Mr. Speaker, before getting to the main part of my speech, perhaps I should answer the question asked by two Reform members. What these two members and many other people are wondering is why prorogue the session if the government wants to reinstate everything that was being considered during last session.
Probably all that has happened in the last few months, particularly in connection with the Quebec referendum, is one of the reasons why the government wants to start afresh, to show Canadians that it has regained control of the situation. But I want to get back to the main point, because I am not speaking in reply to the speech from the throne, but rather on Motion No. 1.
This is a motion to reinstate bills that were at various stages when the session was prorogued. That would appear logical, up to a point, but tradition has it that when a session ends and another one begins, we make a fresh start. Otherwise, we should have continued in the same parliamentary session without having a new speech from the throne and a new beginning.
This behaviour annoys me for two reasons: it shows a lack of respect for parliamentary tradition and practice, and-this annoys me even more, as it does many other people who are interested in politics-it proves that very often one says something when on one side of the House and something else when on the other side. I will get back to this in a while, since many members who now sit over there criticized the then Conservative government when it put forward a motion very similar to the one we are debating this afternoon. Just wait and see what their positions were then. It is rather difficult to understand how they can support this motion today after all they said against it then.
Let us go back to the first point, which is the lack of respect for tradition and practice. I agree that some things must be changed, improved, in the parliamentary system. The problem is that each and every time changes are made, the opposition parties or the backbenchers lose some of their powers so that the government, the executive, can have more power and be able to break or alter a rule as it pleases to go ahead undisturbed with its agenda.
This is rather disappointing, since all 295 of us here were elected to represent the people. Our constituents do not want to see our rights and responsibilities as members of Parliament trampled on; they want us to play an even bigger role and have an even greater influence on the parliamentary system.
Of course, my Liberal colleagues will say: "Motion No. 1 also enables members to reinstate private members' bills and to carry on with their consideration in the current session". But one has to be aware of one thing: how many private members' bills, and we can go back as far as we want, actually became law? How many private members' bills actually went through the whole legislative process? Very, very few of them.
If the government is proposing this motion authorizing the reinstatement of measures at the stage they were before in Parliament, it is to pursue its agenda on bills which it sets great store by; it is not to please members whose private bills had completed a stage in the process. This rarely happens.
So, the purpose of motion No. 1 is to deal with government business, basically everything that comes from cabinet and the executive branch. Thus, it is not a major argument for the government. Of course, it sweetens the pill.
If these bills are so important for the government and if they are so good for Quebecers and Canadians, why did it not introduce them earlier during the last session? Since it was elected two and a half years ago, why did it not hurry to introduce these legislative measures so vital to the operations of the Government of Canada and to the federal administration?
We wonder why. And when we search for answers, we find some clues. We notice that there has been an atmosphere of panic in the last few months. That was obvious in the speech from the throne. The government does not have clear directions for the second half of its mandate and it is even alluding to the possibility of an early election to avoid the constitutional agenda of 1997.
I will talk about the second part. I would like to quote some Liberal members who were in the opposition not so long ago. Maybe they will go back to the opposition seats. Not all of those who are here now, but some of them. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, now in the Senate, speaking to the Conservative motion, declared this: "I cannot understand why this government, these government bullies now want to impose their will on the House of Commons".
He was talking about government bullies imposing their will. I would be curious to know if the same bullies now work for the Liberal Party and if the hon. senator still thinks the same way. He was not alone to speak. There were several of them. There is one I just saw. He is the Liberal member for Kingston and the Islands. He declared: "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". That means that a bill must be moved as a new bill and go through the normal legislative process. He quoted from Beauchesne, saying that any irregularity of any portion of a motion renders the whole motion irregular. He fought hard and even contested the legality of that motion. He presented many arguments to that effect.
One of his colleagues, the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, who is still with us, was a lot harsher. He said: "The implications of ruling this motion in order would be such that I fear we could render-if a government wanted to-this House of Commons totally irrelevant and redundant".
To render the House of Commons totally irrelevant and redundant. That is what the member said. He is not a sovereignist, a separatist, but a member who sits on the other side of the House and who occupies a very important position within the government. Why has he changed his mind now that he is in a position of authority? How can that be explained? People become very cynical about politics when they see individuals change their mind so drastically in a relatively short time span.
How can a politician who says that he is working for the well-being of Canadians and wants to improve their social and economic standards of living have credibility when he contradicts himself constantly. People do not know when we are telling the truth. They do not know who among us is telling the truth. It is very serious. It is a lack of respect for the office we hold, for the institution for which we work, which, ultimately, is there to serve the people.
It is surprising to see those people, who claimed to champion the cause of integrity and transparency in their red book-which, by the way, they threw away as soon as the took office-suddenly adopting the agenda of the previous government in many areas.
Look at what is happening with the reform of social programs and think of the lack of respect for the institution. They are not even able to take a position that would be seen as their own, to promote the role of members of Parliament and to respect the institution.
If we really wanted to make the institution more efficient, as my Liberal colleague said, we could evaluate how really efficient committees are and examine the way they operate. There are many issues to examine.
The government tries to control everything: House committees, procedure and all the rest and this is why we have now almost reached the point where we have a sham of democracy. Some were complaining about the monarchy earlier, but it is simply disguised. The real power of individuals in this House is relatively small when we face actions like those of the government.
The Bloc Quebecois wants to be constructive. If I remember rightly, my colleague for Laurier-Sainte-Marie or my colleague for Berthier-Montcalm introduced an amendment whereby a bill could be returned to the stage it was at. Under certain circumstances, a prorogation can be very useful.
If a minister or a member introduces business from the previous session requesting the unanimous consent of the House to continue, he will have it, if the measure is in everyone's interest.
This would avoid having the government simply bringing back its own agenda, but also all the measures that are, to all intents and purposes, uncontested, approved by all the members and must be approved by all Quebecers and Canadians, given that we are from very different parties. In this regard, the amendment would therefore be constructive.
In the few minutes I have left before question period, I would like to mention that the member preceding me referred to the fact that we were sovereignists or separatists, whatever your preference, and that she was surprised at our interest in following parliamentary rules, because this is the British parliamentary system.
Since our arrival here, we have shown respect, probably even more than the government, for parliamentary institutions and rules. We are fighting democratically. We are seeking major change, major change in the future of Quebecers and of Canadians, because we want to build a relationship between peoples.
That does not prevent us from respecting institutions and from waging a democratic struggle. Thus this sort of remark reveals a considerable lack of understanding of our action and role here. I am pleased to be able to tell her that we are not attacking institutions. We are not attacking individuals, we are not attacking Canadians. We are leading a battle for Quebecers, because we think it is the best road for the future for the people of Quebec and the people of Canada.
When we are told that, in the end, it is in our interest to block the process-I remember that, when we first came into the House of Commons, everybody said that the Bloc would be doing anything to block the conduct of business of the House. People had fun making puns. It did not happen that way. We allowed for an improvement of the conduct of business. We co-operated a lot. There was much co-operation between House leaders of all parties to ensure that the House may conduct its business in the most efficient manner, to avoid using procedural technicalities to prolong debates late into the night and achieve nothing. We allowed for an improvement in the conduct of business of our institution. That is how we want things to be.
Motion No. 1 does not improve the functioning of the institution and, I am convinced, will not go down in history as a measure having furthered the British parliamentary system in the best interest of Canadians. On the contrary, it gives more power to the
executive, to cabinet which is really in charge of the government and controls MPs, who, when they protest in caucus-as is now the case-are threatened with a general election to keep them in line.
In that sense, it is a threat. I find it interesting when they threaten to send certain MPs from their own party to the slaughter house. Personally, I am not against the fact that you could call an election. The only danger is that you may lose your Prime Minister in the battle, but we shall see. When the time comes, voters in Saint-Maurice will be the judge.
I am quite sure that there are Liberal members in this House who are thinking, in their hearts of hearts: "This is true; this is another thing we are doing which does not make any sense." Let them keep it up.
If they cannot publicly side with us to defend the rules and the role of members, at least, when they meet in the privacy of their caucus, let them raise the issue with the cabinet members, who control this Parliament, and with all those behind the scene, who yield some power, and tell them: "Listen, there are limits to how far you can lead us; when you decide to make a new speech from the throne and start a new session, it is to make a fresh start in several areas and the same should apply to the bills introduced during the last session."
To conclude, I would like to point out that the unemployment insurance reform is among these bills, and nobody will convince me that it is not controversial and cannot be improved. Why not take advantage of a new session to put this unemployment insurance reform on a more solid footing? This way, at least, everybody's interests would be served.
Let have some self-respect and not change one's mind when changing side in the House; let us not make an about-face as did the member for Kingston and the Islands who has completely changed his minds on this motion. Furthermore, let us follow parliamentary procedure and try to make the role of member of Parliament as efficient as possible.
