Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly in support of this member's point of privilege and lay before you two additional pieces of information which may assist you in responding to this.
First I refer to Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 3 which outlines some elements of the Constitution Act:
Without further elaboration, Canada thus was ensured a responsible cabinet system with the assumption that there will always be a recognizable government with a legislative program. If the electorate so wishes, the system also presupposes an opposition ready and willing to attack the government in an attempt to have its legislation altered or rejected—. More tentative are such traditional features as respect for the rights of the minority, which precludes a government from using to excess the extensive powers that it has to limit debate or to proceed in what the public and the opposition might interpret as unorthodox ways.
I suggest that is what we have happening here today. The government is closing off debate on the bill that the opposition and the public honestly feel is a tax increase and a massive rip-off of young Canadians. We need to express those views and the views of Canadians on this issue before the principle of the bill is adopted.
To limit that debate is to permit in effect taxation without effective and adequate representation. One of the fundamental functions for which Parliament was created was specifically to constrain arbitrary taxation and actions by the executive.
One further piece of reference for your consideration was referred to by the hon. member. On April 14, 1987 Speaker Fraser felt it necessary to make this comment to the House on this very same issue:
It is essential to our democratic system that controversial issues should be debated at reasonable length so that every reasonable opportunity shall be available to hear the arguments pro and con and that reasonable delaying tactics should be permissible to enable opponents of a measure to enlist public support for their point of view.
Speaker Fraser felt that the Speaker had a role to play in these matters. He made this statement as a result of protest from the opposition. Ironically one of the most vocal opponents to this abuse at that time was the very minister who has given notice and intends to close off debate on Bill C-2 after only eight hours of debate on the very first bill to hit this floor, a bill that is over 100 pages long and extremely technical and a bill that happens to have attached to it a schedule which imposes a payroll tax rise of 73% on millions of Canadians and employers.
The debate has only just begun and we are confident that a reasonable debate will enlist public support for our point of view and that of taxpayers and young Canadians who have little or no voice in this debate.
As Speaker Fraser said, it is essential to our democratic system, and therefore essential for you, Mr. Speaker, to protect the opposition and delay even for one day the government from moving to close off debate in this manner.