Debates of Feb. 27th, 2001

Standing Orders

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

It was even more than 60 times.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

—or 17.4% of the time, which is almost double. The hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes tells me that it was more than 60 times—

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

It was around 70 times.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

—because it happens regularly, on a weekly basis.

My Latin teacher used to say tempus fugit, time flies. Since you are signalling that I have only one minute left, I simply want to conclude on this: What power will the opposition have if it has increasingly less access to the parliamentary tools that are necessary to the expression of a true democracy? How will opposition members be able to protect the fundamental interests of their fellow citizens?

From the moment that a government stops listening to the public and adopts a piecemeal approach based on a strictly partisan agenda that takes into account only the interests of a few, all our institutions lose their meaning.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Oxford.

I would like to first begin by actually congratulating the member opposite for his impassioned remarks, because I think this is an important debate and I am very sensitive to the fact that opposition members always have reason to fear that their rights to a fair hearing in the House of Commons must be protected and guaranteed.

Having said that, I do not think the amendment that is being debated right now actually constructively adds to the original motion, because I point out, Mr. Speaker, that the original motion gives you, Mr. Speaker, the opportunity to interpret what the words unnecessarily prolong mean.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, in my view, if you really felt it was of interest to protect the opposition or minority rights in the House of Commons, you could decide that if the opposition felt in order to make a statement they had to move a series of amendments for debate, if you felt that was in the interests of the Commons at large and the debate at large, you could so rule, so I really do not see the amendment as constructively adding to the main motion.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to speak in this debate because I am very, very sensitive to the need to preserve the rights of backbench MPs on this side and opposition MPs on that side, the rights, Mr. Speaker, to move amendments of substance or even, Mr. Speaker, substance is of course, shall we say, something that one decides subjectively.

However, I think it is very important that MPs retain the right to move amendments that they believe in, even if those amendments do not succeed, that may make a statement with respect to how those members individually or collectively feel about legislation.

I have to say that I have availed myself of report stage amendments on a number of occasions knowing full well that I could not proceed with my ideas with respect to the legislation at hand through the committee process.

For the benefit of people who may be watching the debate, they should understand that after second reading, legislation goes to a committee, that committee hears witnesses, considers the testimony of those witnesses and then hears proposals for amendments that may come from members of that committee or from the government through solicitations to the parliamentary secretary. Those amendments are then voted upon in committee and they go forward and the government gets to decide whether or not those amendments are actually acted upon at report stage.

The problem with that system is that many of our committees are dominated by the government. It is an artifice of the way the committee structure is set up. Whether one is an opposition member of parliament or a backbench member of parliament, sometimes when we present an amendment through the committee process and it is defeated at the committee, it cannot be re-submitted at report stage.

Well the difficulty with that is that if a backbench MP or an opposition MP has an amendment, which he or she knows full well the government does not support, if he or she introduces it at the committee and it is defeated then it disappears forever.

The advantage of the report stage amendment process for a backbench MP like myself, or an opposition MP, if we know we cannot win at committee, we can submit it at report stage in the House of Commons. We then have an opportunity to rise in this place, with the amendment grouped among a number of other amendments or other motions, but we have an opportunity to rise in this place in front of all of our colleagues on both sides of the House and the public at large to speak, I like to think, with feeling to the amendment that we know full well will be defeated.

I never tire of saying in this House that this House is not just about passing legislation, winning or losing, voting or not voting. This House is about debate and about presenting ideas. I think the public gets dreadfully discouraged if it does not hear valid debate not only from the opposition but from the backbench MPs on this side.

I have to commend the government House leader for the type of motion he has put forward now because I believe other speakers have alluded to the fact that the House leader did present, about a year ago, amendments along this line to report stage proceedings pertaining to vexatious or frivolous amendments that were of such a nature that many of the members on this side of the House could not accept it.

I think the members opposite should know that when that occurred many of us on this side expressed our feelings to the government House leader in the strongest possible terms. In other words, we said that we would not support the proposal he had before the House. The government accepted the resistance that came from this side and the result is the proposal that the government House leader has now before the House.

I would like to say that I ultimately have no problem whatsoever with opposition members trying to prolong debate at report stage in order to make a point about legislation that they do not agree with.

During the debate about the clarity bill, for example, in which there were about 100 amendments, if not more, that were presented by the opposition, and many of them definitely of a frivolous nature, I had no problem with the fact that the House sat late, sat into the middle of the night, because if I sat here into the middle of the night, the opposition members sat into the middle of the night as well. When it comes down to defending government legislation that I believe in, I am willing to sit in my place as long as it will take and I am prepared to out sit, if need be, any member of the opposition who wants to make a point in this particular way.

Ultimately I did not have a lot of problem with what the opposition was doing from time to time by moving multiple amendments that were, shall we say, of a frivolous nature. The problem, and I think this is where the government House leader has a real point, is the optics to the public out there when they see amendments that basically are the moving of a comma, the changing of a little bit of grammar. The optics is such that I am afraid that members of the public would lose confidence that this House is really undertaking serious business, even though I would agree that the opposition ought to have as many opportunities as possible to make points even if it is by filibuster or by prolonging debate.

That having been said, I do feel that what the government House leader has done by moving this particular motion, which devolves upon you, Mr. Speaker, enormous opportunities, if not power, of interpretation and the reason why I was so keen to speak in this debate, and, Mr. Speaker, I am speaking directly toward you, and I hope you are giving me 100% of your attention, the reason why I am speaking directly toward you and seeking your attention, Mr. Speaker, is because I am hoping that you will appreciate that when you interpret this amendment that is proposed by the government House leader you will interpret it only in ways that defend the rights of backbench MPs and the rights of opposition MPs to move amendments of substance at report stage.

It is a subjective call on your side, Mr. Speaker. I am glad that you are giving me such rapt attention because of course I am trying to make a dreadfully important point. I just wanted to make sure you were with us there, Mr. Speaker. I have full confidence that you will interpret this, and I want to stress that I only support this motion from the government on condition that when you interpret it you interpret it in terms of the minority rights, the rights of free expression, the rights of state position that has to be a part of being a backbench MP, or being an opposition MP.

That having been said, I think that the government House leader has done something that I know the opposition members would find hard to credit, but I can assure them that there was great objection to the original proposal on this side. The government did concede that it was going too far. It has come up, I think, with a compromise. I really do not think it is necessary because I do not mind if the opposition wants to use up House time. I am conscious of the fact though that the optics would be improper and I will always bow to the government when it has a proposal that I think is reasonable and that is ultimately in the interest of the House at large.

But I end with one caution because the member for Oxford wants to speak very shortly. I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that whatever you do, you must protect the rights of the backbench MPs and the opposition MPs to have their say in debate on legislation at report stage.

[John Finlay, Liberal, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the motion deals with empowering you and your assistants to rule on repetitious, frivolous and vexatious amendments at report stage.

I listened to my colleagues this afternoon and evening and found myself agreeing with many points made by some of the members opposite, particularly the member for Winnipeg—Transcona and the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

We could have a committee to review the democratic purposes and actions of the House of Commons. This could be done, but that is not what we are voting on tonight. We are voting on a way of preventing amendment abuse and hence voting abuse.

I was involved with the Nisga'a agreement and the work on the bill by the committee on Indian affairs and northern development.

I remind the House that the Nisga'a worked on that bill for 500 years. Chief Gosnell worked on it for 21 years and Frank Calder worked on it for life. This government and previous governments worked on it for some 20 or 30 years. In the last 11 years we finally got an agreement. To have that agreement held up for 42 hours while we voted in the House on frivolous, vexatious and repetitious amendments was terribly disheartening to me, and I am sure to the Nisga'a who watched. It did nothing for public perception.

People have made much of the fact that the public did not understand that waste of time, that waste of talent, that waste of effort. I do not either. We have a committee system that works. It involves witnesses. It involves travel if necessary. It involves all parties in the committee working toward a common end. It is one of the things I enjoy most about being here and working with my colleagues. Sometimes things go awry between committee stage and the House but not always.

Report stage allows motions from members who are not on the committee and have not had a chance to make an amendment, but it is not designed to allow games to be played with the work that has been done by serious parliamentarians. Endless voting on frivolous, vexatious and repetitious amendments is not productive of anything but cynicism, ennui and disrespect.

The member for Winnipeg North waxed eloquent about closure, which is not what we are talking about. The heart of the matter is how we develop good laws for Canadians. Some members opposite talk of overall change, closure, the auditor general's report, et cetera. Somehow they forget that we have just had an election based on party platforms, based on the country's choices for the future.

My colleague from Waterloo—Wellington talked about the development of parliamentary democracy. He suggested it was a slow but steady process. It is adaptive to new technological challenges and social changes. It did not burst full blown from the brow of Zeus or the brow of Simon de Montfort. It developed gradually, haltingly.

There were big steps like the Magna Carta and the Reform Act of the 17th century. There were a lot of little steps day by day. We are taking one of those little steps hopefully tonight and saying that we went too far in this direction. We have to change. We have to come back to the centre and do the right thing. Amendments at report stage were not intended to get us into that kind of trouble.

It has worked because Canada has just been voted for the eighth year as the best country in the world in which to live. That is pretty good.

There is another saying many people use around here and that is “if it ain't broke don't fix it”. The committee system is not broken. Having bills go through at least three stages is good. Our voting system is good and our timing for speeches seems to work. The nonsense of wasting time on silly amendments is not productive, sensible or defensible by any member who thinks his work is useful to his constituents and his country.

Most members have all had experience in many organizations and how they run. We have had experience in motion making, in elections and in amendments. Personally I started at about age 10 with a neighbourhood stamp club among my boyhood chums. We had elections. Minutes were kept. We prepared an agenda. We even had a stamp evaluation committee.

From there I went to cubs, a scout leader, patrol leader, the university student union as a director and a member, staff president at the high school, union president, the hospital board and a lot of other social organizations, and now here. My colleague from Winnipeg South made a great deal of sense. He concentrated on the point of the motion before us: the achievement.

Let me conclude by saying that we should focus on the motion and pass it. It is a festering sore which we can eliminate tonight and then get on with future improvements to our parliamentary system.

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, before I start I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Fraser Valley. It is not that I really like it but he came up with an excellent proposal so I must give him time.

I listened to the member for Mississauga West a little while ago. When I looked at my watch and saw the time I thought it was past his bedtime because he was slipping. He was trying to tell Canadians, with his bellowing, booming voice, that this amendment was great. He was saying that the Alliance had taken its supply day motion exactly from the red book. The member was defending it and saying that the Liberals had fulfilled their red book promise. Can hon. members believe that? He said that there was an ethics counsellor, forgetting that the ethics counsellor reports to the Prime Minister and not to parliament as was promised in the red book. The member had the guts to stand over there and say that they have fulfilled the red book promise. That is why I thought it was past his bedtime.

The essence of the motion is about parliament, the voice of the people. In the House democracy works for the government and for the opposition. People who disagree with the government have a voice through the opposition. From what we have seen over the years, our voices have been silenced by procedures, manoeuvres and all the power of the majority government. Opposition parties have eventually had to resort to narrower ways and means of taking their message to the public.

The Liberals stand over there and say that the amendments are not changes but they will not say exactly what the opposition, the other voice in parliament, is trying to do. The opposition is trying to get the message out to the public about what is happening in the House, and its voice is being silenced.

The Canadian Alliance and my colleague from Fraser Valley have put forward proposals on the reform of the House. The whole purpose of the reform is to have a sound, reasonable debate. The other voice can be heard as well, not only the voice of the government.

My colleagues on the other side have said that there are committees where the opposition can debate the issues of the day. We all know that they were in opposition before 1993. They should know very well that those committees are totally ineffective. We have been there.

This is my second term. I have been here for three and a half years. I have never seen the government listen to a committee. It does not. Committees are nice. Committees are a very nice way for the government to deflect criticism of what it wants to do.

The government says a matter is going to a committee. It goes to a committee and when it comes back it is up to the minister and up to the government whether or not it wants to take a committee's recommendation. We are finding that most of the time it is not.

Where is the voice of the opposition, the voice of the other side, the voice of the people who elected us to speak in the House? We stand here and debate, but what happens? Nothing.

The motion, quite interestingly, says the government wants to be guided by the practices followed in the house of commons in the United Kingdom. Of course we all know it is the mother of all parliaments and that would be nice. However other practices are followed in that house which give a voice to the other side as well. A balanced voice is heard in that house, but not here. Here the government picks only what suits it so that it can ram through whatever it wants and forget about what the other voices are saying.

When the immigration minister said the Alliance Party attracted bigots, racists and Holocaust deniers, who was she talking about? Millions of people voted for our party. Was she talking about them?

Is that the respect the government has for other Canadians? Can it not respect the views of the opposition and other Canadians? It cannot. This motion is another example of the attitude that the government has of ramming things through.

We agree that to vote on 3,000 amendments would take a long time. The Speaker will still have some discretion over that. It is not the amendments we are worried about. It is the method of getting the message out. That is what is called democracy.

It is no wonder Canadians are losing confidence in the House. It is interesting that the members on the other side know that and allude to it. The member for Mississauga West referred this evening to one of his constituents. He claims it was a constituent but I doubt if it was a constituent; it was probably a family member who said “I hate all politicians except you”. It was probably a family member who said that, but the point is that Canadians are losing confidence in the House because debate is curtailed. They see the power of the government, the dictatorial power of the government, and their inability to effect any change in the House.

Then we start seeing little flames of separatism. We do not support them at all but those sentiments start to come out. I hope they do not become big sentiments but that is where they start.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said it was blackmail. It is not blackmail. People are trying to find ways and means of saying what they want to say and having someone listen. If we do not listen, people will find other means to make us listen. That is what the amendments are all about.

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the motion although it is not a pleasure for any of us to be here late this evening. Once again we are speaking about what the government is about and how it has found another way to curtail the legitimate role of opposition members within the House.

It is moving again to restrict the ability of opposition members to slow down the work of government, a role that both Beauchesne's and Marleau and Montpetit have said is a legitimate role for opposition parties. Once again it will remove, after tonight's vote, our ability to hold up government legislation and to make the public aware of opposition points of view on contentious legislation.

I would like you to remember, Mr. Speaker the challenge I gave you the first time the government used time allocation or restricted debate in this session. I argued with you at that time that somewhere along the line you would have to step in between the government and the legitimate role of opposition to allow the opposition to do its role.

This is the 70th time that the government has restricted debate in the House. It is always offensive, but to use closure to force changes to the standing orders is not just offensive. It is inexcusable. The present minister of public works said in 1991:

The government claims that the proposed changes to the standing orders will make the proceedings more relevant and increase the efficiency of the House.

Does that sound familiar? Have we heard that all evening long from across the way? Do they say it will make it more efficient? I will go on:

First of all, we must realize that this is being proposed by the very government that applied closure 13 times and time allocation 8 times. How can we seriously take a proposal to improve the efficiency of the House made by a government which, in the past, showed contempt for the Standing Orders of this House?

The minister of public works was complaining about a government that had abused time allocation and closure 21 times. He found that offensive in the extreme. The same member is now part of a government that has used time allocation and closure 70 times to shut down debate in this place, not 21.

He should be ashamed of his House leader. He should be ashamed of the way the Prime Minister runs this place. The fact that he is not ashamed shows that Lord Acton still lives. If power corrupts, the power concentrated in the Prime Minister's Office now is so absolutely corrupt that we cannot tell the difference.

I have listened to talk about spurious and vexatious amendments. Let us talk about the spurious and vexatious arguments made on that side of the House. I have heard that we cannot make changes unless we do it all at once. First I heard that we had to do it piecemeal. This is just one step.

Why is it that every time the government makes one step it always strengthens the executive's hand? Why is it that every time it shuts down debate it strengthens the government's hand?

It restricts the list of witnesses and it strengthens the government's hand. It does not allow a free vote in committee to elect a chairman. Why? It is because it strengthens the government's hand. Why is it that the whip will come in at the last minute and take members off a committee who have sat on it faithfully for months? When the vote comes, it brings in the trained seals and they vote. Why? It is because it strengthens the government's hand, the executive's hand, time and time again.

Somewhere, sometime I am convinced that unless you, Mr. Speaker, step into the breach and stop this from continuing, the question will not be should we sit on Fridays, which some people might ask. The big question will be: Why sit at all? I said this in an article today which was printed in The National Post . Why sit at all if the government treats this place with contempt? Every time it gets an opportunity it makes an announcement, not here in the House but anywhere other than in this place.

We asked the Speaker in the last parliament time and again how the government could make multimillion, sometimes billion dollar announcements and treat this place like it did not matter. The then Speaker admonished the government not to do this. He said that it was treating this place with disrespect and should not do it.

However, what happens? Guess. The next time an announcement comes along the government treats this place like it is irrelevant and just goes about its business.

You, Mr. Speaker, have to step in and stop it. Somewhere you are going to have to flex some muscles.

The important thing to remember is that the government is closing off the ability for opposition parties to bring forward amendments and the question that has to be asked is this: why have the opposition members felt compelled to bring in so many amendments?

I will tell you why, Mr. Speaker. Because when we get into committee, guess what happens to our witness list. The witness list is tossed aside like trash. Only government members are allowed to come in on this.

On the Nisga'a agreement, they went out to British Columbia supposedly to talk to the people. They would not listen to the Indian bands that had counterclaims on that same Nisga'a land. They would not even listen to them. They flew in witnesses from Vancouver to that committee. They would not listen to witnesses from Prince George, from Prince Rupert and from neighbouring Indian bands. They would not listen to them and they shut down the debate in the committee. They would not allow us to continue the debate there.

The government brought back the bill to the House. It used closure in committee. It restricted our witnesses. It restricted our ability to bring things to the House. When push came to shove, what happened? The government used its authority to again shut down the debate in this place, which should be a debating Chamber. The government shut it down and that is inexcusable. The government has shut it down 70 times.

Do you know what happens, Mr. Speaker, when the government treats this place with contempt—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. I know all hon. members want to hear the hon. member for Fraser Valley. It is hard to hear when everybody is yelling.

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

What happens, Mr. Speaker, when the government shuts down debate, which it has now done 70 times? Governments have fallen by shutting down debate. We remember the pipeline debate, when it used to be a heinous crime to shut down debate in this place, but what happens here now?

On the first bill that came to the House in this session, the government shut down the debate. We hit the second day of debate and the government shut it down. It brought in time allocation. It said that we could not speak about it any more. Why? It had to get the bill into committee. The only problem was that the committees did not exist yet. The government shut down debate so it could do what with it, just hold it in abeyance and wait for what, an epiphany? What was it waiting for? Was it waiting for a road to Damascus experience? It did nothing with it.

The government is so addicted to shutting down debate. The government is so afraid of other points of view that it shut down the debate when there was not even a reason to shut it down. There was not even a committee to send it to. We were on the second day of debate and the government shut it all down in this place. The government members said they did not want to listen to anybody on the other side of the House. They said “Anybody who disagrees with us is irrelevant. This House is irrelevant”.

What happens then? Opposition parties find ways to make themselves heard. They have to. Our job is to legitimately oppose the government. Rather than let us have a reasonable amount of time to debate, rather than let us have a reasonable number of witnesses, rather than let us work in committee and give and take and make amendments and so on, what happens? The government sends its parliamentary secretaries into committees to say, “This is what you shall do in committee. This is what you shall allow for amendments. This is what you shall permit to go through the system”.

That is what the government does instead of give and take, instead of debate, instead of amendments, instead of making legislation better and listening to a point of view that the government maybe has not thought of. The government never does that even when it could and it would not hurt a bit. It is not even part of the government's agenda or even part of the throne speech. The government will not listen to an opposing point of view.

When this idea came forward to give you the power, Mr. Speaker, to restrict the number of amendments that could come forward at report stage, I spoke to the government House leader. I said that if we were going to do that, then let us go the rest of the way, like the United Kingdom has done. It is even quoted in the motion. Let us talk about some of the other things. Let us then allow the Speaker to intervene when, in the Speaker's opinion, the debate has not gone on long enough. Let us allow the Speaker to intervene when he thinks the rights of minorities have been unfairly afflicted. Let the Speaker have some real power to intervene, not just against the opposition but on behalf of minority parties so minority views come forward.

However, none of that happened. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because time and again, every amendment to the standing orders, to the rules of the House and to the way we do business in this place strengthens the hand of the executive on that side and every single time it weakens both the backbench on that side and opposition parties on this side.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for you to intervene and to use the influence of your office to say that you will have debate in this place. You were elected, Sir, to give us fair debate, a lot of debate, and opposing points of view have to be listened to.

Mr. Speaker, if you continue to allow the government to go down this path of treating this place like a second rate House instead of the first rate House of debate it should be, not only will we continue to have a Canadian electorate that finds us increasingly irrelevant but members of the House will find it so as well. That would be the ultimate shame of allowing these kinds of motions to continue to pass in the House.

[Gar Knutson, Liberal, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise and make my maiden speech in this 37th parliament.

Before I get into the gist of what I want to say, I want to commend the previous speaker. I think he articulates a point of view very logically and very forcefully. I agree that the opposition certainly should be concerned about the powers of the government.

We work in a system that gives tremendous power to the Prime Minister and to the government. If my colleagues across the way had bothered at some point to take a first year political science course, they would know that is part of our system. We should have a debate as to whether it is an appropriate system. It is not a function of the Prime Minister's personality. It is not a function of this particular Prime Minister. It is a function of our rules. There are certain advantages to those rules.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague reminds me that I am splitting my time with the member for Scarborough—Rouge River.

I point out to my hon. friends across the way that we should have a debate about whether our parliament, our rules and our system are serving the needs of the country in the 21st century.

I was scheduled today to speak on the endangered species bill. That was scheduled to be my maiden speech. I much would have preferred to be talking about a substantive issue like endangered species or the environment. As well, I watched the news tonight and we have bad economic news. I would much rather be debating the economy or a variety of other issues that are pressing on Canadians.

Instead we are talking about the rights of a Speaker to enforce the rules. We are talking about whether it is appropriate for opposition parties to tie up the House of Commons for three, four, five or six days by debating whether to move a comma to another line or change a period into a semicolon. We are talking about the most trivial, vexatious and frivolous amendments. This is the right that the opposition wants to hold on to.

If we read the motion that is put forth it says:

For greater clarity, the Speaker will not select for debate a motion or series of motions of a repetitive, frivolous or vexatious nature—

Nothing in the wording of this motion will prevent the opposition from putting forward hundreds of substantive amendments. However, they are going to have to be substantive amendments, not the silly amendments we had in the last parliament. They will have to be about ideas. We could have a debate about ideas, not about personalities. We could have a serious debate over the coming months about parliamentary reform.

Let us leave the accusations about whether we are puppets or they are puppets. Let us talk about how we make the system work. We are in the 21st century. Let us talk about how we make it better for Canadians. That does not include, I am sorry to say, three, four, five or six days or longer of simply debating whether a comma should be moved. I am sorry, but that is not what Canadians sent us here to do. It is not why I was elected.

My constituents want me to concentrate on substantive issues. They want me to concentrate on issues that matter to them, such as whether the air they breathe is clean or whether their jobs will be safe. They do not want us to concentrate on this nonsense.

I think this is a perfectly legitimate motion. All it does is tell the Speaker to enforce the rules. If we want to have a debate about changing the rules, then let us do that as well.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few remarks tonight before we reach the end of our time. I thought the quality of the debate tonight was rather good and I think most of us have had a chance to share our views on the issue in front of us.

I want to address what I think is a bit of historical perspective on this: how we got here from there and why we are dealing with this particular rule change. I want to suggest that it really is not much of a rule change at all. I am sure all members have read the existing rule, which says very clearly that the Speaker “shall have the power to select amendments to be proposed at report stage”.

Mr. Speaker, you already have the power to select amendments at report stage. The problem is that the Speaker is not selecting amendments at report stage. The Speaker will group them for a vote or group them for debate, but the Speaker is not selecting.

Why is the Speaker not selecting now? The Speaker is not selecting now because 20 or 30 years ago a Speaker decided that he or she would not do any selection. As the practice evolved, we ended up with many amendments. The Speaker still did not select proposed amendments, and we ended up in this box at the present time where we have 400, 500 or 3,000 amendments, as the Speaker was not using the power that he or she had under the existing rules. This could keep us voting for days or even weeks solid, 24 hours a day. The House went through this a year or two ago and it was clear to all members that we could not continue this.

So we may ask ourselves, if the Speaker already has the power to select amendments for debate, which means excluding proposed amendments, why do we have to move this little change to the rules? The reason, I believe, is that the Speaker felt boxed in by the previous evolving practice and did not want to make a move to alter what had been an evolution of the practice.

During one of the marathon voting nights that occurred in the House, during the clarity bill, I believe, a year or two ago, I happened to be in Westminster. I felt perhaps fortunate not to be here at that time. I was in the U.K. parliament. When word of this marathon voting procedure came up over there, MPs and clerks there asked me what was happening. They did not understand. Even I could not understand. I could not explain to them how our House had allowed this procedure to evolve to the point where we could have 10,000 report stage amendments. There was no restriction in our rules. Over time, Speakers simply appear to have accepted that it did not matter whether there was 1 amendment or 100 or 1,000 or perhaps even 10,000.

At that point I inquired into the U.K. situation. Normally under rules similar to our own and a practice similar to ours, which says that the Speaker shall select for debate, the Speaker purges all amendments that may be described as frivolous, vexatious, repetitive or unnecessarily prolonging the process.

All we have done here is propose for greater clarity for the Speaker a rule of thumb that will allow him or her finally to select on a basis that will exclude the frivolous, the vexatious or the unduly prolonging.

The opposition thinks it is being prevented from doing that. I—

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Given that the hon. member opposite, the parliamentary secretary, has in essence outlined how the Speaker feels and how the Speaker has pronounced on this issue already, and knowing that this certainly is not common, I would suggest that this is highly inappropriate. The Speaker is certainly in a position to speak for himself. Although that is not common practice, perhaps the Speaker would like to speak to this issue himself.

[The Speaker]

I appreciate the very kind thoughts of the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. I think he knows that the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River really meant the speakership because certainly this Speaker would not have any opinion whatever on a subject like this one.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, opposition members say that they have been restricted in some way, precluded from doing things that they feel they should be able to do in their role in opposition. There is a role for opposition.

Let us just say tonight that all the opposition parties are doing a good job being the opposition. However what they are being prevented from doing under the rule is being repetitive, frivolous and vexatious in unnecessarily prolonging debate. I do not think the rule change is particularly momentous or onerous.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

The party at the end of the House is now interested in the debate. It is nice to see them participating at this point.

Let me close by saying that the rule change is not much of a rule change at all. It does not give the Speaker any more power than the Speaker already has. It is simply gives direction to the Speaker to do what the Speaker perhaps should have been doing all along but has not been for reasons of evolving practice in this place.

I can only think that a Speaker would be glad, fortunate and pleased to have this kind of direction from all members of the House.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before coming here, I was wondering what the government was trying to do exactly with this motion and why it has come to the point where it wants to impose this kind of motion upon the opposition.

I think the House of Commons is about to vote on a very serious issue tonight. The members opposite seem to change their tune depending on which side of the House they are sitting. I remember clearly that, when they were on this side of the House, they used to cry bloody murder every time the Conservative government invoked closure or used its majority to impose its will.

Before voting on this motion, members must ask themselves the following question: did the opposition go too far?

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

The government House leader is applauding like a five year old. He may very well do that tonight.

Did the opposition bring parliament to a halt? Did it go too far in the use of the legislative and procedural tools? That is the question we must ask ourselves before voting tonight.

If there is a group of persons who went too far in the use of the legislative tools at their disposal, it is the government members. They went too far in the use of closure or time allocation, for example.

I am sure members will remember the rat pack, when the Liberals were in opposition, how they criticized the government. Today, one of these individuals is the government House leader, and he is proud of what he is doing. It is undemocratic.

If we look at the statistics, we see that the Conservative government limited debate 49 times on a total of 519 bills. Over a shorter period, the Liberal government opposite did that 17.9% of the time on a total of 350 bills. Is this what we can expect from a responsible government?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

We are a responsible government, unlike you.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

I hear the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs say the government is responsible because it is gagging the opposition. In gagging the opposition, it is also gagging democracy. Does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs think this is a responsible government? I understand he is the best liked minister in Quebec as well.

Why is the motion today, and I think it must be read, borrowing from the United Kingdom's house of commons? Even though we have a British history, the United Kingdom's house of commons does not have the same legislation as we have.

Before speaking, I was wondering. The government wants to gag the opposition, because we are doing our job. Yes, I plead guilty to bringing forward 3,000 amendments on a bill. Once again, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is applauding.

If I brought forward 3,000 amendments on the young offenders bill, it is because, in Quebec, no one wants the minister's bill. Thanks to my 3,000 amendments, the government did its homework even further, because it moved 170 to 200 amendments on the same bill. In some of these amendments, and I invite members to read them, it changed some commas. Are these frivolous amendments, as the motion implies?

Mr. Speaker, when you will rule on this issue, will you reject one of the government's amendments? No. The government House leader is staring at his papers, and so he should, because if I were in his shoes, I would be ashamed of doing this.

This is a strange country indeed, where the opposition can be gagged. I can be denied my constitutional rights, my freedom of speech in the House.

When it comes to the Hell's Angels, the government does not dare to do anything. They have constitutional rights. The mafia and organized crime have constitutional rights too. But members who have been democratically elected are denied these rights. It is ironic. I cannot understand how Quebec members can vote for this.

Nowadays, under the charter of rights, just about everything can be done. You can even have a website with slanderous comments. The supreme court even ruled that one can draw pornographic pictures at home if it were for personal use. That is what is called freedom of expression.

Members of the House have been given a legitimate mandate in an election. We are here to stand for our constituents. That is what I did with my 3,000 amendments to the young offenders bill. It was not a kind of power trip. I wanted to represent adequately the people of Quebec, something the ministers from Quebec are not doing at this time. They just sit on their behinds and keep an eye on their limo.

They should be supporting the Bloc Quebecois on this kind of bill, but they are not. Where are the members from Quebec in the government caucus? Where are they, when they should be standing for Quebec?

It is even worse than that. The issue today is above partisanship. It is a matter of democracy. Some day, you will be back on the opposition benches.

Where is the member for Laval West when it is time to fight for the interests of Quebec on an issue like the Young Offenders Act? She hides behind the curtains like all the ministers in the front row, like the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Where is he? Today, he will hide behind a motion in which the Liberals refer to the United Kingdom, but the United Kingdom does not have the Canadian constitution, the magnificent constitution of the best country in the world, as the Prime Minister says, with the mounted police and whatnot.

Sincerely, and I will repeat what my leader said, I do not envy your situation, Mr. Speaker, once the motion is carried. I am anxious to see what the words repetitive, frivolous and vexatious mean for you.

Was the amendment moved by the Minister of Justice to move a coma in Bill C-3 frivolous? Was that vexatious? We know that the legislator does not speak for nothing, a small comma can make a big difference in the interpretation. I do not say that the minister should not have made that change or changed words as she did. What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that you will be in a very uncomfortable position when time comes to decide what is to be considered frivolous and what is not.

Honestly, you are going to have a very hard time ruling on that. and eventually, that will turn against one person: the one in your chair.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC]

Then we'll change the Speaker.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

The member opposite just gave me an answer: we just have to change the Speaker. I have more respect for you, Mr. Speaker, than the members opposite. At the beginning of my speech, I asked a question—