Mr. Speaker, I appreciate people coming in to listen to these important speeches.
My colleague from the Conservative Party and my colleague from the NDP made some excellent points as to why we should support Motion No. 8. My fellow colleagues from the Reform Party did likewise. It is important that members hear the arguments as to why we should and should not do something in the House. It would be different if they paid close attention and started listening to what these individuals finish saying and why we should support these things. We would be a lot better off in this place.
I am here likewise to support Group No. 4, Motion No. 8. The motion amends clause 12 of Bill C-3 regarding regulations. Clause 12 now reads that the “governor in council may make regulations for carrying out the purposes and provisions of this act”. There is no statutory requirement for the regulations to be laid before parliament or the appropriate committee for review. This amendment will ensure that members of parliament are provided the opportunity to review the regulations made by the governor in council.
Bill C-68, the firearms legislation, has an identical section as the one proposed in this particular amendment. Although we support this amendment, given the need for the regulations to be scrutinized by the appropriate committee, we know from experience with Bill C-68 last November and in February 1997 that the committee just goes through the motions. All Reform amendments to these regulations were defeated by the Liberal members of the committee.
It amazes me that they feel that these regulations do not have to be scrutinized by parliament. I want to repeat that. I am amazed that there are people here who represent Canadians and who feel that regulations of this nature do not have to be scrutinized by parliament. What are members of parliament sent here for if it is not for something like that and particularly that, to scrutinize the regulations in the bills that are presented before the House.
The government has become such a dictatorship that it feels it can usurp parliament and its function. How can a law be enacted that will not be monitored? It is an absolute shame that time and time again all we do is go through the motions.
A majority of members in the House of Commons, mainly on the government side, go through the motions. They just do not pay attention and do not care. Whatever the lead sheep tells them to do they will jump up, bow down and do as they are told. That is not the way it ought to be but unfortunately it is. Maybe it is party politics or dedication to a leader: whatever I say you shall do. When will they rise to their feet when they have the opportunity to represent the voice of Canadians?
The DNA bill is one of the greatest things that could be available to our police departments to provide the kind of protection society needs, deserves and wants. However they will not support an amendment that states we should scrutinize these regulations and monitor them as elected people. According to that side of the House we do not have to do that. We simply take the orders in council and whatever they say we shall do. That should come to an end.
Members on that side of the House who cannot support a motion that states the people of the country would be far better represented by doing those kinds of things needs to take a good long look at themselves and ask why they are here. Is it for themselves? Is it for the party they represent or is it for the Canadian people? If it is not the Canadian people they should resign and go home.
I ask them to support Motion No. 8.