House of Commons Hansard #109 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-42.
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I have the honour to lay upon the Table a Notice of Ways and Means motion with respect to the amendment to the Excise Tax, the Income Tax Act and the Customs Tariff.
I am tabling explanatory notes at the same time and I ask that you designate an Order of the Day for consideration of the said motion.
The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-42, an act to amend the Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to another act; and of the amendment.
Diane Ablonczy Reform Calgary North, AB
Mr. Speaker, for those who are watching, we are debating amendments proposed to Bill C-42. Bill C-42 attempts to legitimize the government's moves to allow Madam Justice Arbour to take a position as a prosecutor in the Hague.
It has been said before that the issue here is neither Madam Justice Arbour nor her credentials; nor is there any question of the honour that has been accorded to her by the UN when it asked her to take this position. The issue is the process that has been followed in order to bring this about.
It is extremely and disturbingly clear that the process followed by the government has demonstrated a disregard which amounts to contempt of the due process of the law. There has been disrespect for our legislation. There has been disrespect for the House. There have been all kinds of games played in order for the government to get its wishes through.
The most disturbing thing about this is that it has become a pattern of the government. As a new member of the House, having sat here for the last three years, I have become more and more concerned and upset about this pattern of behaviour, this pattern of dealing in the House. It is not too strong a statement to say that the democratic process is being eroded little by little, day by day, in the most overt way possible by the government.
I believe the government is doing so because it believes the citizens of Canada will not know, will not realize, will not be able to really see, as they carry on their daily lives, what is happening in this institution so it feels it can away with this sort of thing.
There are some very glaring contraventions of what would be right and proper. Mr. Speaker, I know you will be interested in hearing some of my concerns because you voiced them in the last Parliament, as did many of the opposition members. We have all seen the erosion and the blatant disregard and contravention of democratic process in the House.
The Judges Act does not presently allow any judge to accept any employment except from the Government of Canada. In order to get around that, an arrangement was made whereby this justice would continue to be paid by the Government of Canada from funds provided to it by the UN. Technically the cheque was being cut by the Government of Canada although the funds originated
somewhere else through another arrangement. With a little sleight of hand, a little deception, a little under the table juggling, a clear provision of the Judges Act was simply rejigged because it was inconvenient.
The Judges Act does not allow judges to accept employment from any employer other than the Government of Canada. Of course, the employer in question is not the Government of Canada but the UN which has asked Madam Justice Arbour to be a prosecutor in the Hague.
The government found a certain provision in the Judges Act to be rather inconvenient in terms of what it wanted to do. There seems to have been plenty of evidence over the last three years as I have watched the operation of the Liberal government, that one of its guiding principles is the end justifies the means. Its guiding principle is: "If we think something should be done, if we intend to do something, then whatever means it takes to accomplish that, even if we have to sweep aside some rather inconvenient democratic conventions, so be it".
We see that in committee. Committee chairmen, instead of being chosen freely and fairly by their peers, are chosen by the Prime Minister and his advisers. Then a charade is played out in committee and government members simply stand up like trained seals and vote for whoever they are told is going to be the committee chairman.
If there are procedures in the committee which are inconvenient to the minister or the government, because committees are supposed to be the masters of their own process, there is a vote by the majority, the government members on the committee, which sweeps aside long established democratic processes in order to get on with the job. After all, as government members, they know what is best in committee. Why should the rotten opposition members be able to hold up the works?
It is extremely disturbing. Government members should be very concerned about what is happening by this process. I do not think it is a secret to anybody that the democratic process, democratic conventions, democratic protections and checks and balances are cavalierly being ignored, swept under the table and run roughshod over in order for government to do what it is going to do anyway.
The government does not want to talk about how it deals with issues and how legislation, due process and democratic convention are being contravened. If we dare to stand up and talk about it, suddenly there is a problem-
Glen McKinnon Liberal Brandon—Souris, MB
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are dealing with the Judges Act. I assume we will get to that point, with the member's consent?
Diane Ablonczy Reform Calgary North, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to know that the member is paying close attention. It will certainly be a different experience for some of us on this side of the House.
In order to get around the inconvenience of the prohibitions in the Judges Act with respect to the appointment of Madam Justice Arbour, as it gets around a number of other inconvenient standing orders and conventions and laws that might impede the way the government wants to do things, the Minister of Justice simply had the cabinet pass an order in council approving the appointment of the justice to work for the UN commencing July 1. We are only now debating legislation that would actually legitimize the work of this justice. Of course the Senate did not approve of the legislation which it received from the government and amended it.
Again the pattern appears, where clear laws and conventions are simply ignored at the wish of the government. Canadians need to be extremely concerned about the way the government deals with issues, legislation and conventions that are inconvenient to it.
The government is using closure almost on a daily basis. That is a procedure which the government, when it was in opposition, called morally wicked and railed against. We have closure on this bill. Closure cuts off debate. The government is not allowing the voice of duly elected representatives to be heard. We cannot voice our concerns, voice our criticisms or voice our alternatives to the way this issue is being handled. That is not something the government wants to see. It is not something which my colleague who keeps getting up and trying to interrupt the remarks and the concerns that I am bringing forward wants to see.
I hope that Canadians watching this debate will wake up and realize that we are seeing the erosion of the democratic process. It is the erosion of the commitment to follow the rule of law. I find that reprehensible.
An order in council is legitimizing what is clearly prohibited by an act of Parliament. After the fact the government is trying to ram something through in order to deal with the situation.
Also, there is an exemption for a particular person which is being dealt with in this bill. Such an exemption has always been dealt with by a private bill. Public policy goes through the House as a public bill, but this sort of policy goes through the House as a private bill. Again, the rules of the House are clearly being contravened by forcing this bill, this amendment, through as a public bill.
We see the disdain of the government for the democratic process in the way this whole thing is being carried out. We see the disdain
in so many ways, by bringing in closure, in the way committees are simply run as kangaroo operations in many cases and ignoring clear democratic conventions.
Last night we saw that the government does not even want to allow Canadians to decide who to support in their own ridings for their own candidates for the Liberal Party. I think it is very clear that we are going to have to speak out more loudly and more pointedly so that Canadians can begin to realize we simply must insist that when issues are being dealt with and when legislation is in place that it is respected and not simply ignored or dealt with in the most expeditious way possible in order for the government to get what it wants. This is dangerous.
Surely government members must be able to see how repugnant their actions are by their support of closure, interruptions of speeches that try to point out how the process needs to be tightened up and even their support of this bill which clearly contravenes legislation that has been passed by the House simply because the government finds it inconvenient. It does not allow them to do what they have decided they want to do. Therefore the legislation in this instance has to be changed.
This is a very difficult situation which must be dealt with. We must look at the larger issues which are being raised about the way the bill through the government is dealing with the issue.
Canadians who are watching this debate should take the time to phone the office of their representative and find out how the process is being carried out. Where there is a prohibition for something the government wants to do, the government does anyway by an order in council. When the matter is finally dealt with in the House, the government does all sorts of things to ignore democratic convention by bringing in closure in order to ram through what the government has decided on. This is very dangerous and very unfortunate. I hope Canadians will speak out against this sort of thing.
In Bill C-42 we have a situation where a whole legislative scheme is being changed to allow one situation to be dealt with. No matter how good the end result is which is being sought, the means can do nothing but raise concern and disapproval in the minds of Canadians and some members in the House who have a duty to represent Canadians and make sure that the process dealing with their interests is fair, open and balanced. We need to spend some time considering not only some particulars of the bill but the way it is being dealt with.
We have a Judges Act which protects the impartiality, the structure of our judiciary. There are provisions in the act to deal with the very important integrity and operation of our justice system. Because of the anomaly, a different situation, that whole act is being amended in this way in a very unconventional way for one individual.
We in the Reform Party have tabled a multi-point amendment that puts conditions on this kind of leave by a member of our judiciary. The judges of our country are here to serve Canadians in an impartial, unbiased and unimpeded way. We have, as the House knows, put forward some amendments in order to make this kind of absence more stringent to make sure the conditions under which our judges are able to mix some of their priorities are dealt with in a way that makes it very clear that the interest of Canadians, the interest of our judicial system and judicial duties are carried out as clearly and unimpeded as possible.
I urge this House to consider those amendments carefully, to look at the fact that these amendments are intending to serve the process of this House and respect the legislation of this House and also to make sure that our judicial system does not have mixed priorities, a mixed focus, that the interest of the people of Canada come first and foremost with those who serve us on the bench. I would urge the members of this House to support the amendments that we have put forward to Bill C-42.
Myron Thompson Reform Wild Rose, AB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member to comment, if she would, with regard to orders in council, what the definition of that is, what it really means and what we have been led to believe what it means and how such a prescribed way of doings things can apply in this particular bill through orders in council.
I would like the hon. member to respond to Bill C-68 where orders in council were used where it appears to say that the Minister of Justice when he deems it necessary may use orders in council to make certain decisions.
It is my understanding that this is for emergency situations, and very extreme events would have to lead to its use. Here in this particular bill it appears to me that it was used just because the minister chose to do so. Who should deem an order in council to be used and how should it be used?
Diane Ablonczy Reform Calgary North, AB
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
Even before I thought of running for election, before I thought of getting involved in politics, I had heard concerns raised in a number of quarters about the increasing use of orders in council which is simply a way for the cabinet to put something into effect without having recourse to the legislative process.
As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, and as some Canadians are aware, the use of this rather high handed method of putting policy in place has increased steadily over the years. As my colleague pointed out, it is now being used in ways that originally it was never intended to be used.
It simply is another example of illustrating the concern which I tried to raise respecting the way Bill C-42 has been dealt with and brought forward. There is a disrespect for the checks and balances in our democratic system for due process, for democratic conventions.
I appeal to government members. Only the support of all government members lets this kind of process go ahead. I know sometimes it is very frustrating when government members feel that opposition is simply putting forward roadblocks just to put them forward.
However, the democratic process must be allowed to work. It may be inconvenient and frustrating but it is used to protect everyone in this country. As it is continually eroded, particularly in this House which is supposed to be the bastion of the our democratic ideals, I find it extremely worrisome. I would think it would worry the members of the government as well. Only members of the government can stop this sort of thing and simply tell the cabinet and those who are telling them what to do that we have to let this process work. That also applies to orders in council, closures, work on committees and everything else that is done in this House. We just have to put a stop to the direction we are moving in and bring us back into a more balanced way of dealing with things.
Leon Benoit Reform Vegreville, AB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her intervention.
I was listening to my 17-year old twin boys a couple of weeks ago, who were studying the Canadian government in their social studies class. I caught the tail end of their conversation and this is what one said to the other: "What we really have in Canada is a pretty much fairly elected dictator". That was their assessment when they talked about how parliament and how government work in this country.
They were talking about things like the use of orders in council and something which they probably know best, Bill C-68, the gun control bill, where the Prime Minister publicly threatened any government MPs that if they dared to vote against a government bill again he would refuse to sign their nomination papers. This would mean that their political career would be ended if their papers were not signed by the Prime Minister. They cannot run as a Liberal candidate. Many got elected only because they were on the Liberal's slate last time.
Maybe my sons are not normal 17-year old kids to be talking about this kind of thing, but I am proud that they were and came to this conclusion.
I would just like to ask the hon. member to comment on the conclusions that my sons had come to about how government works or does not work in this country in terms of being a truly democratic system.
Diane Ablonczy Reform Calgary North, AB
Mr. Speaker, I would answer my colleague by saying that I should have mentioned that in my speech. I am glad these things are brought up. I did touch on this when I talked about having a governing party which does not even allow people in this country to decide who is going to be their candidate. As my colleague mentioned, we know this because it has been made public. However, I am sure that is just the tip of the iceberg because so many people are afraid to speak out about these things.
We know that backbench members especially are threatened that they will not be allowed to run as candidates again. Conversely, we know that there are some candidates who have been told that they will not have to face any competition for the nomination if they do the bidding of the Prime Minister. This again is another situation in the democratic process that is extremely worrisome.
I think we saw this with the elections bill that was just passed in this House where governments will now have all the foreknowledge and power to call an election at their own whim and whenever the circumstances are right for them. It now gives the opposition even less time to present their case to the Canadian people. Instead of 47 days, they now only have 36 days. By the time all the government messages that have been carefully crafted leading up to the election are de-spun who knows how easy it will be for the electorate to sort through the choices that are before it.
There are so many things where this government is more and more simply saying "we are going to do what we want and if anything gets in our way or impedes that, we are simply going to sweep that kind of opposition aside". Again I would appeal to members of this House to put a stop to this kind of movement in that direction.
Beryl Gaffney Liberal Nepean, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to question the member who just spoke with regard to a question that was given to her from a previous speaker who said the Prime Minister, in particular, had threatened Liberal members of Parliament note to vote against the gun bill.
If the hon. member wants Canadians to stop the cynicism toward politicians, that is the worst rubbish I have heard. I would like that hon. member to respond. Did she really believe what that member said to her in his question?
Diane Ablonczy Reform Calgary North, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am not a member of the Liberal caucus and never expect to be. The information I have to go on is what Liberal caucus members themselves tell other members of the House and members of the public and the press. Those allegations have been widely reportedly. I do not think they have been challenged to any substantial degree. I would suggest that those kinds of messages do not get out unless there is some substance to them.
Monte Solberg Reform Medicine Hat, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-42.
My hon. colleague for Calgary North and other members have done a very good job of pointing to the injustice of this particular piece of legislation. They have pointed out that the minister when he was before the Senate said that there was no means to bring about the type of changes that he is now bringing about. I am not going to belabour that aspect of it. My colleagues have done a wonderful job of bringing all of that to light.
I would like to talk about how this government really does have misplaced priorities. Bill C-42 is a perfect example of that. In a day and an age where we have rising violent crime in this country, should we not be bringing in legislation that deals with crime in this country instead of worrying about ensuring we have a prosecutor in The Hague?
Some people across the way are saying we do not have violent crime in this country or that it is on the decline. Between 1960 and 1995 the incidence of violent crime per 100,000 people has gone from about 200 to just about 1,000. I do not care how it is looked at, that is a huge increase. During the last 35 years violent crime has gone up over 350 per cent and it is still on an upward trend. That is violent crime overall.
Youth crime is a very similar type of trend. In 1986 the incidence of violent crime per 100,000 was 400 and now it is up over 900. The hon. members can state opinions all they want but when they look at the real facts it is pretty clear. It is pretty clear to most Canadians, by the way, even if Liberal members do not believe it. I am trying to make the point that the government's priorities are very mixed up.
The justice minister seems to have a pretty funny idea of just what his job is. Since he came into power about three years ago the government has done virtually nothing to deal with the huge problem that we have with crime in this country. The justice minister brought down legislation that extends gay rights. He brought down legislation that introduced gun control. It it going to cost a lot of money.
As the hon. member for Wild Rose points out all the time, for the amount of money they are going to spend on gun control getting honest citizens to register their guns they could put another 20,000 cops on the beat out there and that would do a lot more to protect this country against crime than getting honest folks to register their guns. That is another example of how the government has its priorities mixed up.
The third example, which we are talking about today, is a case of breaking both legs to ensure we can send a prosecutor to The Hague to prosecute war crimes. We do not have any problem with doing that, but if the government would invest the same amount of energy in dealing with crime in this country, if it would spend the same amount of energy in giving prosecutors and police the necessary tools to deal with crime in this country, we would have a lot safer country.
The justice minister has had three years to bring in all kinds of legislation to deal with some of the problems we have in this country. He could have dealt with youth crime, with our extremely leaky parole system. We just had the example the other day of dangerous illegal refugees and sometimes immigrants in this country the government will not deal with.
We finally pressured the immigration minister recently to deal with the problem of a dangerous sex offender who was released back into the population of Calgary. We continued to pressure her until she finally got around to doing something.
There is no excuse for the government to focus on legislation like Bill C-42 when we have all kinds of problems in our own backyard. I am concerned about how this affects individual lives, about how it really impinges on our freedom.
Not long ago I travelled with the finance committee to Toronto. I went for a jog one morning through Etobicoke. I was struck by the number of houses with bars on the windows, on all the bottom windows. I remember running by a car and seeing a "Club" on the steering wheel. I can imagine if I went up to the doors of houses I would see signs saying this house is protected by such and such an alarm, or beware of dog. There would probably be all kinds of deadbolts and latches on doors.
Clearly Canadians have decided they cannot count on the government to protect them against crime so they have had to resort to various means to protect themselves. That is a very sorry commentary on what this government has done with respect to dealing with crime. It has gone to great lengths to introduce Bill C-42 but what has it done for the ordinary Canadian? Zippo. Nothing. It has done absolutely nothing.
Not long ago were speaking of Ontario. Not long ago the country was gripped by the Bernardo trial. The whole country tuned in because it could not believe what had happened in this country with somebody like Paul Bernardo raping and murdering young women. Perhaps the most offensive thing of all was that in light of that horrible crime this justice minister would not even consider a return to capital punishment.
This justice minister wants to get Bill C-42 through but he will not even listen to the 70 per cent of Canadians who say they would like to have a debate on capital punishment and would like to return to the days when we had capital punishment in this country.
That is standing justice on its head. The justice minister does not have a clue what justice really means. I do not think he has any idea. When people sit in their homes because they are afraid to go out at night, that does not indicate that we have justice in this country.
In my own little community when my wife sends our boys off to school only a few hundred yards away she worries like crazy until they get home after school, and why would she not? Why would she not worry after we read what we read in the newspapers these days?
Violent crime in Canada has increased by 350 per cent since the sixties. Violent youth crime in Canada has more than doubled in the last 10 years. So why would people not be worried about that? Can we blame them?
We get petitions in this place all the time. We get petitions calling for the government to do something with dangerous offenders, to tighten up the parole system and to reintroduce capital punishment. What happens with them? These are the voices of ordinary Canadians who are concerned about their lives. What happens? Nothing.
The government responds by introducing Bill C-42. It jams through legislation that has nothing to do with the agenda of ordinary Canadians.
It was not very long ago that Canadians were railing against the justice minister's weak changes to section 745 of the Criminal Code. I do not have to tell members in this place that ordinary Canadians want to see section 745 removed. They do not want weak amendments. They do not want to see Clifford Olson and Paul Bernardo come back into their lives through television. These people will be coming forward to apply for early release. Canadians think those people should spend the rest of their lives in jail or worse. Many people would like to see them face the death penalty. Quite frankly, I am one of those people. It is unbelievable how we protect people like Bernardo, Olson and others. It is crazy.
I cannot believe we are debating Bill C-42 when we should be debating legislation which will protect the lives of ordinary Canadians.
Our party has taken a different stance from that of the government. While the government is setting up cozy little deals for its friends in the judiciary, my colleague from Fraser Valley is putting together a victims bill of rights. He is concerned about ordinary Canadians who have suffered at the hands of animals who are currently sitting in these Holiday Inns which we call prisons. He has come up with all kinds of legislation which would give victims rights in the courts, so that instead of having the justice system stand up for the rights of criminals, we would have a justice system, for once in this country, which would stand up for ordinary citizens and people who have been victimized by crime.
Why not give victims some standing in the courts when their lives have been turned upside down? Why not allow victims some say when these cases come before the parole board? Why not force some of these criminals to come up with compensation? That should be a basic right for victims. They should have the right to go after the criminals to get the money back which they lost due to a crime which was committed against them or their family. That is basic common sense. That reflects the common sense of the common people.
We have two agendas in the country. We have the agenda of regular, law-abiding, ordinary Canadians who think there should be punishment for crime and that justice means that if someone injures someone or harms their property that they should pay a price for it. Then we have the government approach, which is quite different. The government agenda is radically different. It is completely disconnected from the agenda of regular people. Its agenda indicates that somehow criminals are the victims and we need to protect their rights. My goodness, they cannot vote in jail? Let us ensure that they can vote. That is the government's approach. We cannot have them eating macaroni and cheese for dinner. We have to ensure that they get fillet mignon.
My colleague from Fraser Valley West spoke last spring about the spring ball at a prison in Ontario where, believe it or not, the prisoners were being served fillet mignon. I would argue that ordinary Canadians, thanks to the high tax policies of the government, very seldom have a chance to eat fillet mignon. According to the Liberal government nothing is too good for the criminals and the murderers of this country. Let us make sure they have a golf course. As a matter of fact, ordinary Canadians would be alarmed and amazed to know that we have golf courses for the criminals in this country.
Instead of dealing with injustices, what does the government do? It brings forward Bill C-42. While the criminals are out golfing, while they are playing racquetball in Matsqui prison, Canadians are just scraping to get by, putting bars on their windows to be protected from the criminals out there.
It was not very long ago when a couple of criminals walked across the golf course in British Columbia to freedom only to go on into the United States to allegedly kill somebody. This is absolutely unbelievable.
What is the priority of the government? To bring down Bill C-42 which has nothing to do with protecting the lives of ordinary citizens.
Not very long ago a prisoner who was playing racquetball at Matsqui prison in British Columbia slipped on water that was on the floor because there was a leak in the roof. He sued the government, won and taxpayers chipped in $20,000 to this prisoner who had obviously been convicted of a crime, had done something wrong to society, but he was not being punished. He was being
rewarded. He was playing racquetball. Then he took it to the Canadian public again, and got $20,000.
Does this legislation do anything to prevent that from happening? I do not see anything about that in here. The government's agenda is completely disconnected from the Canadian agenda. I do not care what party members come from. When they go to the doors of Canadians, first of all a lot of them are afraid to come to the door because there is so much crime out there. They do not know who is at the door. But when members do get a chance to talk to them they say the government has got to do something.
In three years the justice minister has done absolutely nothing to deal with the serious issues. It has all been window dressing.
The justice minister comes across as very sincere. That is a wonderful skill for a politician. However, it takes more than words to convince Canadians that the government cares about the havoc that is being wreaked on Canadian lives. It takes more than words. What we want is action.
I do not want to just talk about some of the things the government has done wrong. I want to introduce some ideas. Perhaps this would be an idea for the government when it brings down its next legislation so that it starts to take more seriously the concerns that Canadian have. Bill C-42 certainly does not address anything that Canadians are truly concerned about.
This place would be greatly impoverished if I did not take a chance right now to quote from Reform's fresh start for Canadians so that I can point out some of the things that the government should be doing.
A Reform government would enact a victims' bill of rights which puts the rights of law-abiding Canadians ahead of criminals. What a radical idea, putting the rights of victims and citizens ahead of criminals. Too bad Bill C-42 does not do that.
The Reform Party would reform criminal justice to provide safer communities, safer streets and safer homes. We would have bars on prison windows instead of bars on the homes of ordinary citizens. What a crazy idea. Too bad the government has not thought of it yet.
We would hold a binding national referendum on the return of capital punishment. As I pointed out a minute ago, right after the Bernardo trial, a poll was taken and something like 70 per cent of Canadians said: "We want to see a return to capital punishment". I think the people deserve to have their voices heard. We are trying to allow that to happen right now. It should happen in the form of a national referendum.
We would repeal the Liberals' costly firearms registry, Bill C-68, and replace it with meaningful laws to fight the criminal misuse of firearms. I mentioned it a minute ago but it is such a good statistic I think it bears repeating. The hon. member for Wild Rose said in a speech here in Ottawa the other night that if we could replace the registry and use that money for something else it would allow us to put 20,000 police back on the beat in Canada. Can you imagine how much safer our communities would be having 20,000 more police out there?
One thing we want to do and which is mentioned in our fresh start program is reform the parole system and abolish early release for first degree murderers. What a revelation. I am sure my Liberal colleagues across the way would be amazed to hear such talk. Imagine abolishing the chance of parole for first degree murders. What a wonderful idea.
We would replace the Young Offenders Act with measures that hold young criminals accountable for their actions. There has been a dramatic increase in youth crime. The Liberals have tried it their way and it does not work. Reform's fresh start would make it happen.
Finally, we would pursue crime prevention through social policies that strengthen families and communities. That is a debate for another day, but I could speak for a long time on that issue alone.
Suffice to say that Bill C-42 has nothing to do with the agenda of ordinary Canadians. Despite the fact that the government has been in power for three years, it has failed completely to deal with issues that Canadians are truly concerned about. I would encourage people in the House and across the country who are listening to consider the Reform Party fresh start because I believe it deals with the concerns of ordinary Canadians in a way that the Liberal government policies do not and would truly make them feel safer in their homes and communities.
John Bryden Liberal Hamilton—Wentworth, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on some comments that were made in the debate with respect to what I think is an untruth. I would use a much stronger word, but I cannot according to rules of the Chamber.
It is simply untrue that the Prime Minister has threatened not to sign nomination papers simply because people-
John Bryden Liberal Hamilton—Wentworth, ON
Patience, gentlemen. It is simply untrue that he said that. I really resent the fact that the party that claims to speak for Canadians and which believes in truth, should actually purvey something which is absolutely untrue.
Let us compare for a second the party discipline of the Reform Party and the Liberals. It is true that in the Liberal Party and the
Liberal caucus there has been dissent. It is true that this dissent has occurred during bills like the gun control bill.
I would remind members of the Reform Party that the nine people who voted against the bill got very minimum discipline.
Leon Benoit Reform Vegreville, AB
He does not even understand the problem. He does not have a clue. I do not believe it.
John Bryden Liberal Hamilton—Wentworth, ON
Mr. Speaker, you see, this is the party that cannot allow another member to speak.
There are many members in the Liberal caucus like myself who have voted against bills, motions and amendments in the House. I have voted against a bill at second and third readings.
I was not banished from my party and I received no threats about my nomination. In fact, I continue to believe that I am highly regarded by the Prime Minister and by my colleagues. I simply voted against a motion that I believed was wrong. I voted my conscience. I voted for my constituents. I voted what Reformers claim they do, but do not do.
John Bryden Liberal Hamilton—Wentworth, ON
Many of my colleagues have done the same thing because the Liberal caucus and party accepts what we are MPs who sometimes must act on our conscience. There has been no discipline, no banishing to the back of the bus, as has been the case with the Reform Party.
If we make a comparison, we find that the member for Athabasca, the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan have been thrown out of the caucus.
Randy White Reform Fraser Valley West, BC
What about the member for York South-Weston? Where is he today?
John Bryden Liberal Hamilton—Wentworth, ON
The member for York South-Weston did leave the Liberal caucus. But I would point out that he voted against a confidence motion and he personally attacked a minister of the government. He also played to the press. We are a party and a caucus where if a member has reason for dissent, if a member acts according to his or her conscience and does not go directly to the press, then they remain a member in good standing.
Monte Solberg Reform Medicine Hat, AB
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I accept that the member can make comments, but I am looking for a question. As we get close to the end of the 10-minute period, I see no question coming.