Debates of Feb. 27th, 1996

Speech From The Throne

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real privilege to speak in support of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne before it gets dated.

As the representative of the electoral district of Ottawa-Vanier, which is in many ways a microcosm of this great country of ours, it is with a mixture of pride and humility not to mention trepidation and some nervousness, that I accepted the Prime Minister's invitation.

It is also with gratitude; gratitude because the speech from the throne speaks of the values that unite us. It speaks of the sustainability of our social programs. It speaks of ensuring opportunity, in particular for our young people. It speaks of fiscal responsibility guided by equity, fairness and balance. It speaks of safe and clean communities. It speaks of a rejuvenated, flexible and exemplary public service. It speaks of a proud and effective participant on the international stage. It speaks of our Canadian identity, of our cultural institutions, of our future, of the hope we all share for a better tomorrow. Most important, it speaks of and for a united Canada. On this very date last year, a scant four days after having been sworn in, I sat in the Chamber and listened to the Minister of Finance introduce the 1995 budget. These were his words: "Mr. Speaker, there are times in the progress of a people when fundamental challenges must be faced, fundamental choices made, a new course charted. For Canada, this is one of those times. Our resolve, our values, our very way of life as Canadians are being tested. The choice is clear. We can take the path too well trodden of minimal change, of least resistance, of leadership lost. Or we can set out on a new road of fundamental reform, of renewal, of hope restored. Today we have made our choice. Today we take action".

That budget charted the course of our economic recovery. The actions taken that day and since have inspired in the country a sense that we are on the right path. When was the last time the national government spoke with any credibility of a $17 billion deficit target? Yet that is the target reaffirmed in the throne speech for fiscal 1997-98.

The government has met its targets and will continue to do so for the betterment of the country. Next week the government will table its third budget, once more reflecting the priorities of Canadians. While our goal of progressively lowering the deficit and eventually eliminating it is essential in maintaining the confidence of our financial markets, lenders are not the focus, nor the reason, of the deficit reduction strategy. Rather, the focus is the need to foster a climate for wealth creation, a climate within which the private sector can prosper, grow and create employment. The creation of a variety of productive opportunities for Canadians, the creation of work, that is our primary focus.

As Félix Leclerc stated so very aptly in one of his songs, the best way to finish a man off is to pay him to do nothing. All too often loss of work leads to loss of spirit, loss of hope, dropping out of society, fear, crime. The speech from the throne represents a great challenge, a magnificent challenge to us all, a noble challenge, a challenge that requires all of the creativity and all of the resources of both our government and the private sector.

It is not an easy challenge. Nowhere has it been felt more than in the nation's capital. The federal government's decision to reduce its workforce by some 45,000 has had profound effects on the national capital region where residents make up one-third of the government's workforce.

While it has a history of dependence on the federal government for employment, the national capital region has chosen to ride the wave of change rather than drown in it. History is rife with examples of communities stagnating or disappearing because they were unable to adapt to change. I assure the House that this will not be the case in our region.

The national capital region has changed. It has a strong and vibrant private sector. Tourism, high technology industries, biotechnology industries, colleges and universities, research centres and a myriad of trade related businesses have turned our community into a dynamic region, a region focused on success, a region preparing to compete head on in the international arena.

A word of caution however. As the former member for Sudbury, the Hon. Doug Frith, said in his remarks in support of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne in 1980:

The development of the various regions of Canada need not be at the expense of others. Surely as Canadians we realize that a strong western and Atlantic Canada are as important to the confederation as a strong central Canada. We must begin to understand that by strengthening the parts we strengthen the whole, and that by promoting regional cannibalism, we begin to road to self-destruction. The strength of confederation has been the ability of the federal system to share and redistribute the resources of the various regions of Canada in order to preserve an economically and socially progressive federation.

Our region will continue to absorb its fair share of reduced spending. However, our people are hurting too. Unemployment in our region is now higher than the national average. Also, there are more people dependent on social benefits in our region alone than in all of Saskatchewan, with all due respect to my colleague across the aisle.

Therefore, we too will need some tender loving care, not necessarily in the form of large cash infusions but perhaps along the lines of removing barriers and facilitating economic development projects.

Just as economic development is the focus of our deficit reduction plans, the ability to maintain meaningful and necessary social programs is its raison d'être.

By continuing to increase the nation's debt we only reduce opportunities to provide for the needy. On the other hand, by reducing the debt relative to the gross domestic product and eventually by reducing it in absolute terms, the country will be able to guarantee the long term viability of our social programs.

Think of the day when we will start paying off the debt, which is not too distant in the future. Think of the perpetual annual savings of $80 million or so every time we knock a billion dollars off the debt. As the ads state: "Imagine the freedom".

Already the benefits of our strategy are becoming visible. The ability to introduce a cash floor in the Canadian health and social transfer is but a first manifestation of healthier finances.

As the fiscal health is restored so will the ability to ensure the financial, physical and mental well-being of elderly people, physically challenged people and of those who cannot fend for themselves. In other words, the improving economic and fiscal situation will also improve the ability to redistribute wealth, one of the primary functions of any national government.

Changing topics, I would like to talk a little bit about the riding of Ottawa, particularly its northern boundary, the Ottawa River. Crossing that river, as some 40,000 people from Eastern Ontario or West Quebec do every day to get to work, one discovers the other component of the National Capital Region. Together we, that is

those on both sides, Eastern Ontario and West Quebec, comprise a single economic area, so much so that the Globe and Mail committed an interesting slip in a page one headline after last year's byelections, which you will remember were in Brome-Missisquoi, Saint-Henri-Westmount and Ottawa-Vanier. To quote the Globe and Mail : ``Liberals win three Quebec byelections.'' You cannot win them all.

In this National Capital Region of ours, we are so alike in the way we talk, the way we think and the way we live that an outside observer like the Globe and Mail would have trouble determining our province of origin. Our region straddles both provinces. Anglophones and francophones, both on the Ontario and the Quebec side, live in harmony with each other.

This region is a good example and a wonderful symbol of our ability to live together. However, we are not the only symbol of this duality. A brand new symbol has now been added to the constellation of Canadian symbols: the two-dollar coin. What a marvellous symbol of a country where two official languages coexist, a country where two main cultural groups live together, a nation with two founding peoples. What a wonderful idea to design a bimetallic coin to reflect our bilingualism and our biculturalism.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

This new two-dollar coin, which is getting a rather rough ride in some quarters, is nevertheless an interesting reflection on the Canadian situation. Some people are trying to break it up, to divide it, to separate it, to separate one piece from the other by hitting it with a hammer or exposing it to the worst possible weather, to extreme conditions. No wonder that a few of the 70 million coins that were minted finally split in two.

But why should anyone try to separate two sections that are part of a whole? Once separated, they no longer have the recognition or the value of the whole coin. Separated from each other, their distinctness diminishes and even disappears. Only when they are together do we see that each part is distinct from the other. Only when both pieces are fitted together, each in their proper place, does this coin have its full and proper value, and the same applies to our country.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

So I say three cheers for those who designed the coin and, especially, three cheers for those who created this country 129 years ago.

I may add that the same analogy could apply to Canada's francophone communities. Imagine the francophone community without Quebec or imagine Quebec separated from the one million francophones in the other provinces. In both instances, communities would be divided, and all francophones would come out losers, should the country break up. However, the value of francophone communities, in a united country, is beyond measure.

I would like to thank the Prime Minister most sincerely for according me this badge of honour and especially for the privilege of seconding the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I am particularly grateful, because the speech from the throne prepares the way for reconciliation.

In terms that are appropriate and in a manner that is direct, honest, and unequivocal, it deals with questions vital to the renewal of our federation and questions we will have to try to answer in the coming months. They include recognition of the distinct nature of Quebec society, a constitutional veto for Canada's regions and the enshrinement of these two important concepts in the Canadian Constitution.

It also raises the thorny question of the division of powers. The genius of the British North America Act and its sections 91 and 92 lies not in the creation of two levels of government: a senior and a necessarily junior one. It lies in the creation of two orders of government that may and can co-operate while keeping separate jurisdictions.

All too often in this House and elsewhere in the country, we hear talk of two levels of government rather than two orders of government, of a national government and its responsibilities and authority and of provincial governments with their own responsibilities and authorities. One is not subordinate to the other nor subject to the other. Neither is better than the other, they are complementary.

Like many, I believe in a strong national government, as do most of the people in Ottawa-Vanier.

However, a strong central government does not mean a national government that does everything, has a finger in every pie, imposes its will on everything, in short acts like Big Brother. No. A strong central government means a national government that does a good job, a very good one even, in areas within its jurisdiction, in its public finances, in its relationships with other individuals, communities or governments.

The throne speech reflects that spirit of respectfulness and open-mindedness toward the provincial governments. I feel we are on the right path. The path we have begun along today will lead us to our intended destination: a strong country that respects all of its constituent elements, a country where there is a sense of harmony, where all ethnic groups have a place alongside the two founding peoples, and where those two peoples live in harmony with each other and with those who were the original occupants of this land, each adding to the strength of the other, understanding each other,

accepting each other, helping each other out, growing and developing together.

For this reason, I am pleased to support the motion of my colleague from Saskatoon-Humboldt on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.

[The Deputy Speaker]

My dear colleagues, it is now the official opposition's turn. As I recognize the hon. member for Roberval for the first time this session, I wish to extend on behalf of the Chair congratulations on his election as leader of the Bloc Quebecois.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, this will certainly not be my longest speech. I will now move, seconded by the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie:

That the debate be now adjourned.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

Government Business

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

moved:

That the Business of Supply be considered at the next sitting of the House.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order concerning Motion No. 1. I think you will have to agree with the point I intend to make, which is that this motion is out of order.

I would refer to arguments made by the present government in 1991, when it was in the opposition, in response to a motion presented by the Progressive Conservative Party, the government party at the time, when it wanted to resurrect measures that had died on the Order Paper when the House was prorogued.

At the time, the Conservative motion listed the bills in question and, if I remember correctly, there were six. The Liberal opposition argued that a general motion could not be debated and that the House would have to proceed item by item, motion by motion and bill by bill. I realize that, in this case, the government has avoided the pitfalls of the motion it condemned at the time by not specifying the bills it wants back on the Order Paper. The government is trying to resurrect all the bills that died on the Order Paper instead of taking them one by one.

I would like to recall some of the statements that were made at the time. Mind you, all this was item by item. Speaker Fraser finally agreed with the arguments put forward by the opposition. These included, and I am reminded of what was said by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier at the time-his successor just made an eloquent speech-who is now a senator, who condemned this approach, referring to it as a legislative mess, and who called hon. members opposite-who were sitting where I am now but are sitting opposite today-government bullies. It seems to me that borders on the unparliamentary, but apparently it was accepted by the Chair.

The government is trying to do exactly the same thing today, but in a roundabout way. It is are trying to accomplish indirectly what it cannot accomplish directly. I realize that the government members have realized that their arguments were not totally convincing, since the approach has been an item by item approach, even if that had been condemned, as seen by the statements I just quoted.

Nevertheless, the approach has been item by item, bill by bill. When the official opposition was consulted by the government, it was made clear to the government that we were prepared to examine each bill on its merits and that we would agree to a certain number of them. I am thinking, for instance, of the bill of my colleague for Québec making excision illegal. We are, of course, prepared to resume examination of that bill where we left it last December, but it would take a lot of gall to assume that we would agree to re-examine the Axworthy reform as the Young reform. There are limits.

On these grounds I would ask you to consider this motion as not in order, as you cannot do otherwise, based on the arguments put forth several years ago by the government party in terms far more crude than mine.

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to challenge the validity of the motion which has been put forward by the government with respect to reinstating bills and amending standing orders.

The motion has many faults. It deals with two entirely separate matters and it deals with the reinstatement of bills and with the changing of the standing orders.

The first half of the motion that deals with the reinstatement of bills contains within it over 30 pieces of legislation. I refer to citation 552(3) of Beauchesne's sixth edition:

There can be but one question pending at the same time, though there may be numerous matters of business in various stages of progress standing on the Order Paper for consideration during the session. The only exception from this citation occurs at the report stage of a bill, when the Standing Orders confer upon the Speaker the power to combine amendments or causes for discussion and decision.

How can a member responsibly take a decision on this motion put forward by the government today? We do not know which bills will be introduced. In essence we are signing blank cheque.

The motion says that at first reading:

-if the speaker is satisfied that the said bill is in the same form as at prorogation, the said bill shall be deemed to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation and shall stand, if necessary, on the Order Paper, or, as the case may be, referred to committee, at the same stage and under the same legislative procedural process at which it stood at the time of prorogation.

That is unacceptable. After we pass this motion we should leave it to individuals to decide, not the House. Since when does democracy act in this way? That is absolutely ridiculous and highly irregular.

I refer to citation 566(5) of Beauchesne's:

Any irregularity of any portion of a motion shall render the whole motion irregular.

Not only is the whole motion irregular but a portion of the motion is extremely irregular and extremely dangerous to the way we do business in the House or in any other legislative assembly.

There was a heated debate in May 1991 led by the Liberal Party and many of the current sitting members of the House regarding an exactly identical matter. The Liberals argued not only against the ethics of reinstating bills without the unanimous consent of the House but the receivability of a motion to do so.

The Mulroney motion of 1991 affected only five bills. This Liberal clone motion is far more sweeping. The government has taken the worst procedures from Mr. Mulroney's government of the day and has somehow managed to make them even more offensive. That is shameful and horribly unacceptable to this House.

The motion before us today has the potential of affecting over 30 bills and we do not even have the opportunity to know which ones will be considered for reinstatement. We are going to make a decision blindfolded and completely kept in the dark.

Some members of this House may feel that all bills should have died on the Order Paper when the House prorogued and others may think all bills should be reinstated. Some may think that just private members' bills or just government bills or a combination of the two should be put back into this assembly.

When we add the standing order changes we have got one big mess, a Charlottetown accord kind of mess. It is a mess. It is irregular and I declare and feel that it is certainly out of order as a motion before this august body here today.

I will not waste the time of the House arguing that this cannot be done other than by unanimous consent because that great parliamentarian, Mr. Brian Mulroney, set the precedent in the last Parliament. That is not good enough. Unfortunately though today the Liberals have chosen to adopt the Mulroney style of democracy in government and are again pursuing the Tory thrust that was in the last Parliament. We know where that led us.

Notwithstanding the ethical consideration, Speaker Fraser in considering the Mulroney motion ruled that there cannot be just one vote on five separate pieces of legislation. The motion in 1991 was intended to reinstate five separate bills. The motion put forward by this government today proposes to allow the reinstatement of over 30 bills. The 1991 motion referred to specific bills where today's motion deals with "facilitating the business of the House". That is very general. The effect is the same. Many bills will be reintroduced with one swoop and one motion. This is unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, I now refer you to the Speaker's ruling of May 29, 1991, pages 733 to 735 of Hansard . The Speaker ruled the motion in order but used his authority to amend the motion. He referred to a ruling from another speaker on March 23, 1966 and I quote: It is only in exceptional circumstances and when there is little doubt about it that the Speaker can intervene and of his own initiative amend the resolution proposed by the hon. member''. The Speaker also cited citation 424(4) of Beauchesne's fifth edition which states:The Speaker has the unquestioned authority to modify motions with respect to form''.

The Speaker decided at that time to allow one debate but a separate question for each bill. That is what happened. The Speaker established that there ought to be a separate vote for each one of the bills. That is the precedent we face here today.

The question, Mr. Speaker, that you are faced with is similar. However, I believe there is a difference. You should not be bailing out the government at this time as the Speaker did in the last Parliament. The Speaker in that Parliament had no precedent for such a motion and that qualified as exceptional circumstances. This time around the government has no excuses. It knows what the precedent is. It is not up to the Speaker to bail out the government every time it presents an inferior motion, but that is what we are faced with here today.

Mr. Speaker, you should rule this motion out of order and the government should come back with proper motions so that the House can take a responsible decision on each bill separately and on each one of the issues that are in that motion in a separate way. Fiscal discussions should be in one motion and bills should be in another. Then we can look at them as such. However as this motion is formed, it is highly unfair to the members of the House. It certainly should be unacceptable to you, Mr. Speaker, in its form.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the submissions by the House leaders of the Bloc and especially that of the Reform Party.

The motion I would like to move involves a totally different approach to the motion in 1991 which is the subject of their critical comment. In 1991 the motion dealt with specific government bills but this motion simply provides a procedure or framework open to all MPs and not just ministers.

Each bill affected by this order would have to be introduced separately with the question put separately. My hon. friend, the Reform House leader, has totally misunderstood the structure, point and purpose of my motion.

My motion, if adopted by the House, would not restore a group of unknown, unlisted bills. Instead it would simply provide a framework enabling each minister and each private member who wished to do so the opportunity to have their bills introduced separately with the question put separately on each of those bills.

The hon. member for Lethbridge, in particular, says that the motion will enable bills to be put forward whose identity we do not know anything about. I respectfully submit that the hon. member for Lethbridge again is quite incorrect in what he says because he obviously has not understood what my motion clearly states.

My motion applies only to the bills that were on the Order Paper at the time of prorogation. Those bills are listed. The order paper is a public document. I am sure, contrary to what was suggested earlier in the debate, that the hon. member for Lethbridge is able to read the Order Paper. I would strongly disagree with anybody who suggests the contrary.

There was concern about a motion like the one I want to present affecting the standing orders but I submit that a motion to amend or to suspend standing orders is always in order.

I submit that the fact this motion deals with two different procedures does not in any way invalidate it. The House will recall that in 1994, I proposed a motion which was accepted by the Chair as being in order that amended dozens of standing orders affecting five or six procedural issues.

The opposition parties did not get up at that time and say the 1994 motion was out of order because it dealt with more than one subject. On the contrary, there were some words of praise for the reforms to our parliamentary procedure that were involved in that motion.

I submit on the precedent of the motion that I presented to make permanent changes to the standing orders in 1994, this motion is certainly in order even though like the one in 1994 it covers a number of different issues and standing orders.

Again, that my motion is not intended to make any permanent changes to the standing orders but merely to provide a procedure to enable this House in a way that will be useful to all hon. members, not only ministers but private members on all sides of the House, to get on with the business of the House without repeating work that has already been carried out.

I have just one or two other comments. An hon. member, criticizing my motion in the debate on this point of order, said that there was something wrong with individuals moving bills rather than the House as a whole. Every bill is presented to the House by an individual member moving the bill whether it is a government bill moved by a minister or a private bill moved by a private member. This is exactly what we do with every bill.

The last precedent that I want to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, is one created by the hon. member for Lethbridge himself. Last fall he presented a motion to the House which was accepted as being in order and if adopted would have allowed the restoration after a prorogation of all private members' bills in one fell swoop. At that time he did not say: "Oh, I am sorry. I made a big mistake. I should not have presented this motion because it covers all private members' bills". No. He put it forward as a worthy reform of the procedures of the House of Commons.

That motion was not ruled out of order by the Chair. It was accepted by the Chair and placed on the Order Paper. If that motion which dealt with private members' business was in order, then I submit that my motion which deals not only with private members' business but with government business is equally in order.

On the basis of all the points I have made but especially on the basis of the words written down, submitted to the House and accepted by the House, by the Reform House leader, I submit that my motion is in order. He has proved it by his words and by his motion. Therefore, I suggest that the point of order is not in order and I should be permitted to proceed with my motion because it is in the interest not just of the government but of all the members of the House, private members on the government side and private members on the opposition side. If the hon. members were really interested in preserving the interests of private members they would readily accept my motion rather than present this point of order.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the government has been very cute in proposing a motion which ties

private members' business to government business in a way that obviously gives the government House leader the opportunity to make the Reform House leader feel uncomfortable.

However, I would like to speak to what I think is the larger point which is the fact that this is in effect, as was argued earlier by my colleague from the Reform Party, something in the nature of an omnibus motion.

Certainly the government House leader will recall, having been here in 1982, when an omnibus piece of legislation, albeit legislation and not a motion, provoked 16 days of bell ringing. It is not just in this House but in many other legislatures and most recently in the Ontario legislature where omnibus bills provoke a particularly strong reaction on the part of elected members. Why is that? It is because it goes against the tradition established by Speaker after Speaker in so many contexts that the House should not be forced to rule on more than one matter at a time. People should not be put in that kind of position.

It is somewhat misleading, although not deliberately so, for the government House leader to suggest that the framework which the motion establishes provides an opportunity for the question to be put on each and every piece of legislation that would be reinstated within this framework. What will happen is that the bill will be reinstated at the particular point at which it was when the last session came to an end. There will be no question put.

The government House leader suggests that there will be individual questions put on whether or not legislation is reinstated. That is the question we are debating here; not the questions that will be put at the various stages of legislation, but whether the legislation itself will be reinstated. That is the question that opposition members want put and those are the questions that will not be put if this framework motion is adopted.

The government House leader suggests that somehow there will be individual questions put with respect to these 30 bills. The point was rightly made that we are talking about 30 bills, not just the five that we found so offensive and which the Liberals found offensive when the Conservatives tried to do a similar thing in May 1991.

Is there no end to the parliamentary hypocrisy, call it what you like, which we see from Parliament to Parliament to Parliament where people get up on the government side and do in spades what they condemned in an even smaller form when they were in opposition? Is there no end?

I have seen this happen on a number of occasions. I have seen Conservatives condemn Liberals and then do it. I have seen Liberals condemn Conservatives and then do it. In this case it is the Liberals who condemn the Conservatives and who now come before us with a motion which does in a much more exaggerated way the very thing that they found so heinous in May 1991. We had a bad decision in May 1991. That motion never should have been deemed acceptable by the Speaker at that time, a Speaker for whom I had a great deal of respect, but I have to say I did not agree with him on that occasion.

We should not let that precedent be magnified now by the advancement of this particular motion. Basically if it is adopted it will create a situation in which the end of session and a throne speech really becomes just a PR opportunity for the government. It is not the end of a session and the beginning of something new. It is not what the end of session and the beginning of a new session used to be. It is basically just a little photo-op for the government because nothing stops. It does not have to take responsibility for the parliamentary timetable. If it cannot score with the goal posts the way they are and get its legislation through, this motion simply says move the goal posts.

It says we can do anything we like with the standing orders any time we like. There is too much of that going on. Too much of it went on under the Conservatives for nine years where they just moved the goal posts. I remember one time they had a motion where they just said they could change any standing order any time in any way they liked.

What we have here is a kind of parliamentary dictatorship when it comes to standing orders. The Liberals saw through it at the time. Yet now they do a very similar thing and it is very distressing. They ought to think twice before they do this. For once somebody should not do in government what they condemned in opposition. Indeed they should say that was wrong and we are not going to do a similar thing when we are in government. Would that not be a refreshing change?

[The Deputy Speaker]

I see several members standing. I will go back and forth on this. I would ask all members to please not repeat any point that has already been made.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond very briefly to some of the points that have been raised.

First, there is a major difference between this initiative and the one of 1991. This time we are offering an enabling motion and the bills are reintroduced afterward. They are not introduced automatically by way of the motion. That is the first point.

Second, Mr. Speaker will surely recognize and recall that there was a very interesting debate in which a member of the Reform Party, namely the member for Lethbridge, offered a very constructive suggestion to bring back bills that had already reached a certain stage in the previous session. In fact, what the government House leader has done is precisely that.

I just heard a bit of heckling from an hon. member from the Reform Party who said that was only for private members' bills. Imagine the following proposition. The government in a different Parliament had attempted to resuscitate only government bills and that was deemed to be wrong. Now the Reform Party's solution is

to only reinstate opposition motions or bills and that would presumably, according to their criteria, make it right.

As the hon. House leader stated, if the arguments made by the Reform Party some weeks ago were correct, then surely the arguments would apply equally to opposition members as they would to government members. In fact, the enabling motion offered by the government House leader today proposes a mechanism whereby members, if they wish, can revive their own bills within a 30 day time frame. It does not resuscitate or revive all bills, but for those members who wish to bring them back, it brings back to the House in an accelerated mechanism bills that had passed second reading. For instance, there could be bills where the solution has already been offered.

Some parliamentarians may choose not to proceed with certain bills. That is their choice. We are still entitled in this House to adopt a practical mechanism such as proposed by the member for Lethbridge. However, if he were right, his reasoning in my opinion would have to apply to both sides of the House. Parliamentarians on both sides must be equally entitled to return bills to the stage they were at prior to prorogation.

In brief, this is the decision the Chair will have to make to put an end to this debate. I hope the Chair will decide the government may proceed with the consideration of this motion.

The Reform and Bloc members have not convinced the Chair, I think, or at least they have not convinced me of the merits of their argument. The argument remains perfectly valid in that we have a motion before us which is entirely in keeping with our rules.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Colleagues, it is now 6.30 p.m. I think I have heard enough. The question is a very serious one. We will consider the point our colleagues have raised and rule on its admissibility as soon as possible.

A motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House is adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.

(The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.)