years and the Conservative Party itself.

To turn to the question, he asks specifically about some of the changes that I or the Progressive Conservative Party might like to invoke or to see take place within the standing orders themselves. I have not turned my mind to that, except at this very moment.

One suggestion might be, in terms of the use of this card that has been played, this heavy-handed card of closure or time allocation, that the government within a certain term of parliament would only be allowed to use that card a specified number of times. It could be limited. Perhaps that would address the problem that has been referred to by the hon. member, that it would appear this government uses this measure, this shotgun approach to a mosquito, basically with no discretion. They simply, at a whim, decide that debate has become irrelevant, or a nuisance or a bother and they shut it down.

That might be one suggestion.

But I think, generally, the rules of procedure, obviously, like the law itself, are like a living tree. They have changed over time. They have evolved. The rules of procedure are not necessarily the problem, just as it is with the law. It is their application. It is the tool in the hand of the person that is using it, the old expression being that a poor carpenter blames his tools. The government has, in my opinion, displayed an attitude of arrogance and irreverence toward the opposition. It has misused the rules or the tools of this place.

If there was a change in attitude, a shift in the focus of the government as to its role as juxtaposed to the opposition, and if it had a little more respect for the opposition, I think that would go a long way to improving the way in which this place operates.

[Business Of The House, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is with some regret that we find ourselves debating this issue but it is obviously a very important one. I am honoured to be following the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona who has a long and storied history in this place. He spoke very eloquently about the changes he has seen during his years in parliament.

I think of former parliamentarians who are watching what is taking place in this place, members like Robert Howie from Fredericton, New Brunswick who have served in this House and all members across the country who look back and occasionally follow the parliamentary channel. They must wonder what is taking place. There is obviously a digression. There is something afoot that seems to be undermining the relevance of parliament.

I strongly suggest that occurrence is a result of a change in attitude, an attitude on behalf of a government that has now been sitting in the government benches for five years and some months. It has decided in its arrogance that it is going to do what it wants to do. That was displayed in the House this morning. After a motion was properly moved and tabled by the opposition, the government decided in its wisdom to come forward and to try to rescind it, simply rescind it without any debate or consultation. It was simply going to run roughshod over the opposition as it has done, as has been its wont in the past months.

The opposition on this side of the House has shown a non-partisan unison by banding together and saying no, we are not going to let that happen. The time has come to draw a line in the sand and say it is not proper that the government is going to do this.

So here we are. Standing Order 56 has been debated. It has been used on a number of occasions in this parliament. It was used in the last parliament as well to stifle the opposition on occasion. I was glad to hear the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona acknowledge that there is a time and a place when closure can be used, much like the rules of procedure themselves where there is a time for their application. But this was not the time or place for the government to exercise that discretion. It did so in such a way that it displayed an attitude such that the opposition parties felt that was enough.

We are debating this issue when we could perhaps be debating other more important issues.

However, the issues that will arise in this debate are the issues that do govern the House, set the rules of engagement and set how the rules of procedure will be applied. Therefore it is an important debate and I am hoping there will be some lessons learned and some exchange of information and ideas that will perhaps improve the way we choose to apply these rules for the months and years ahead that will bind us in the House.

I think it is high time that the government realized that MPs in the House, whether its own backbenchers or opposition members, are not irrelevant and are not here to be taken for granted by the government.

It was a bit of irony to see the reaction of the government House leader when this occurred, a complete overreaction I would suggest, an attitude of disbelief that the opposition would have the audacity to stand up and oppose what was about to happen.

We have seen occasions where the government had no hesitation whatsoever to applying the whip to its own members. It happened in a very poignant way during the debate on hepatitis C. It was not at all afraid to fill all of the benches on the government side to ensure that every single member was present in the House when it suited its purpose.

However, time and time again opposition parties bring forward issues they feel are of relevance and importance to their constituents, be it in the east, the west, Ontario or Quebec. They want to debate relevant issues to put their voice and the voices of their constituents on the record in parliament and to be heard by the government. There are far too few members on that side of the House. That does not lead to a healthy discourse or to the exchange that should take place in parliament.

As has been referenced by the previous speaker from the New Democratic Party, parliament is supposed to be about speech and about the exchange of ideas, thought and thought provoking debate. The debates that occur in this place should be of interest and importance. I hope Canadians around the country, abroad and those serving overseas who hear about what is taking place in their own Canada should have no more focus than on parliament and on what we say and do in this place.

As well, what we have seen are a lot of shifting priorities on the part of this government. One of the things I viewed with great regret was the use of press conferences on the part of the government as a means to announce shifts in policy and to broadcast the direction in which the government had chosen to go rather than making ministerial statements here in the House, allowing members of parliament to be given the first opportunity to review what the government had chosen to do and allowing members of parliament to perhaps ask relevant questions and discuss the decision the government had made to move in a certain direction.

The Minister of Justice has done that on two occasions within the last number of months. Rather than bring forward new legislation on the Young Offenders Act and talk about the priorities of her department, she chose to hold a press conference and leaked that information to the press before members of the House were given an opportunity to speak on it.

We had a very relevant and lively debate yesterday about the status of parliament as it compares to the judiciary and how some members of the opposition are feeling that perhaps parliament is losing is relevance when it comes to the making of laws. Again that is a sad reflection on this place when some members in the House actually feel we are becoming that irrelevant, that we are not the supreme court of the land when it comes to the making and passing of legislation.

We must be a House of democracy and a place that is most reflective of the fact that Canadians have entrusted us and have put their faith in us as members of parliament to come to Ottawa, leave behind our homes and the places I am sure each of us would prefer to be, and bring forward their ideas and deal with the problems that do exist out there. There are many problems out there when one looks at the high rates of unemployment, the declining quality of our health care and the problems within our justice system, to name a few.

If Canadians as well as parliamentarians, are feeling that this place is losing its relevance, this is a sad day. One would only hope that we can learn from this debate.

As a result of discussions today and as a result of circumspection and looking back on what has occurred, perhaps the government will not be quite so quick to react in the manner in which it did to inform us that we are now going to be speaking and called on to debate issues until 4 a.m.

As the Leader of the Opposition said, so be it. If that is the way it has to go, we will be here. I know members of the Progressive Conservative Party will be here as they always have been.

We are prepared to be in this House if called on until 4 a.m., until the wee small hours of the morning. We will be here. I give that assurance.

To send a message to the government, I am very pleased that the official opposition has taken this initiative. I think we will see there is a non-partisan tone to what has taken place here.

The purpose of this was to send a message that the opposition matters. I am sure that many members in this House have been questioned, those in opposition. What can one really do as a member of parliament in opposition?

If for no other reason, the message that comes out of today's debate is that there are occasions when we can hold the government accountable. We can say no, that is not the way it should go, it will not run roughshod over the entire opposition with its motions.

That is not a bad message to come from this debate. We certainly know this is a busy place and that people do work. I do not think there is any suggestion that government members as well as opposition members do not have a very busy schedule on the Hill, the amount of work that goes on in committees, the amount of work required in striking that delicate balance between the obligations of serving one's constituents and the obligations brought on either by a ministry or a critic's portfolio. Those are very important roles and it takes a great deal of time and effort to do the job we are charged with.

There also has to be a shift in attitude. There has to be a conscious change in attitude on behalf of the government when it comes to its arrogance toward the opposition. That has been reflected time and time again in the manner in which the rules of this House have been applied.

We cannot simply acquiesce. In opposition we cannot simply say we are powerless, we accept that we are the opposition and the government has the majority and it can do whatever it pleases. That only goes so far and finally the opposition, as we come to the end of this session, says enough is enough.

I hope the government in its wisdom will review this situation and realize there was an overreaction here that did not have to happen. The role of the opposition here is to hold this government accountable. I am sure that all members on the opposition side take that task very seriously.

If we can somehow improve the influence and perhaps improve the relations we have with this government, again I that is going to be a positive outcome from today's developments. We are also charged with protecting the public interest.

There are some times that government initiates policy that is not perhaps in the best interest of the Canadian people. We certainly should have the opportunity to question it when that occurs.

This has been a healthy debate. This has been an opportunity to perhaps raise the level of intellect, the discourse that should be taking place properly in the House of Commons. Perhaps now we will see the government a little more anxious to call to arms its own members when there is debate occurring in the House, not only for its own purposes but for the purpose of improving generally the way matters proceed in the House of Commons.

We certainly hope the trend spoken of by the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona and other members, the downward spiral of disinterest and the perception of unimportance that might exist out there, will change. We can put a stop to that by showing more mutual respect between government and opposition.

I would certainly hope that we are not going to see a continued trend of righteous indignation on behalf of government members when opposition members decide to stand and question what it is they are doing here in this place.

If that message gets through and if we are not forced to use a tool such as the tool which was used this morning to try to block, outmanoeuvre and outflank the government, perhaps we will not be forced to digress into this type of debate again. Perhaps then and only then will we be able to get on with the discussion of the important issues and the important tasks that we have been given as parliamentarians.

It is a matter of respect and attitude. If we can learn from this, if we can hopefully get past this interlude and move on to the issues that matter most to Canadians and do away with this contentious, non-important attitude that seems to exist on behalf of the government toward opposition members, then I am sure we will all be better off and the level of debate and the type of importance and emphasis that is placed on this parliament will improve.

[Business Of The House, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, like my hon. friend from the western Reform Party I commend the member who previously spoke. The House leader of the NDP obviously has a great history in this place.

He spoke very eloquently to this issue. He spoke to the fact that closure was first brought to the House of Commons by the Conservative Party. Like the NDP, the Conservative Party has been around a long time, a claim that the Reform Party cannot make.

Does the hon. member feel there are times that closure might be a useful tool for parliament, if exercised with discretion, if used by the government, tempered at times, and if used on occasion when the opposition may be misusing or taking up parliamentary time?

I am not suggesting that is what happened in this instance, but I am suggesting there are rules that have to be respected by all members of the House and procedures that have to apply to everybody. If used with fairness and equity those rules can be adhered to and the rule of closure can be used on occasion and used properly.

[Business Of The House, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am very new to this place and I do not profess to be an expert in this, but my understanding is that what happened yesterday was that a substantive motion was passed on the floor of the House and that cannot simply be overturned by a routine motion from the government. There is a procedure that has to be in place. There is notice that has to be given. My understanding is that this cannot happen in the way that the government House leader is trying to put it before the House.

[Depository Bills And Notes Act, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. member, my friend from the Reform Party.

I cannot disagree substantially with what the member says about the flaccid, weak, thin soup legislative agenda of the government.c I take from his remarks that what he is telling the House and what he is encouraging is that the Senate take a more active role in the parliamentary process and that if we saw more substantive bills coming out the Senate the Reform might perhaps soften its position when it comes to the Senate and its general participation in the process.

We know that on occasion—and we have even seen it in this session—we have substantial bills coming out of the Senate, bills that have been passed and have received the approval of the House, as is often the case and as the process properly works.

I would therefore ask the hon. member if he would encourage the Senate to partake more actively in substantive bills by injecting viagra into the agenda of the other house to work toward bringing more legislation to the floor of this House? If that is the agenda the Reform would like to see take place I suggest that is quite a shift in position for that party.

[Immigration, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on April 30, 1998 the minister of immigration released a report on the number of ministerial permits issued in the year 1997. Of 4,059 ministerial permits issued, 37% were for individuals who were criminally inadmissible to Canada, 395 of the permits were issued for individuals who had committed serious offences including assault, sexual assault, and 79 had committed those offences within the last five years.

Can the minister explain why it is her government is assisting criminals to enter the country when we should be trying to keep them out?