Even if I could understand what Mr. Preston and Mr. Reid were saying, and even Mr. Lukiwski has spoken about it, that when a subcommittee makes a decision this committee should approve it just like that, I would tell you that I have never liked to be used as a rubber stamp. We're not rubber stamps, and I don't take it lightly when we say that simply because a committee has done something, we must go that way. That's why we have a subcommittee to look at it and then bring it back. And it will not take away from us the opportunity to look at it more deeply and find out if it's right or not.
If we were to take for granted, as the Conservative government is saying, that because it went to the subcommittee we have no choice other than to respect their decision, it is as I said: we'd be just like a rubber stamp. I have never taken this place to make me become a rubber stamp.
The other thing is that the two bills look the same. I question that too. That's where the position of supporting the bill to go to....
First of all, we have to remember I was probably the one who argued the most that all bills should not all be automatically voted in. I remember the Conservatives when they were the opposition--I think at that time it was the Canadian Alliance, I'm not sure, and then they became the joint Conservative group together--they wanted every bill to be votable-- members should have that right; we are in a democratic country, and let's leave those members' votes. Now I want to put it straight and not let it look like the opposition are the bad guys today. They are the ones who, when they were in opposition, wanted all the bills to be votable. Today, it seems to me that when they got into government, they became like little mosquitoes flying around and, ping-pong, they changed their minds and became something else.
I only want to say that when you look at the two bills, yes, maybe they look the same, the language looks the same and everything. If you were to have a bill to say we want the Department of Transport to make a new four-lane highway from here to Bathurst and then the bill doesn't go through, and then I have a bill that says I want a two-lane highway instead--the same language and everything except it's a two-lane highway instead a four-lane highway--I think the bill has changed. Something has changed in the bill and, I think, changed enough.
Mr. Preston has his interpretation of what's changed in the bill. We surely have our interpretation. I have my interpretation.
I don't want to take more time than that, but I wanted to go on record that there's a difference.
There are steps to be followed. One of them is that members of the subcommittee have the right to meet to review the contents of a bill and decide whether it is similar to another. This bill can also be sent to the standing committee whose members can be of a different opinion. The Speaker decided to send us the bill to see if we have another point of view.
The committee is not here to rubber-stamp the subcommittee's decisions. Otherwise, the subcommittee would have reported directly to Parliament. But this is not the case. The standing committee does not have to accept the subcommittee's decision. We are entitled to change it. Democracy must prevail in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. We did not give a free hand to the subcommittee. The final decision is ours.
Sometimes, in the Senate, committees are used as rubber stamps because senators are not elected. We are elected. So there is a difference.
As I said, when reviewing a bill before us, we could think of another bill asking, for instance, that a four-lane highway be built. That bill may be rejected by the Standing Committee on Transport, but another member may table another almost identical bill asking for a two-lane highway. That would be a different bill.
I did not want to speak but I did. This leaves the impression that the conservative government is doing the right thing and that opposition members are the bad guys. I simply want to repeat that almost all of these people were here during the last Parliament, when Liberals were in office. They were the ones who insisted that all bills be votable. Finally, you are reaping what you have sown. I was one of those who opposed the idea of making all bills votable. As a matter of fact, I was probably the member who argued the most against it. However, that decision was democratically made, and you wanted it really bad.
Now, I think it is up to Parliament to decide democratically by a majority vote.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.