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.