Debates of March 1st, 1996

Business Of The House

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

Oh, yes, I am quite sure. I can even give the exact time.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Were members of all parties present?

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

Yes. The hon. member from Calgary wants to verify that we contacted all parties to inform them of this motion. Indeed we had. I contacted someone from each party personally and revealed the contents of the motion. I can discuss privately the name of the MP that I consulted if the people opposite want to know.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

We read about it in the Hill Times .

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

The hon. member said they read about it in the Hill Times . Believe me, Mr. Speaker, the consultations between officials of parties were held long before that.

If the member from Calgary has been led to believe differently, that is not true. Consultations were held.

The first criteria is that only bills that are the same as those presented in the last Parliament qualify. Only bills that went beyond second reading qualify.

Moreover only bills from both sides of the House qualify for this fast tracking system that we have established.

Finally, what we are in fact proposing is an initiative that was first presented to the House by an opposition member, namely the boss of the Reform members, the member for Lethbridge.

So, as you can see, Mr. Speaker, our government is open to initiatives coming from the other side of the House since we are willing to accept and maybe improve on a suggestion made by someone on the other side. We are using this initiative that came originally from an opposition member, after making some improvements to it.

It is non discriminatory, it applies to everybody and it is not at all what the Conservative Party proposed. They wanted to reinstate all at once eight of their bills, I think, only government bills, only the ones they wanted, etc.

In this motion, it is optional. The motion offers a mechanism for reinstating bills, which have to be reinstated one by one.

Let us look at some of the bills that would qualify because they were not completed in the last session of Parliament. I do not know which minister, which backbench MP on the government side, which opposition member will wish to reactivate any of these bills. These are examples. For instance, there is Bill C-7, the controlled drug and substances act, an act to repeal the Narcotic Control Act and parts of the Food and Drugs Act.

It has been the subject of a lot of debate. Why would we want to repeat all of that? Why not save the taxpayers' money and pick up where we left off?

Bill C-101, the national transportation agency bill, was completed at the committee level. A lot of work was done there. Bill C-94 is an important bill with regard to interprovincial trade. Also I believe there is a bill with regard to the use of ethanol as a fuel additive. That is a very important issue. As a rural member representing an electoral district where ethanol is produced I want to see that bill proceeded with as soon as possible.

Let us look at some of the private members' bills. The opposition is telling us: "Don't proceed with this accelerated mechanism". Here is what they do not want us to do.

A Reform MP proposes that we amend the Elections Act with regard to political parties. Seemingly the Reform Party is going to vote against accelerating this bill and bringing it to committee. The member from Mississauga proposed Bill C-337 in the last session, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act. That was already in committee as well. What about the bill regarding intervener funding proposed by the member for Oxford?

The hon. member for Quebec has also introduced a very important bill dealing with genital mutilation of female persons, which is unfortunately practiced, in somes cases, in Canada. This is an important issue. The debate in this House was completed and the bill referred to a committee. Why would anyone wish to delay our work on such bills?

A Reform MP from British Columbia who spoke earlier this morning against this innovation would be unable, if her party-it depends when we refer to her party because her boss some months ago wanted to do precisely this-by its statements today, would prevent us from proceeding with further consideration of her bill, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Releases Act and the Criminal Code.

Another member from the Reform Party has a bill regarding an amendment to the Divorce Act granting access and custody to grandparents. Why would they not want to proceed with that? Why would they not want to proceed with the bills that they initiated? That is all the motion of the government proposes. I have some difficulty in understanding why the Reform Party does not want us to go ahead with some of these.

The same thing applies to the members of the Bloc. I know that they will probably want to go on with the work Parliament has already started on several issues. I am sure those hon.é members will want that work to go ahead.

As the House knows, we will proceed. The Minister of Labour has proposed a motion today to allow us to proceed without further delay with this motion.

I invite all hon. members of this House to do what the government House leader and the House leader of the Reform Party asked us to do some time ago, although it seems the latter has had time to resonsider his position. Of course, this surprises us. Nevertheless the initiative proposed by the hon. member for Lethbridge was an excellent idea and it still is. This is why we intend, on this side of the House, to adopt this measure. We have improved it. We invite all members to vote in favor of the proposal made today in this House by the government House leader.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is rather strange to listen to what the member has to say

now that he is on the government side. All the same, his approach is a little better, in the sense that he uses new words.

He talks about innovation, discrimination, savings and backlogs. It is strange because in the speech he made in 1991-I was reading it as he was talking-he never spoke of innovation. He never spoke of discrimination. If discrimination was one of his primary arguments in 1991, he should have mentioned it then. But no, it is nowhere to be seen. The clincher he made at the time was that it went against tradition, that we never had proceeded this way, that it was unparliamentary. That is what he was saying then.

He raised all sorts of extremely important questions. Now that he is a member of the government, he no longer raises them. He has changed his tune. Such an about-face on such a fundamental question as prorogation is dreadful.

He talked about savings. If the government had negotiated with the official opposition, there would have been unanimous consent regarding some bills. We would have agreed to keep some bills on the Order Paper for consideration during this session. But we would not have agreed to keep bills like the one on unemployment insurance. We want a new bill. Canadians are protesting. This bill does not please them. But the government does not care, it is washing its hands of the whole mess, and everything is thrown in together and presented to Canadians. Hey, we are the government, we are in power.

That is why we are against this motion.

It is impossible to proceed this way under the current system.

I conclude with a question that the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell asked the Conservative government in 1991, in identical circumstances. Perhaps he will say the circumstances were not the same. The difference is that the motion was brought in by a Conservative member at that time whereas now it is being put forward by the Liberals. But, basically, it is exactly the same thing.

I ask the member to answer the same question he asked the government in 1991, that is: "If the motion is accepted in its present wording-I ask question rhetorically-if one can resuscitate five bills with this motion, or four bills, what stops one from resuscitating all legislation from the past?"

If the government can resuscitate all the bills from the previous session, what will prevent it from going further, if it wishes so, and reinstating bills which died on the Order Paper in previous Parliaments? What prevents it from deciding that today is the third reading for such and such a bill, and that this is so because it holds a majority of seats? What would stop the government from acting in that way?

In the end, does the motion they want to us to agree to today in the House of Commons not simply cancel any effect of prorogation, of Royal Assent and of the whole tradition of the House? I

would like to hear what the member has to say on these critical questions, to see just how far he is willing to go in making a fool of himself.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the questions of the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm. First, he asked about the bills. He says that they would have been willing to reinstate the bills they like, but not those we like.

This is faulty logic, as you will understand. I assume that, by extension, the member means that only the bills he introduced should be allowed to be reinstated.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

No.

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

By extension, that is what it means. Mr. Speaker, as you said yourself, this does not make sense.

Second, the member reminded me of what I said some time ago, in 1991, during a previous Parliament, when I sat on the other side-

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

In a previous life.

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

Not in a previous life, but at a time when I am supposed to have said: "If one can resuscitate several bills with one motion, what stops the governement from resuscitating others?"

In fact, this question is rather important, since in itself the motion we introduced does not reinstate bills. It provides a means for reinstating bills from both sides of the House at the stages they were at in the same Parliament.

The difference is, of course, that the other proposal, the previous government's, applied exclusively to certain government bills, not to all the bills, not even all the government bills, and further provided that consideration of the bills would be resumed at the stage they were at. These are three significant differences.

Third, I would remind you that, in spite of what I said in 1991, I lost the argument.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell made a statement that I want to clarify and put on the record because it is very serious.

The government House leader did not contact our House leader or the assistant to our House leader, the member for Lethbridge, on this issue. We saw it for the first time on the Order Paper. I just want to let the member know that is why we are quite upset about the timing.

In addition, the usual custom is that when the House is prorogued, as a courtesy, the government consults with opposition

parties about the deputy speakers. That was not done either. There are a lot of things this government is just trying to bully through.

The member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell was concerned and tried to sell the motion that a private member's bill is the same as a government bill. That is not the case. He wants to know why we support reinstating private members' bills but not government bills. They are trying to use the motion of the hon. member for Lethbridge as a bargaining chip. They are trying to use Private Members' Business as a trade off, a quid pro quo. We cannot accept such a deal, especially when all the members opposite when in opposition so vehemently argued against what the Conservatives were doing, which is the same thing this government is doing.

The hon. member asked what was the difference between Private Members' Business and reinstating government business and I would like to answer that and then he can comment after that. Private members cannot set the agenda. They have no control over the business of the House. They are at the mercy of the process which takes a great deal of time and makes it extremely difficult to see their bills past.

In the last session 165 members' bills were introduced and only two were past into law. They need a helping hand. On government business the government controls the legislative agenda. It can summon bills for debate for whatever reason, whenever and however it wants. If the government wants to pass a bill it can do so. There is nothing we can do about it. It can place it on the Order Paper day after day. It can invoke time allocation or closure. It can steamroll it through a committee. If a bill has not passed it is because the government chose not to pass it, and it chose not to pass a whole bunch of bills in the last session.

Bill C-7 was on the Order Paper for over two years. Rather than call it for debate the government held take note debates and adjourned early. Now it wants the opposition to bail it out and reinstate it.

The government has the control over government bills. Private members do not have that control. That is the difference. There are some good private members' bills that were pulled and which should be reinstated, but those are private members' bills, not government bills.

What is the purpose of prorogation? The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands said it best when in opposition. He pointed out what is happening today is unprecedented in that the government is moving a motion under Government Orders for debate to reinstate bills in this session. He searched precedents back to 1938 and did not find one where a motion of this kind was moved for debate. It was always agreed to by unanimous consent.

Never before has the government moved to suspend the rules in effect and put bills back into their position at the time of prorogation of a session. If royal prerogative is to mean anything, the prorogation ended those government bills. They have to be reinstated in the usual course but they ought to have been introduced and dealt with as new bills in this session. This is the proper procedure in the absence of unanimous consent.

Now why are these two members, the member for Kingston and the Islands and the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, both of whom know the standing orders and the rules and so vehemently opposed what they are now proposing when they are in opposition, contradicting themselves and why do they not see the difference between private members' bills and government bills? Why are they persisting in playing this game instead of getting on with the business of the new legislation, of the new throne speech and of the new vision for Canada that this party is supposed to have?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I would make mincemeat like that out of the proposal given to us by the hon. member for Lethbridge, the boss of the hon. member who has just spoken. After all, I thought the suggestion by the hon. member for Lethbridge was quite reasonable.

I contacted the hon. member for Mercier and the hon. member for Lethbridge personally. I could later today rise on a point of order if the House so desires and indicate the precise date and time, which I have logged in my office, that the conversations took place.

The hon. member across says it was okay to reactivate the private members' bills but not the government bills because some of the private members' bills were good. This is his argument. Some of the government, I would even say all government bills, and all private members' bills on this side of the House are good, not just some of them like the members across the way say.

After all, as the people of Canada's newest province sometimes say, what is good in Goose Bay is good in Gander.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government motion we are debating now is very special. This week, the government focused largely on the throne speech, saying that it signalled a new beginning for this government, which would now adopt a new approach based on jobs in various sectors.

At the same time, the government presents a motion which will guarantee business as usual and allow the reinstating of old bills. The government is acting like those who make resolutions on New Year's day and break them the day after. We have a hard time understanding that, especially since it goes against parliamentary tradition.

It is a well-known principle, and I feel it is important to mention this for Canadians who are listening, that prorogation of the House is a political decision which means we start all over, and that all bills die on the Order Paper. In this way, we make sure that all new government positions are different from past ones. For the sake of efficiency, we can exceptionally reinstate bills, normally those that have been favourably received in the House.

In this case, the government is upsetting the rules. It is establishing the principle that anything can be brought back, at any time, and that, whether there is a throne speech or not, the situation we had in the previous session can being carried over into the new one.

I would like to draw the attention of citizens and hon. members to the fact that, by proposing this motion, by using this approach, the government is really telling us: "When we bring back Bill C-111 on unemployment insurance, it will be business as usual". Yet, during the previous session, the government was told in all the Liberal ridings in the Maritimes, in all the ridings in Eastern Quebec, that the unemployment insurance reform, as introduced, was not acceptable.

If the government has the right to reinstate Bill C-111 without any changes, arguing that it is for the sake of continuity, why did it prorogue? Why did we decide to put an end to current business? Was it to let the Governor General have a good party where those who so desired could go? Was it only for the sake of decorum? It is rather puzzling.

Moreover, it is the wrong message to send to the people, because it seems to indicate that we did not listen to them. In my own riding I had meetings with groups of employees and citizens, sometime 50, 75 or 150, on the question of unemployment insurance. Whether in Saint-Pascal, Pohénégamook, La Pocatière, Saint-André de Kamouraska, Rivière-du-Loup or elsewhere, people told us: "The government has to go back to the drawing board". The motion that the government tabled would allow it to ignore this message from the people, and this is unacceptable.

I could give you another example: Bill C-96, which establishes the Department of Human Resources. It has given rise to a major dispute between Quebec and Canada. This bill would allow the Government of Canada to interfere in all the areas concerning manpower training. It flies in the face of the whole debate on decentralization of manpower training.

Why does the government insist on saying that it wants to bring back a bill like this one, with a simple majority, and that the minister, anytime he sees fit in his political strategy, could bring this bill back? I think that this is contrary to parliamentary rules, to the very nature of the speech from the throne, and to the obligation the government has to introduce new policy thrusts.

If the government can come back with bills of a similar nature, it should have the courage to start the debate all over again and to steer the legislation through all the stages.

All the more so because, in the case of the unemployment insurance bill, in December, the government avoided the debate on second reading and referred the bill to the committee immediately, under the pretence that there was an urgent need. The government's strategy is very clear: it wants to try to bring back the bill in committee without a debate on second reading, because I am sure that several Liberal members from the Maritimes would have a lot to say about this bill if it were reinstated in second reading as it stood last fall.

In fact, the government is trying to avoid taking into account what its own members want, which is something I find unacceptable.

It is often said that the opposition opposes measures for the sake of it, because of the nature of its responsibilities. I would like to mention two bills that the opposition could have agreed to reinstate. They are Bill C-66 on grain transportation and Bill C-78 on witness protection, that were dealt with in the last session.

Why was there no consultation between the government and the opposition parties, as is traditional in Parliament, to find a common ground on bills that could be reinstated? For instance, we certainly would have been in favour of reinstating the bill to prevent excision, which was introduced by the hon. member for Quebec. We are certainly in favour of that and I think we could find that there is unanimous consent in the House on that subject.

There are the two bills that I just mentioned, Bill C-66 on grain transportation and Bill C-78 on witness protection. We could have done the same thing with these two bills and, at the same time, the government could have brought in the bills that had been received favourably in the House. It was very clear from the outset that there was no way we would accept to reinstate a bill such as the one on unemployment insurance reform, but perhaps some agreements could have been reached.

I am thinking, in particular, of Bill C-68 on the reform of electoral boundaries, about which the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine and Bloc Quebecois members from eastern Quebec ridings were in agreement and made representations at all stages to be able to protect the five existing ridings in eastern Quebec. That is a bill that perhaps we would have been able to agree on, with the consent of the Senate, so that it could be brought back here and we could deal with it without ending up where we are now.

Unfortunately, there was no such consultation. The government prefers to hide behind the fact that it would have the advantage of bringing the bill back at any time, at the minister's request. I think the government has made a very bad choice.

Now, let us turn to the amendment the Bloc Quebecois has moved. This amendment would let members respect the privilege of every other member in this House by giving notice of their refusal to allow a bill to be reinstated when the minister asks for leave to introduce his bill. In this way we would be sure that there would be a minimum of respect for members' responsibilities. It would be a mark of a very great respect for democracy and it would conform to the true meaning of prorogation of a session.

The new throne speech having set out a different vision on most things, it is imperative that members ascertain that the new legislation reflects this throne speech and that this throne speech is not only old formulas under a new guise, which very clearly seems to be the case, given the government motion.

The government should have more courage and say to us: "Yes, among bills we have brought forward in the past, there are four or five that we absolutely want to have passed, so we will bring back them to this House". We could even debate the motions. It would be more democratic than the present approach, whereby the government to reinstate by the back door bills that had not been received favourably by the House.

Once more I come back to the unemployment insurance bill. You know, we listened to what Canadians and Quebecers said last fall, during the holiday season and in January, and we could take the opportunity offered by the fact that we have a new Minister of Human Resources Development to take note of certain things, to notice that the government measure has one very important element missing, that is an active policy on employment. The previous bill singled out seasonal workers, and prevented young Canadians from being eligible for unemployment insurance in order to save about $2 billion per year in an unemployment insurance program funded entirely by employees and employers. That was what Bill C-111 did.

If the government gets its way and manages to bring back this bill directly at committee stage, without any debate in the House, it will be an admission that it has no intention of correcting it. The government will be admitting that it did not listen to what Canadians had to say, and that it is still going to try to push all its cuts through and to continue in the same direction that was condemned everywhere across the country and even more so in the Maritimes.

Let me give you another example, Bill C-96. In this case, the government is really saying: "Business as usual".

While the federal government is trying for instance to negotiate an agreement on manpower training with the Quebec government, although Bill C-96 was denounced in the past as not respecting areas of jurisdiction, the Minister of Human Resources Development, in his negotiations with Quebec, would certainly have a much stronger negotiation tool if he would say: "Yes, we realize that our Bill C-96 did not really respect current areas of jurisdiction and what we want for the future in Canada: that the federal government be responsible for some things and that it be made clear; that provincial governments be responsible for other things and that be made clear, and that in the future we not have spheres of activity where the two governments get involved and try to have the biggest poster or the biggest Canada flag on advertisements".

When we see statements like the ones made by the Minister of Human Resources Development, who says that every time the Government of Canada will be spending money, we must ensure that there will be a federal government identification to make sure people will know where the money is coming from, it is very clear that there is no logic between Bill C-96, the new image that the federal government wants to project of its willingness to negotiate in good faith with the governments, and these statements saying that the federal government will make sure that its investment is visible everywhere.

There is a major contradiction there and, instead of trying to sneak bills by us, the government should have the courage to make a list, to table it and to tell us: "These bills will come back because we think they are essential and the House will decide if the proposition is relevant".

The present debate is also a major precedent in the evolution of the parliamentary process. In that regard, I think we would better go back to the basic principle of British parliamentary government.

Earlier, my hon. colleague quoted excepts from Beauchesne that clearly show how important the basis for proroguing sessions is, because this has always been a rather basic decision for a government to make. This means that the government's intention when proroguing a session to start a new one is to change its agenda, change its outlook on things, introduce new bills. This sends a message to the public about the government's new approach, as well as that of the opposition, and serve as a basis to assess the relevance of its actions.

Now, this clarity would be lost. By allowing any bill from the previous session to be brought back at any time, we are not giving the people the chance to pass judgement on the government's actions. I think this will have a major impact in the years to come, on future Parliaments and on the kind of relationship the people will have with their representatives.

It is complicating matters, providing information that is not as clear as the information provided in the past. This certainly is not the way to go to ensure the well-being of Quebecers and Canadians.

To conclude my presentation on this subject, I would like to say that the government seems to want to enjoy all the benefits of prorogation without the drawbacks. They have changed the wrapping. They have packaged differently what they are trying to sell, but the product itself has not changed. The same old toys have been tossed into the box; only the wrapping has changed. And the person opening this box is expected to shout: "Oh, this is great, all new, really different".

But that is not the message being conveyed, not at all. The message people are receiving is that old bills, bills that came under much criticism, that did not go through quickly in the House, that never made it past consideration in committee because of some snag, will be given a second life totally artificially.

Under the motion, as moved, any outstanding bill could be brought back before this House. This seems unacceptable to me, and definitely not in keeping with what is expected from a Parliament like the one in which we are sitting.

The government must review its actions in several respects. It must make proposals that are in line with the throne speech. It must tell us what "social union" means and what the impact of its new policies will be. Above all, its bills must be consistent with that because, according to what we have heard so far, the Canada social transfer will be a general fund that the provinces will be free to manage at they see fit.

The throne speech shows a different approach. It refers to a guaranteed minimum level of financing for each province. These elements directly contradict legislation such as Bill C-96. We would then be debating old bills in accordance with the government's new approach. The first thing we as opposition must say is that we should no longer be debating these bills since they are not in line with the government's proposed policy.

We feel this is unacceptable and hope that the government will agree to our proposed amendment, which would allow a minister to bring back any bill, but members of the House would have an opportunity to explain why they object to it. This would make Parliament more effective, which is something that people everywhere are asking us. I hope Parliament will follow our suggestion.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I had a question, but I will let the hon. member for-

[The Deputy Speaker]

Everybody knows that if an hon. member from a political party objecting to the speech wishes to ask a question or make a comment, generally, the Chair recognizes that other party. Does the hon. member wish to put a question?

[Dianne Brushett, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member has the floor.

[Dianne Brushett, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup has made a very interesting point on this motion. He would like to be selective in what he brings back to the House. This motion does not have selectivity in the sense that we can bring in one and leave out the other. It is all inclusive.

The opportunity lies in the motion that every government bill, if the minister so chooses, and every private members' bill can come before the House.

I believe we were all elected in 1993, including the member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, to bring forward efficient, progressive legislation.

I would like the member for elaborate a little further on why he would consider selectivity of government business in the motion not to be part of the process of moving forward for a more efficient government.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for a question that will enable me to elaborate on how we see things.

Usually, when Parliament prorogues, all the bills die on the Order Paper and the government must come up with a new legislative agenda. That is the very reason for proroguing.

We accept that view, but we propose that only as an exception should a number of bills, over which the government and the opposition parties would agree, be maintained. The government should do some consulting, rather than trying to forcefully bring back all the bills. Let us look at a list of bills from the last session. Which ones does the government want to bring back? Which ones does the official opposition want to bring back? Which ones does the third party want to bring back? Let us make a list of all the bills for which there is a consensus.

If the government absolutely wants to bring back a piece of legislation for which there is no consensus, it should come before the House and say: "We are asking the House to take this bill back under consideration". Then a debate would take place. The UI bill is an excellent example. If we agreed that Bill C-111 should be brought back before the House, it would be much more democratic, much more elegant for the government to table a proposal to the effect that it wishes that Bill C-111 be maintained, even if this may involve a few amendments. Then the House would debate the relevance of such a proposal. In this way, Quebecers and Canadians

would see very clearly who, between the government and the opposition, takes into account the opinions expressed through consultations, as well as the mood prevailing across the country.

We are not asking that the opposition be the one to decide. However, there has to be some kind of an agreement on that issue. Right now, the government is acting like someone who wants to buy a new car, while also wanting to keep the best things from the old one. This is not logical. There is no continuity in the government's action. The government should take into account the logic in these arguments. It should at least accept the amendment tabled by the Bloc, or the idea of some agreement or negotiation between the parties regarding a list of bills from the previous session. It should not adopt the view that all the bills should be brought back. That would defeat the purpose of proroguing, while also significantly reducing the importance of the speech from the throne. And if the speech from the throne becomes meaningless because all the bills from the previous session can simply be brought back, the government itself will have drastically reduced the impact of its new agenda.

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of debate that I think causes the public to scratch their heads and wonder a little about what we do here.

I am interested in the remarks of the member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup because for the last two years he and I worked together on the unemployment bill. We travelled across the country. We heard from hundreds and thousands of people through the mails, through surveys sent out and through personal representations on that bill.

We spent hundreds of hours looking at each clause and debating the provisions of that bill. We spent millions of dollars. If I understand what he is saying it is that we should be allowed, because of a technicality, to throw out all that work and start over.

How does he justify passing off all that expense and all that time?

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is indeed using a very good example. Let us look, for instance, at the Unemployment Insurance Act. People asked us to vote against the bill as tabled. Thousands of people sent postcards to the Leader of the Opposition. Probably over 20,000, 25,000 or even 30,000 asked us to vote down the bill. Today's debate is not useless as far as my fellow citizens are concerned, because they have asked me to do everything I could to see to it that this bill dies on the Order Paper and that the government takes its responsibilities and introduces another bill more in line with the real needs of Quebecers and Canadians.

This is why I do not have any qualms about turning a debate on what seems like a procedural issue, which it is not, into a debate on a substantive issue.

In the speech from the throne, the government said that the unemployment insurance reform would be based on the same fiscal parameters which applied before. In other words, it stated that it would stick to its philosophy on this issue. This is what we heard from people from all over Canada, people from eastern Quebec and Atlantic Canada. Talk to the people in the maritimes. I am sure that the Liberal caucus has talked about this. At least, I hope so, because if they have not done so, they are not doing their jobs. I am sure that they are doing a very good job and that they are trying to make the government take action on this issue. The best way for hon. members to play a positive role is by debating these issues here in the House as much as possible.

The work of the parliamentary committees is to put the finishing touch to bills, to try to improve them, by coming up with amendments that would ensure that we have, in the end, the best possible bills.

However, we are not yet at that stage with the unemployment insurance bill; we are not working out the details, we are still considering substantive matters. As long as we do not have a reform proposal which includes an active policy on employment, it would be pointless to approve anything. We will keep doing the best we can. We will put forward all the amendments needed to improve the bill, but, in this instance, what Quebecers and Canadians are asking for is a debate on the substance of the bill. If we let the government reinstate the bill in its previous form whenever it feels like it, we are not doing Quebecers and Canadians any favour.

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the point I want to make enlarges upon the question I asked the member from Rivière-du-Loup. In his response he has admitted that what he is attempting to do, and assuming he is representing his party, what his party is attempting to do is to use any device possible to delay further work on the bill.

If one stops to think about that for a moment, it contravenes one of the principles upon which the last election was fought. All parties and all politicians were told very clearly by the public that they wanted to see a change in how this House conducted itself. The public wanted to see reforms to the rules of this Chamber. They wanted to see politicians focusing more on issues than on technicalities. They wanted to see us focusing on the things that affected the lives of people and not simply playing the many games

that we can play within an arcane set of rules to disrupt the proceedings of the Chamber.

What has occurred here? The government came into office, laid a plan before the people and began to enact legislation that reflected that plan. After two years, which is the normal midpoint in the life of a government, it wanted to once more put before the people its plan for the next two years. This is quite common and is looked forward to. It is an opportunity for the government to reflect on what it has done and to come forward and state what it has learned, what it feels has worked and where it wants to go from here.

However, at any time when we reach that point, because of the processes that we use and the extensive consultations that we have undertaken, there are bills that are not complete. They may also not be unanimous, which is a fact of life in this Chamber, but at some point we come to a decision. We cannot simply say that because we had not come to that point on a particular piece of legislation that we should throw it on the rubbish heap and start over again particularly in light of the enormous cost. No bill represents that better than the unemployment insurance bill.

The hon. member opposite who spoke just before me was on challenged air, that old plane we flew in across the country. He sat in on the hundreds and hundreds of hours of consultation as people from every community across the country, including Rivière-du-Loup, came and spoke to us. Are we simply to say that all that work was for naught or are we to pick up where we were in the debate and continue to debate, continue to fight and continue to ask the government to move?

The member will have to admit that the government has moved a long way. The bill that is before a committee is very different from the initial thinking of the government. In fact, it is a bill that demonstrates very clearly this government's willingness to consult, to listen and to act on the wishes of people. It is because of the interventions from the member opposite as well as interventions from thousands of people across this country that there have been very significant changes. I would ask the member to remember that process.

The government put a green paper in front of the people of Canada and asked them to respond to it. The government in that green paper set out a number of proposals that represented its thinking about the reforms to UI.

We consulted broadly. The people gave us their responses and we put recommendations in our report that contradicted what was said in the green paper because we respected the consultations we held and we valued the input we received. It went on from there for further work by the minister. He worked very hard and struggled very diligently over the summer to work through each one of those issues and to present even further changes before he introduced the bill.

The bill he introduced was vastly different from the green paper because of the hundreds and thousands of hours of work by Canadians and by members of this House. Now we are in committee on that bill consulting on the details, looking at some final reforms. Even now we hear the new minister talking about further changes, further amendments, further refinements. That is the process of evolution of a very complicated piece of legislation. It is a good process and one that has stood us well.

What we should not do and I think people would not accept is to simply because of a technical game that is played within the House, throw out all of that work, go back to the drawing board and hold the unemployed in this country in limbo for another one or two years. Is that fair to the unemployed? Is that fair to seasonal workers? Is that fair to employers?

It is time to get on. Yes, I respect the hon. member very much. I have valued his input on the bill. I think he has a lot to say in the area of social services and I want to hear him say it. I want him to debate the bill strenuously and I want to benefit from his input. But what I do not want is to spend a lot of time on a procedural debate. I do not want to spend a lot of time arguing how the rules of the House run so that we can disrupt the order of business, or we can throw the government off track by what, one day?

We just saw an example of that with the Reform Party. Reform members refused to allow the tabling of the list of committee members. What nonsense. What has that accomplished? My gosh, it has disrupted the agenda of the government for a day. Is this the kind of message members are going to put in their householder and run home and say: "Look what we did. We disrupted the business of the government for a day. Aren't we heroes".

That is not what people came here to do. People came here to debate, to represent their constituencies, to see that the wishes of Alberta, Manitoba, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes were placed before the House. They came here to question the government, to ask ministers why they are doing what they are doing, and to hold them to account. They came here to vote, to represent their constituents.

That is why we are here. It is not to play silly games, not to spend our time, our energies, our talent and our creativity looking for little ways to put a stick into the spokes of government momentarily. Does that enhance any of us in this House?

If members want to debate the unemployment insurance bill, let us debate the unemployment insurance bill. If they want to debate

Bill C-7, if they want to debate changes to health legislation, let us debate changes to health legislation. If they want to oppose it, oppose it. Let us have a vigorous, hard fought debate. Let us hold the government to account and let us vote. But let us stop the procedural nonsense. Let us get on with the work of this House.

Let us do what the Reform Party campaigned on, what we campaigned on, what the Bloc, the Conservatives and the New Democrats campaigned on. Let us bring some order here. Let us show people that we are spending their money wisely. Let us show people that we take the business of this country seriously. Let us get on with the debates on the issues people want us to debate and stop the procedural bickering.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some intent and some interest to the member opposite. He raised some good points about putting up procedural roadblocks for the sake of procedural roadblocks. We have not done that as a rule. I agree in that I do not think the Canadian people want to see this being done. However, the principle at stake here is whether or not we should simply acquiesce to whatever the government decides it is going to do and whether we should in our role as opposition stand up for what we think is right.

In this case the situation is that since the 35th Parliament started the government has supported the view that the nomination and election of vice-chairs for all committees should go to the Bloc, period. It has not been an open and free election. It has been a set up job from the very beginning. It is a sham of an election. Our intent is to bring this to the attention of Canadian citizens everywhere.

We would have no problem with the Bloc being elected to both vice-chairs or the vice-chair or the second vice-chair if it were a free and open election, if it were a secret election within the committee, but it is not. At every single committee I have attended, the chief government whip has sat in the committee room, watched, presided over, pointed fingers and said: "This is what you are going to do in this vote". This is a mockery of democracy.

Our point is not to be obstructive but to point out to the government and to Canadians that the government cannot be hypocritical. The Prime Minister cannot when he is in western Canada go on a radio or television program and say that it makes him sick when he looks across and sees the official opposition is a separatist party that will break up the country. Then when he gets back to Quebec he says exactly the opposite and at every possible opportunity he mollycoddles and appeases the Bloc and is so afraid to offend them. We are not afraid to offend them and if that offends the Liberal government, it should be offended.

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his point. I listened and considered carefully what he said until his last couple of sentences. If he will permit me I will start there.

The Prime Minister of this country and this government does not go into western Canada and say one thing then go into eastern Canada, Quebec or any other place and say something else. That is a fact. The Prime Minister has not been afraid to take any battle anywhere in this country at any time in the some 30 years he has been in this House. I have seen him do it over and over and over again. I very strenuously reject what the member has suggested.

The fact is there are laws and there are rules and there are ways of procedure in this House that we respect. The member is simply not going to gerrymander his way out of that. The fact is whether I like it or not, the Bloc is the official opposition. We heard a very lengthy ruling by the Speaker who considered that question very carefully. That is a fact.

Having established that, let us get on with the business of the House. The tabling of a list of committee members is a trivial point. How does preventing the tabling of the list of committee members by one day further his cause or make him look any more intelligent or make his debate seem any more fulsome? If he wants to make the point about vice-chairs, make it. He should stand up in this House every time. On the many, many occasions he has to debate substantive issues he should stand up in the House and make that point. He should stand up in question period and ask those questions. He should make his case.

I am sure every member knows, particularly every western member, and I am sure all the members sitting there right now know the difficulty of finding a life within the travel and the time we have to spend here. So let us spend the time here to its maximum value. Let us not waste it.

I do not want to take an extra day away from my family and my children because somebody has played around with a procedural motion, but I will do it. I will come into this House to debate any issue I possibly can, but let us not play those games. Members of the Reform Party came into this House so full of the lofty principles of government and were so prepared to defend the rights of the people and honour what the people wanted to hear. I am appalled to see you playing those kind of silly, trivial games.