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.