I tip my hat to both of them and to the others who were there to stand by their constituents in obviously very difficult times. I make no apology tonight for people who have waited 21 years. I do not believe they should have waited another three months beyond the parliamentary recess and into the fall because that was the position the Reform Party was taking.
Reform Party members thought the bill should be dragged into the fall before being debated at third reading. They have every right to want to delay whatever they want to delay, but I also have every right to disagree with them, particularly after a bill has been debated in the House at second reading, for 20 hours in committee, for 2 hours at report stage, and then at third reading. That is more than long enough for the people in question to endure.
Finally, members across the way have said that they are the true defenders of democracy or some such nonsense. I wonder under whose definition that is. Is it under the definition of the people who have waited for 21 years, who are in Ottawa but not in the gallery, whom I cannot refer to but I would if I could? No, not according to them.
Let us apply another test. Three parties in the House tonight, the Liberal Party, the Bloc Quebecois and the New Democratic Party, voted to end this debate. They as one party representing approximately one-quarter of the membership of the House say their view of democracy as explained by their number supersedes the wish of every one of us including people who have waited for 21 years.
That is a test of democracy. Could it be that democracy if one is a Reformer means that which one can agree with as opposed to that which is good or that which is approved by the majority of the people? Could it be that is their definition of democracy? Perhaps it is.
I am proud we have taken plenty of time to debate the bill at all stages. All members were given an opportunity to debate the bill, including an opportunity to sit all night on a parliamentary committee. Some members did it. They put forward the propositions they felt were important.
I was at the committee for part of the time and I saw motions for adjournment. Does that sound familiar? We heard one of those tonight, except it cut into the time of the people proposing it. We shant mention that. That happened at the parliamentary committee. We had a dilatory motion. The last vote of the committee was if shall the bill be reported to the House. It carried unanimously at committee. I challenge anyone to read the proceedings of the committee.
When the chair asked "shall I report the bill to the House" the vote was yes. Let us hold that thought for a minute. When the bill returned to the House a few hours later who said the bill was not receivable by the House? It was the same people who gave unanimous consent to table it three hours before.
I am no expert in parliamentary procedure but surely there is something wrong with people who give unanimous consent to report a bill to the House and then say three hours later that the bill should not have been reported. That effort in itself proved to me that it was not the intention of the party to debate the bill further. They did not want the House to receive the report. How could those members say they want to debate it some more? Tonight, when we tried to debate these bills in addition to what we had debated them previously, what did they propose? They proposed adjournment to subtract time from the debating time they already had. This is sheer and utter nonsense on the part of the Reform Party. All members of Parliament know it, all Canadians know it, the people of the Yukon and the people who have waited 21 years know it especially.