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.