Another promise kept, as my hon. colleague from Nickel Belt so eloquently said.
There is another problem. The motion goes on to say:
-including a spending measure, shall not automatically mean the defeat of the government unless followed by the adoption of a formal motion.
I am sorry to disappoint those who tabled the motion but we have already made this change to our rules. It did not happen yesterday but on December 20, 1984. I realize that the Reform Party is a little behind sometimes. Nevertheless, the date was December 20, 1984, and this is what Beauchesne, sixth edition, page 49, has to say on this:
The determination of issue of confidence in the government is not a question of procedure or order, and does not involve the interpretive responsibilities of the Speaker. Following the recommendations of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, as well as those of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons (December 20, 1984), the House removed references in the Standing Orders which described votable motions on allotted days as questions of confidence.
I would suggest this has existed informally from time immemorial, with the exception of opposition day motions and even in the case of opposition day motions since December 20, 1984.
The members opposite know full well, I am sure, that the defeat of any bill does not automatically mean the defeat of the government. It is the motion of non-confidence and not the bill itself which has that effect; the rules are clear on this. So if the rules do not provide for such an automatic outcome, I am telling you that, in fact, the government or even the House already permits the kind of initiative proposed by the hon. member.
This is already permitted. There is no need to permit it; it is already there. Maybe we should say that we should continue to permit it. Would that not be a great idea? Why do we not say that?
Before I conclude I want to bring another proposition to the attention of members of the House about having everything a free vote, if that is what some people are thinking. We must remember the history of this great country in that regard.
I see the hon. member for Bellechasse who is very knowledgeable about Canadian history. I am sure he knows that the 1837 rebellion in Upper Canada and Lower Canada was largely motivated by a desire for responsible government. What that means? It means that a government is defeated when it loses the confidence of the House. Our ancestors fought for this because it was the ultimate test of democracy when a government fell if it no longer had the confidence of the House. That was in 1837. Ironically, the British government had offered to give us responsible government at the time, but here in Canada we did not want it. It took until about 1848 for us to have what could be called responsible government in Canada. After 1837, there was the Durham report, and then it took until 1848.
It is interesting that notwithstanding everything we have said before today I hear members across saying that responsible government with a capital r as we know it in this country seems to be something of the past. I do not believe so.
I believe the Prime Minister and his cabinet are there as ministers only so long as I and my colleagues around here allow them to remain the government of the country. Surely if there is any test of how democratic a country can be, that is it. All members of the House could one day withdraw confidence in the government and the government would cease to govern that very day.
Let it never be said that backbenchers do not have power. That is not so. That has never been so, but let us not make this system into some sort of an institution where all of us will become political eunuchs. That would be wrong.
Nevertheless, to conclude, I repeat that some things the member is asking, particularly to the effect that spending measures in a bill shall not automatically mean the defeat of government, is not the case now. It is permitted and we should continue to permit it. That being said, I move the following motion:
That the motion be amended by inserting between the word "should" and the word "permit" the words "continue to".