Scott Reid

[Democratic Reform, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, before she became a Liberal, the Minister responsible for Democratic Renewal was one of the co-sponsors of Bill C-261, which would lower the voting age to 16. She even toured the country in support of the bill.

My question is, now that she is a minister, does she still support Bill C-261 and the lowering of the voting age to 16?

[Privilege, May 31st, 2005]

No, Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a matter that is related.

I am not revealing anything that was done in camera when I say this, but the committee was reviewing its 40th report to the House of Commons which contained a series of motions put forward by the leader of the New Democratic Party. One specific item with regard to scheduling, which I regarded as impractical, was the subject of discussion.

I will be seeking the unanimous consent of the House to present this draft report and table it here. It then will become evident that what is going on here is in fact very different from the presentation of the facts given by the member for Ottawa Centre.

For this reason, I am asking for unanimous consent to table this draft report in the House.

[Privilege, May 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. During question period the hon. member for Ottawa Centre made reference to events that took place earlier today in the procedure and House affairs committee meeting that was being held in camera. In fact, I have the notice of today's committee meeting no. 37, which states, “Orders of the day: In camera discussion of electoral reform”.

His presentation of the facts is extremely selective. He knows full well that having raised it publicly, I am in no position to respond to his statements other than to make the point that they vary considerably from an objective review of the facts of what actually happened and certainly in spirit are basically opposite to what actually went on, in my opinion.

He did this in a way that I believe violates the privilege of the entire committee by revealing in camera proceedings and, in particular, those members from the Conservative Party whose actions are being presented in a negative light and in a way that precludes their responding without making a similar offence to the Standing Orders.

I am well aware, as you no doubt are, Mr. Speaker, that Speakers have consistently ruled that except in the most extreme situations they will only hear questions of privilege arising from committee proceedings upon presentation of a report from the committee which directly deals with the matter and not as a question of privilege raised by an individual member.

However I believe this is an extraordinary situation. I draw your attention to pages 128 and 129 of Marleau and Montpetit where it states:

Committees have reported to the House on the refusal of witnesses to appear when summoned; the refusal of witnesses to answer questions; the refusal of witnesses to provide papers or records; the refusal of individuals to obey orders of a committee; and the divulging of events during an in camera meeting.

I would think the divulging of events in a selective manner that is not fully in accord with the actual events of what took place in the committee would seem to me to be a matter that requires the personal attention of the Speaker.

When you are finished with this question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask for unanimous consent for the tabling of the motion that was under discussion in the House so that all members can examine it and see that in fact the hon. member from Ottawa Centre was presenting the facts highly selectively.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is ironic to be lectured on constitutional conventions by a member of a government that has just broken one of our most fundamental constitutional conventions by governing unconstitutionally after it had lost several confidence motions in the House until it could find a way of buying or bribing its way back into power.

I will simply point out that this is far from being a matter that is irrelevant, unlike for example, Bill C-9, which we were discussing today which will change the name of a department, or the debate many engaged in this morning over whether or not the House of Commons should have a symbol. Those are truly irrelevant debates.

We will just use Liberal Party policy as opposed to the others who have spoken in favour of getting rid of the power of disallowance. Pierre Trudeau advocated this in the 1960s. In 1972 in the Victoria charter he actually brought forward a constitutional amendment to get rid of the disallowance power. He brought it back again in 1978 in the constitutional amendment bill. It was once again brought forward in the Charlottetown accord, which members from many parties, including the Liberals and the NDP voted in favour of. The Bloc did not exist then.

This is a matter of national consensus, but for some reason the minister has decided to reverse, as I say, half a century of consensus in this country.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my question today for the Minister of Justice relates to an item of business that arose in question period on February 18. I asked a question at that time. I will read it and then ask for his response to it. At the time, I asked:

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the government reversed half a century of Liberal policy by declaring that the Minister of Justice favours retaining the power of disallowance--

That is Parliament's power to disallow or strike down provincial laws.

--under which his cabinet can unilaterally strike down provincial laws.

It was explained that his position is that the federal Liberals are prepared to use this power under what were described to the House as extraordinary circumstances. I invite the minister to explain to the House which provincial laws, actual or hypothetical, he would categorize as being sufficiently extraordinary to be disallowed by his cabinet.

I should mention that a cabinet power is a power that is not exercised by the House. It is exercised by the federal government. This is a power which has fallen to disuse and I will speak about that in a second. His response was simply to say:

--I am not speculating on when such a power would be used or if, even, such a power would be used. The power is there. I do not speculate on hypotheticals.

Surely that is one of the most inadequate answers ever recorded in the House.

The power of disallowance is an antiquated, colonial vestige, a holdover of the period during which Canada was a British colony, the immediate post-Confederation period. The imperial government in London had the power to strike down federal laws and the government in Ottawa was seen in a sense as a colonial power that wanted to move over the provinces. This was at a time before there were was any form of a charter of rights and this was seen as a means of protecting rights through essentially colonizing lower orders of government.

This is an antiquated power. It has not been used in Canada since 1937 and has not been contemplated since the 1940s. It is really 60 years of Liberal policy that has been reversed.

I thought I would take a moment to talk a bit about the last time this power was considered to be used. That is the only guide we have to the suggestion by the Minister of Justice that he would be willing to revisit and reuse this power.

In 1944 the CCF government in Saskatchewan was elected, the first social democratic government in North America. It proposed a series of pieces of progressive legislation, which would now be regarded as essentially middle of the road pieces of legislation, and Mackenzie King's government considered striking down those laws. This prompted Tommy Douglas to go on the radio in Saskatchewan to make certain points.

He said, “If the federal government has any doubts about the constitutionality of our legislation, this is a matter for the courts to decide. Certainly it is not a matter which comes from the duties of the federal government.

He also pointed out that in 1937 when the Quebec government passed the padlock law, which was an infringement of the rights of a free people, the federal government refused to take any action on the grounds that it could not interfere. However, when Alberta endeavoured to pass certain pieces of legislation affecting large corporations, the federal government acted with a swiftness and a ruthlessness that was amazing.

Eugene Forsey commented that one could always count on the federal government using its power to intervene on the side of the big guns, as he put it. It seems to me this power remains a great danger for this reason and it seems to me it is appropriate and indeed incumbent upon the Minister of Justice to say that he would never under any circumstances use this power.

[Symbol for the House of Commons, May 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking today in support of this motion. The goal of establishing a formally agreed upon symbol for the House of Commons seems to be a worthwhile one.

To some degree, institutions develop their own symbols in an informal manner. Sometimes the informally chosen symbols are the most valuable. Part of my comments today will be an observation about the informal symbols that we have adopted and their value, but there is no harm, indeed, perhaps there is a benefit, in attempting to formalize the symbols that we have informally started to adopt as a part or as symbols of this place.

Perhaps I will start by talking a little about the symbols which on their surface I think people relate to the House of Commons. These perhaps could serve as potential ideas to be thrown into the mill for future reference.

An obvious one is the mace, of course, which is already used. On all MPs' badges, which all members are assigned and which some of my colleagues are wearing today, the mace is used to signal that one is a member of the House of Commons. So the mace is already used as a method of identification elsewhere. The mace is used in other spots as the symbol of the Speaker's authority but also of the House itself. Of course that authority is given to the Speaker by the House and therefore at one remove the mace is already an important symbol of the House of Commons. There are good things and bad things about that.

The mace is a beautiful work of art and has tremendous historical importance. It is the symbol of the independence of the House, of course, because the original purpose of the mace was that of a club to be used by the Sergeant-at-Arms to fend off the king's men if they tried to come into the House when they were not invited. It has an important symbolism.

One problem with it is that the mace's design is not unique to the Canadian House of Commons. There are maces in other Canadian legislatures that are unique. I think of the very beautiful mace that I saw a couple of years ago when I was visiting Yellowknife; it is the mace of the Northwest Territories. It really is uniquely designed for that House. It captures both the tradition and the uniqueness of the territories. That was not done with our mace, which is identical to those used in a number of other countries within the Commonwealth of Nations.

Another thing that could be used as a symbol, of course, is the Speaker's chair or throne, which is also a very beautiful object. As well, the peace tower strikes me as being an obvious item that could be used as our symbol; certainly when people see the peace tower it is instantly identifiable with Parliament. One could argue whether or not it is more identifiable with Parliament as a whole, including the Senate, or whether we could legitimately appropriate it for our own purposes and use that as our symbol. These are all options.

I should emphasize, however, that right now we actually do use informally a symbol, the coat of arms of Canada, on many items that are associated with the House of Commons. For example, when members of Parliament select their business cards, one of the standard designs, and the design that I have used for my business card since I was first elected, includes the coat of arms of Canada. It is seen as indicating one's participation in the Canadian political process.

I am well aware that this is the symbol of Canada, the Government of Canada, and we could argue that therefore the House is not sufficiently distinct from it, but I do not think there is anything wrong with appropriating a symbol that is used more widely and saying that it is also our symbol. The House of Commons binders and correspondence folders many of us use also carry the coat of arms of Canada. It is even used as the default screen saver on our computers and appears on my computer whenever I leave it alone and do not use it for more than five minutes.

The coat of arms is a possibility. The whole idea of using coats of arms is one that is widely used by legislatures. I know, for example, that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario has its own coat of arms. That is its symbol. The easiest way to see this is by watching the Ontario version of CPAC, the channel that broadcasts the debates of the Ontario legislature. We see that coat of arms being used as the motif.

Actually, I think that is not a very good idea. I say that because its coat of arms bears no relationship to any of the symbols that are commonly associated with the province of Ontario. When we see the symbol, there is no instinctive understanding of what it represents. In some measure, I think it would have been better to just use the coat of arms of Ontario as its motif.

I have seen in other jurisdictions that I have either visited or lived in, the use of symbols derived from a coat of arms. Given the importance of coats of arms as our standard form of symbolic representation in Canada, it seems to me there might be some merit in this.

For example, the Parliament of the state of Victoria in Australia uses as its motif a southern cross, which is a simplified version of the coat of arms of the state of Victoria. That works quite well. It is clearly understood that is its symbol. The red lion of Tasmania which is taken from its coat of arms is used as the symbol of the Parliament of Tasmania. In Western Australia it is the black swan, which is central to its coat of arms.

If we look at the documents produced by the Quebec national assembly, we will see that the fleur-de-lys is used. It is part of the symbolism of Quebec. Documents, laws and white papers coming from the legislative assembly in Quebec are very distinctive and easily recognizable by the use of the fleur-de-lys as the ornamentation and background. As well, a distinctive font is used for all its documents, which is something else we might want to consider for the House of Commons.

My hon. colleague mentioned the use of seals in the United States. Coats of arms are not used in the United States apparently as a result of the fact that in the revolution, the Americans rejected any idea of aristocracy, nobility or symbols of nobility. Therefore the next thing to turn to would be seals. The U.S. President, for example, has his own seal and uses it to seal documents. That is a holdover from the seals that are used to indicate Crown authority. A seal is affixed by the Governor General of Canada to every law that is passed by Parliament. That is an American tradition and it fits within a pattern of usage. We have come to understand that each of the various departments in the U.S. has its own seal which typically then is put on a flag, if a department has a flag. It is used by various states. The idea of the seal as a symbol of authority is well understood in the United States.

In Canada the idea of a coat of arms is the central symbological notion. Therefore it seems to me that any symbol we take should potentially be derived from the coat of arms of Canada. We have a very rich and elaborate coat of arms. We could take an element from the coat of arms, simplify it and use it as our symbol. There are numerous maple leafs. We could incorporate the national symbol of the maple leaf into the symbol that is chosen.

It does not mean that items that are not in the coat of arms, such as the mace, necessarily would have to be excluded. However, I would suggest that some elements from the coat of arms be incorporated with whatever distinctively parliamentary item is put into the standard and accepted symbol of this place, whether it be the mace, the Speaker's chair, the Peace Tower or some other item.

[Petitions, May 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from several parts of my beautiful constituency signed by people from Perth, who some say is the prettiest town in Ontario, Verona, Harrowsmith and elsewhere. This petition concerns the definition of marriage.

The petitioners draw to the attention of the House the fact that marriage is the best foundation for families and for the raising of children. They point out that the majority of Canadians currently support the traditional definition of marriage. They remind the House that it is the duty and obligation of the House to legislate on this subject and to preserve the traditional definition of marriage as being the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act, May 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, bureaucratization is a problem in all federal departments and economic development agencies. It is indeed a real problem.

I think these agencies need to have a number of offices. I do not know if 15 offices is the appropriate number for the regions of Quebec. However, there is a need for a large number of offices since this agency's purpose is to serve the regions of the vast province of Quebec.

As for the duplication of services provided by the Quebec government, which has a real interest in the development of its regions, it is possible to do some realignment within the department to reduce the number of bureaucrats and thus reduce the costs related to those bureaucrats, not those related to the beneficiaries of the services provided by the department.

[Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act, May 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of my colleague from the Bloc. I think that what he said could be the follow up of a conversation with the minister. His comments were sensible.

Seeing as that too is not really a question directed at me, I will return to the theme I was dwelling on of the politicization of these moneys.

I mentioned the case of the money for eastern Ontario, which is not a unique case. It is simply the one that happened to involve me most closely because it was my riding, among others. The announcement was forthcoming, but once it turned out that the Liberals had lost those seats, the money was not forthcoming and there were constant delays. All the moneys before Treasury Board needed approval, it was not meeting, it could not get it on the agenda. Month after month that went on and the money was not available.

Finally, in October I had my office called one of the corporations, the CFDC, to see ask what was happening. That was at 9 a.m. on Friday. I had instructed my office to say that I would be raising a question about it at 11 a.m. in question period. Almost immediately following the conversation between my staffer and the folks at the CFDC, an email announcement was put out by CFDC saying that the money would be forthcoming and that I would be asking a question about it.

The extent to which the politicization has gone on here and the extent to which money will only be given if it is something to the partisan benefit of the Liberals is extraordinary. With the amendments we have made, we hope to reduce that. Frankly, I think all members in the House should want to have the regional development money in Quebec, Ontario, wherever, be issued for the advantage and benefit of those who are in the regions and not for the advantage of Liberal contestants for public office.

[Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act, May 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am actually not the critic for the ministry. I am the critic for a parallel ministry, FedNor, which is an agency that provides economic development in Ontario.

Given that the minister's question really was not related to my comments, it is somewhat difficult for me to respond. He was carrying on an earlier conversation with a member from the Bloc Québécois.

However, I thought I might to talk a bit about the way in which the federal government, through its agencies, has politicized the spending of money. I want to give an example that actually occurred in my own backyard, in the beautiful counties of Lanark, Frontenac, Lennox and Addington and in other beautiful counties in eastern Ontario.

The very day before the last election there was an announcement of $10 million in development money for eastern Ontario, very welcomed money. It was given through a very effective and efficient model of distribution known as the Community Futures Development Corporations, a model that should be expanded upon and should become a greater proportion of regional economic development money in Canada. I think that would work in all parts of the country just as well as it does in the areas where it currently is in place.

It was very good that the money was given. What was interesting about the money and about the timing of the money was it came one day prior to the drop of the writ in an election where a number of Liberal held rural seats in eastern Ontario were very much at risk. These included seats held by Larry McCormick the Liberal MP who I ran against, Joe Jordan, the ex-Liberal MP for Leeds and Grenville, and several other seats, all of which were lost by the Liberals with one exception, the seat of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell. It was striking.

Whereas in the prior election in 2000, when these seats were not seen as being at risk, although two of them were lost to the Canadian Alliance, there was no interest in giving out money. Nor was there in the 1997 election. What we saw was only when seats were in danger was the money forthcoming and then it was only forthcoming right before an election.

This is the pattern of politicization. Money is offered when it is seen as a way of buying seats that are at risk for the Liberals, whether this is happening in Ontario, in the west, in Quebec or in the Atlantic. That is a great shame. This is what we hope, through the amendments made by the Conservative MPs on the committee, to bring to an end, or at least to reduce as much as possible, in Canada's regional development activities. They should be focussed on improving the local economies, not at improving the prospects of Liberal candidates.