Mr. Speaker, normally when I rise to my feet I say it is a pleasure to address the House. While it is a privilege today it is not particularly a pleasure that we have to debate this motion, but debate it we must at this time. Before I start I would like to mention that I am splitting my time with the member for St. Albert.
So far the speakers I have heard have skirted the real issue we are debating today. I do not really believe that the members did not like your ruling because of the confidentiality issue that is in the motion. I do not think that is it at all, because we dealt with the same issue back in the previous parliament when the member for Yorkton—Melville brought forward almost an identical concern of confidentiality of legislative council. He brought it to the attention of the House at some length in a detailed presentation to the Speaker. At that time there was a ruling on that, and I did not see any of the Bloc members rising up in arms over it. You dealt with it, Mr. Speaker, gave it a ruling and we moved on.
I still believe we need to address the issue of confidentiality. I believe we need a change in the standing orders but that can be done and should be done in committee. It should be brought back for all of us to agree to, and I think we can do that readily.
It is not really about the confidentiality issue. It is not because the clerks and the staff have not done their jobs properly. In my opinion they have done what they have been doing as long as I have been here, since 1993 certainly. They have consistently served the House with incredible professionalism. I say that as someone who came here in 1993, not knowing what to expect but has been consistently pleased and honoured to be able to work with the clerks and the staff of this place. It is not about them in my opinion at all.
It is not because question period has become unruly and the ministers have quit giving answers or anything like that, although that is true. It is not about the unruliness of the place at all.
I would argue we are here because parliament is becoming increasingly dysfunctional and increasingly irrelevant because of the actions of the government. That is what this is about. No one from the Bloc has mentioned it, but this comes the day after Bill C-20 was pushed through the House in what I think was a very undemocratic manoeuvre by the government. That is what we are talking about today. This is a response to the frustration felt by opposition parties in this place. I believe, although I do not have inside knowledge of their meetings, that is what this is all about.
To summarize just briefly, I believe there are three things that make this place tick. The first is that partly we run this place based on the rules. We have rule books. We have Beauchesne's, the standing orders and the new book of Canadian parliamentary rules put together by our clerks. In part it is the rules that make this place work. We respect the rules. We interpret the rules. It is part of what makes the House of Commons work well.
Second, this place is built on goodwill and honourable agreements between men and women of this place. That is why, Mr. Speaker, you consistently rule when someone stands in their place and says something that you take them at their word, as you have to, as you must, as we all must. That is the only way the place functions.
We function on the honour system. We come together, whether it be in this place or in your chambers or in another room, and come to an agreement on how we are going to proceed. All the rules in the world cannot cover all the eventualities so we work together as honourable people should. That is the second thing we do and have to do.
The third thing, and the reason we are in this debate today, is that the government has an obligation to govern. It has been elected to do that, and I give it that. It also has an obligation to respect the rights and minority rights of the smaller opposition parties in the House of Commons. It has consistently failed to do that. It is out of that frustration that this motion is before us today.
I could speak at great length on this issue, but in the short time available to me I will go to the immediate past history. I think of last fall during the debate on the Nisga'a agreement where time allocation was brought in at every stage, restricting our ability and the rights of the opposition parties to debate and bring their concerns forward on one of the most important agreements in Canadian history.
To get back to the honourable agreement idea, we were finally able to push the government to agree to have the committee travel. It was not going to travel at all. When we finally got out in the field we found out that the witnesses we expected at those committees were all flown in from hundreds of miles away to stack the committee to make sure that opposition voices and points of view were not heard. That started to build the frustration.
We are at a record setting level of time allocation rage that this government is on. By far it exceeds what happened in the Brian Mulroney government. It has been 63 times that we have had either time allocation or closure motions since the government took office just over five years ago. It was 66 times in the entire 10 years that the Tories held office. This motion is before us today in response to the frustration of not letting us debate this stuff. That is a shame because the target in my opinion is totally wrong.
I think of the two most important bills that the government has tabled this year, Bill C-20 and Bill C-23. They are both important bills whether or not we agree with them. I happened to agree with Bill C-20 and voted in favour of it. Even when we try to agree with the government and work with it to advance a piece of legislation, we still say let us hear the opposition points of view. Let us bring in a good array of witnesses. Let us travel and talk to the different provincial governments on what one might argue is the most important act this parliament has ever passed on the division or separation of another province.
What happens? The government consistently brings in closure here. It brings in closure in committee. It does not allow the committee to travel. It restricts the witness list. At every stage it sticks us in the eye with a burnt stick and says “You have to do it our way. We have all of the power because we have the majority”. The frustration level continues to build because of that.
How can an opposition party do its job when at every stage, whether in this place or in a supposedly independent committee, the government uses its majority to tell the minority parties that have opposition views or contrary views that not only will they not carry the day, which is one thing, but that it will not even listen to them. That frustration level is exactly why we are debating this motion today, Mr. Speaker. It is not about you, as far as I am concerned. I am going to vote against this motion, gladly. It is not about you doing your job, Mr. Speaker. It is a response. This is the climactic moment of a series of arrogant Liberal government moves which have restricted the ability of opposition parties to do their work. It is because of that, sadly, that we are here today.
I do not agree with the motion and I wish we were not debating it, but I know full well what it is about, and no one should kid themselves. It is not about you, Mr. Speaker. It is not about your consistency in the job. It is not about that at all. It is in absolute hand-wringing frustration of trying to deal with this government.
What happens in committees? Forty per cent of the committee reports that are supposedly drafted in committee are released to the press before they come to the House. We have been on our feet many times about that. We may as well read the whole budget in the press before it comes to the House. Legislation is given to other people before it comes to the House.
Time and again we see the House, this parliament, treated as a second-rate institution instead of the first-rate institution it should be. Instead of treating MPs with dignity and the House with dignity, the government asks if it can get a media spin out of something. Can it force something through with its majority? It is a shame.
The other bill is Bill C-23. It is another important bill, whether we agree with it or oppose it. Why has the government restricted the debate? Why has it restricted the witnesses? Why has it refused to travel? Why? Because it does not tolerate opposition views.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, you will remember that saying of people who have died in defence of the theory “I may not agree with your point of view, but I will die defending the right for you to make it”. That is what is wrong with this place. It is not you, Mr. Speaker. It is not the staff. It is not the legislative counsel. It is a government that has consistently refused to listen to other points of view and give the minority parties, who represent over 50% of Canadians, the chance to make those points known.