Debates of Oct. 23rd, 2003

Supply

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

Mr. Speaker, more along the line of a comment, the member opposite made a suggestion that the current Prime Minister might want to sabotage the chances of his successors. I have to say that in my entire 10 years of experience under the current Prime Minister, he always, always puts the country first. He would never, ever in any sense, make things difficult for his successor if it in any way had an impact on the country.

I would point out to the member opposite that if he would make such an allusion, he should consider making a similar allusion to his former party leader and prime minister, who came under tremendous criticism from Canadians and who lost massively in the election of 1993. I do not believe for one second that that previous Conservative prime minister ever would have sabotaged the chances of the nation for his own personal animosities or personal peccadillos.

I think it was a cheap shot and the member should reconsider his remark.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will not reconsider my comments. It is there. It is seen by Canadians on a daily basis that in fact the current Prime Minister has absolutely nothing good to say with respect to the new prime minister coming in. If he did, he would quit on his own volition. He would be out of the chair once the new leader of the Liberal Party was chosen on November 15. That would be the right and honourable thing to do.

I cannot for the life of me understand why the timeline of November 15 to February has to be taken by the current Prime Minister for the transition of power. I cannot for the life of me understand that.

The prime minister elect has already had plenty of time to put into place his people, his systems, his programs and his visions. It is not going to take five months to get that in place. The only thing I can understand as to why the current Prime Minister would stay is to try to finish what he considers to be his minefield for the prime minister elect. That scares me.

I will not apologize for that, because that is a serious concern that Canadians have. Do not put into place budget constraints that we cannot deal with after the fact, after the Prime Minister has left. Do not put in policies, do not make decisions that have to be lived up to after the Prime Minister leaves office. Canadians are begging that the Prime Minister leave after the leadership convention. Make no mistake about that. I will not apologize at all for those comments.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member for Brandon—Souris, unless he is preaching for a call to the Liberal Party, would not want to let the Liberal Party off the hook. Whatever culpability the Prime Minister may have in this situation, and I am sure he is not blameless, the fact is that it is the Liberal Party that helped to create this three month period by calling a leadership convention with the full knowledge that the Prime Minister had indicated he would step down in February 2004.

I find it a little odd that anyone should be letting the Liberal Party off the hook here. It is the Liberal Party, controlled, frankly, by the member for LaSalle—Émard, which I think everyone will admit, who chose to have the convention three months before the date that they knew the Prime Minister would be stepping down.

The member might want to argue, as he seems to want to do, that the Liberal Party, having called the convention for November, should now ask the Prime Minister to bend to the will of his party, but it is the Prime Minister's party itself that put the country in this position.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as usual, my good friend, the member for Winnipeg—Transcona, makes another very valid point. He is absolutely correct.

The Liberal Party could have held this convention in February 2004 and there would not have been the concerns of the transition for that three and a half or four months. Why they did not, I do not know. There are always behind the scenes political machinations and manoeuvrability. I suspect there was some hope that had the Liberal Party made the decision to have their convention on November 15 that perhaps the Prime Minister of the day would see that as being an early exodus.

That has not happened, obviously, because of some of the reasons I have gone through in this speech. However, the member is right. The Liberal Party is to blame equally as much as the current Prime Minister is to blame in not giving way to the new leadership and allowing the prime minister elect to be answerable and accountable in the House.

[Norman E. Doyle, Progressive Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Brandon—Souris, who has quite eloquently laid out the case as to why the current Prime Minister should be leaving office and allowing the incoming prime minister to sit here and be accountable to the people of Canada.

I would like to make a few remarks on this motion by the Bloc that calls upon the Prime Minister to leave office as soon as possible after November 14. I know it must be difficult for an individual like the current Prime Minister of Canada to leave office. He has been in political life in this nation for a 40 year period. Many of us, who have had a much shorter of period of time in office, can readily understand how difficult it is to leave political life and seek another direction.

However the current Prime Minister of the country is in grave danger of destroying any legacy he might have built up over the last 40 years in office by remaining too long. I think it is safe to say that the people of Canada want the current Prime Minister to step down as quickly as possible. As a matter of fact, I recently saw a television survey rolling across the bottom of my TV screen indicating that 57% of the people of Canada feel it would be in the best interests of the country to have the current Prime Minister leave office as quickly as possible.

In our parliamentary system of government, as we all know, the Prime Minister is generally the leader of the majority party in the House of Commons. The current Prime Minister, as we are all aware, said that he would leave office in February 2004. The Liberal Party, however, decided to hold its leadership convention, as the member for Winnipeg—Transcona rightly pointed out, in November 2003.

That leaves us now in the very unique position of seeing the new leader for the Liberal Party not becoming the prime minister until some time in February, which is very inappropriate because between November 2003 and February 2004 Canada will have both a Prime Minister and a prime minister in waiting.

We have to ask ourselves if it is in the best interests of Canadians and if it is good government to have that kind of situation in our country. This country deserves better. As I said a moment ago, if the Prime Minister has any legacy to leave the people of Canada, that legacy will be destroyed if he hangs on to power too long.

Only the Liberal Party of Canada would have the monumental arrogance of foisting that kind of awkward arrangement upon the Canadian people. We have already been treated to scenes of unofficial Liberal Party caucus meetings taking place on Tuesday nights and the official Liberal Party caucus meetings taking place on Wednesday mornings like the rest of us.

Obviously the Liberal Party is so sure of its unassailable position that it can play out its internal workings on the national stage. It is not in the best interests of our country to be witnessing that kind of disagreement between the Prime Minister and the prime minister in waiting.

Simply put, the Liberal Party feels that it can play fast and loose with the parliamentary system and has absolutely no fear of retribution from the people of Canada for the actions it has taken.

As so many speakers before me have pointed out, the member for LaSalle--Émard, who will become the prime minister of Canada, should be accountable to the people of Canada after November 13. He should be in the House of Commons to be accountable and to answer questions from the various opposition parties regarding his actions when he was minister of finance.

Is it any wonder that citizens have been demanding that the various opposition parties in Parliament get their act together and present some kind of a unified alternative to the present government? What I have been hearing from my constituents all across St. John's East is that there should be a better and more unified alternative to the government. They feel that the government is becoming arrogant by the very actions it is displaying with its leadership process.

Word has it, and I think we are all aware that the word is accurate, that the House will be closing soon and we will not be called back until the new Liberal leader is ready for a throne speech and a spring budget. I am sure, as the country is sure, that a general election will soon follow after that.

However, in the interim, which is very important, the country will not get a chance to put the new prime minister to the test here in the House of Commons. We will, in effect, have two prime ministers between November and February.

The Liberals have indicated that they intend to avoid that kind of awkward arrangement by closing down the House for the period between November 7 of this year and the middle of February next year. It is unheard of that the House should be closed for that long a period of time. In the meantime, we will have two parallel administrations in place in Canada, one in the House and one behind the curtain of the House. That simply is not good enough for the people of Canada and it is not in their best interests.

Over the last number of months we have been treated to the spectacle of the Liberal Party washing its dirty linen in public. The outgoing Prime Minister and incoming prime minister have made no secret of the fact that they dislike each other. They seem to have absolutely no shame in letting their personal disputes dominate the public arena. With the two feuding, overlapping prime ministers, the Liberal Party's answer now is to wash its dirty linen in private by closing the House of Commons and not opening up again until some time in February.

I think it is fair to say that Canadians want leadership, not arrogance, from the prime minister and the majority party here in the House.

Nobody is saying that there should not be a reasonable transition period for the outgoing Prime Minister and the incoming prime minister. Given the fact that we have known for quite some time who the new prime minister will be, one would think that a period of a few weeks would be enough for the incoming administration to take office. However, what we are talking about here is a number of months, and that is not good enough.

An election was held recently in Newfoundland. There were two parties of different political stripes and the new one will be taking office. That will be done quite smoothly in a matter of probably a week or so. Since we have known for about two or three months who the incoming prime minister of Canada will be there is absolutely no reason the transition could not have taken place within a couple of weeks.

As I said, the current Liberal government does not have to worry about the niceties of governance. It feels as if it has a divine right to govern because its parliamentary opposition is so fractured and there are so many different parties. I think we will see that coming to an end fairly soon. The incoming prime minister has every reason to worry that he will have a unified opposition going into the next election.

In the meantime, I call upon the Liberal Party to treat Canadians and their parliamentary institutions with a little respect and to provide for some kind of timely transition, yes, but certainly not a two or three month period in which the nation is held to ransom by the government.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we realize that there is no legislative agenda left. There are only a few bills under consideration.

More bills may die on the Order Paper, like Bill C-38, decriminalizing marijuana, or Bill C-13, respecting assisted reproductive technologies. These bills may not be passed before the House adjourns.

It is clear that the hon. member for LaSalle-Émard is behind the scenes blocking various bills. This week, a caucus was held to discuss all these questions. Obviously, this does not allow the House to go about its business as usual. The whole parliamentary process is grinding to a halt.

With this, I would like my Conservative colleague to tell me whether he agrees that decisions are now being made outside the House, something which prevents the House from doing its work. I would also like him to tell me whether he thinks the motion moved by the Bloc is appropriate.

[Norman E. Doyle, Progressive Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I agree with the member totally and completely. The business of the nation has certainly been postponed and the business of the nation has been placed on hold while two warring factions do what they have been doing in the House of Commons. It is a very awkward arrangement for Canadians.

As I said a moment ago, this arrangement is really nothing less than having two prime ministers at the same time. It is not in the best interest of Canadians.

Therefore I think the motion is indeed an appropriate one, one which we can readily support. We feel that if the current Prime Minister would leave, then the people of Canada would have the opportunity to question and to hold accountable the real prime minister of Canada. There is absolutely no reason why that arrangement should be so difficult to come by.

Therefore, we support the motion by the Bloc and we think it is entirely appropriate that the incoming prime minister should have the opportunity to come here, lay out his own legislative agenda and be held to account by the people of Canada.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Other members may be satisfied to speak to an empty House but I am not, so I call quorum.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. The House now has its quorum. The hon. member for Winnipeg--Transcona.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thought if I were going to take the same position of the government, that some of members might want to be in the House to hear why. We can always call quorum again if we have to.

It is a very interesting situation that we find ourselves in today with the Bloc motion.

First, I want to say that we understand, from the point of view of the NDP, that one thing the Bloc is trying to point out is that the situation we find ourselves in, with the member for LaSalle--Émard being a certain successor to the Prime Minister and the fact that there is apparently going to be a three month period between when the member for LaSalle--Émard becomes the leader of the Liberal Party and when he becomes the Prime Minister, creates problems in terms of accountability. It already has in the sense that we would like to ask the member for LaSalle--Émard questions because we know he is consulting behind the scenes, sometimes not even behind the scenes, and that decisions are perhaps being made about what the future direction of his government will look like.

However it is interesting, having said that, because it is a legitimate problem, as I said earlier, that it was created not just by the Prime Minister but by the Liberal Party itself, controlled by the member for LaSalle--Émard, a party which decided to have the convention in November knowing full well that the Prime Minister was not going to resign until February. A party that had the interests of the country at heart, and not the interests of a particular leadership candidate at heart, would have said “We know what the Prime Minister wants and when he is going to resign, so we are going to have our leadership convention in February”.

One thing we find difficult about the motion is it lets the member for LaSalle--Émard off the hook, it lets the Liberal Party off the hook, and it tries to pile everything onto the Prime Minister, who no doubt is not blameless in this matter, do not get me wrong. Nevertheless, there is something fundamentally flawed about the motion because it does not take into account the role of the Liberal Party and the member for LaSalle--Émard himself.

In fact a strange thing has happened in the House today. We have all the opposition parties, with the exception of the NDP, singing from the member for LaSalle--Émard's hymn book. They are all part of the choir that says “Bring on the member for LaSalle--Émard”. It has been described as the sooner the better that we have the member for LaSalle--Émard. The member for Brandon--Souris said that we should fix the problem and bring on the member for LaSalle--Émard.

Are all these people secret members of the campaign for the leadership of the Liberal Party by the member for LaSalle--Émard? It is really kind of funny to hear all the people hailing and wanting to bring on, as soon as possible, the rein of the member for LaSalle--Émard, but we do not share this view.

We are in no rush to jump from the frying pan into the fire. We think the member for LaSalle--Émard is even more right wing than the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister himself is no left wing Liberal in many respects, although lately he has shown the odd sort of attack of progressiveness, perhaps in the absence of the influence from the member for LaSalle--Émard. Why something has happened to the Prime Minister in the last year, we attribute it in part to the fact that he is finally listening to the NDP and he is doing some things he ought to have been doing for a long time.

The fact of the matter is the member for LaSalle--Émard, the new Liberal leader, is promising the country 100 days of cuts. Perhaps I could ask about this, particularly of my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois. I can understand why members in the Canadian Alliance and the Tories, or whatever they come to call themselves, might be anxious for 100 days of cuts, because that is their view of the world: cut, cut, cut. Cutting anything that is good is good government as far as they are concerned. However I wonder why members of the Bloc are anxious to bring on 100 days of cuts.

We have a projected surplus for next year somewhere in the neighbourhood of $6 billion to $7 billion. We do not need cuts. We need that money to be spent appropriately on health care, on a new equalization formula with the provinces, on relieving student debt and on a number of other things that have been waiting the attention of the government.

As I said, we think it is like jumping from the frying pan into the fire because we know, as do so many other people, that basically the member for LaSalle--Émard is a conservative himself. He is right wing Liberal.

In fact the member for Tobique—Mactaquac said that he was not worried about the Tories and the Alliance getting together because as far as he was concerned, “Mr. Martin has impressed fiscal conservatives with his ability to slay the federal deficit”. I am just quoting from a newspaper, Mr. Speaker. I would not refer--

[The Deputy Speaker]

Let me stretch my legs a little here. The hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona, being a tremendously well experienced parliamentarian, I simply remind him that we cannot indirectly what we cannot do directly, notwithstanding the quote from any other publication or otherwise.

I think we are all referring to the member for LaSalle—Émard and not someone of the same name from another riding, of his own party for instance.

I think we should keep the reference to the member for LaSalle—Émard. I think we all understand that.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would certainly never want to do indirectly what I could not do directly. I always prefer to do it directly. You get my drift, Mr. Speaker.

It is a well known fact even on the Liberal side the member for LaSalle—Émard is a conservative, which raises the question of why there would be any need to unite the right in this country, when the right is already so well united behind the member for LaSalle—Émard.

Although, on the other hand, we see here today a new version of unite the right. We see all these other opposition parties apparently united behind the notion that the best thing that could happen for the country is for this right wing Liberal to take over the country as soon as possible. That is what I call uniting the right. It is why the NDP is not supporting the motion. It is not because we have any particular affection for the Prime Minister and his 10 years of government, the first nine of which were shared with the member for LaSalle—Émard and with which we find great fault.

We have noticed that in the last little while the Prime Minister has shown strains of something that we might want to encourage, like the idea of an independent Canadian foreign policy. Yet what has been said about the position that the Prime Minister took with respect to the war in Iraq? What has been the theme on this side of the House with a number of speakers is that we have to have the member for LaSalle—Émard quickly to repair our relationship with the United States. We have to have the member for LaSalle—Émard undo that brief shining moment of independence when Canada said no to a war on Iraq.

We have members on this side of the House, and apparently others who support the member for LaSalle—Émard, who cannot wait for the member for LaSalle—Émard to become the prime minister, so he can go down to Washington on bended knee and make up for the terrible sins of the current Prime Minister.

We do not share that view. We do not share the view that the Prime Minister has done something wrong by not allowing Canada to be involved in the war in Iraq. We agreed with him on that. We take exception to the view that this is somehow a terrible thing that the Prime Minister has done.

Are my colleagues here on the opposition side in such a hurry for the program of reform that the member for LaSalle—Émard has announced he will implement when he becomes the Prime Minister with respect to the democratic deficit? Have we spent all these years, many of us here in committee, on special committees and standing committees talking about parliamentary reform, to pretend that what the member for LaSalle—Émard is promising in terms of parliamentary reform is meaningful reform?

Have a look at what the member for LaSalle—Émard's parliamentary reform package is about. It is about 10% of what the McGrath committee recommended in 1985. It is a pale imitation of anything that has ever been recommended by any committee of this House.

It is a crime against the truth that the member for LaSalle—Émard gets to parade around the country pretending that he is the big parliamentary reform guy, when what he is proposing is just so much minutiae compared to what has been recommended over and over again by committees of the House and recommended individually by so many parties in the House.

Yet today we say bring on that minuscule reform, as if somehow that will be better for the country. Bring on the facade and bring on the scam of curing the democratic deficit. There could not be anything more undemocratic than the way the Liberal leadership itself is run, with million and millions of dollars and legitimate candidates being unable to even consider putting their names in the ring because they cannot raise that kind of money. They cannot fight that kind of money. What the heck is democratic about that? Nothing at all.

While I am on the money issue, and we are talking about the current political context here, many on this side have alluded, sometimes directly, to what is happening between the Canadian Alliance Party and the Progressive Conservative Party.

What is going on here? Some have referred to a parallel government. They do not like the fact that the member for LaSalle—Émard may be conducting a sort of parallel government.

I will tell members where the real parallel government is in this country. The parallel government, the real government, the invisible government, call it what we like, is the people who have decided that they want to bankroll a new right wing party in this country and they want it done before the end of the year, because as of January 1 they will not be able to do so. Let us not kid ourselves. On this side of the House, that is what is going on. It is not unconnected to the new regime that has been brought in with respect to campaign financing.

What else? Speaking of democracy, it is interesting to hear the member for Brandon—Souris and others in the Canadian Alliance get up and talk about democracy when it is clear that the big money on Bay Street and other places has said, “We don't care what the membership of the Progressive Conservative Party thought they were doing when they voted in the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. We don't care what David Orchard thought the new leader of the Conservative Party was promising. We don't care what the membership of the Canadian Alliance thinks, for that matter. We are going to buy ourselves a new political party because we are the real parallel government in this country. We are the real invisible government in this country”.

That is what is going on here, and yet we hear members on this side of the House get up and say they are concerned about a parallel government.

We are concerned about a parallel government, the same one that has existed for decades in this country, one which likes to fund two parties, one that is in and one that is out. And there should not be too much of a distinction between the two of them because every once in a while the people need a change, and God forbid we should have a real change, so we need a kind of a pale imitation of the one that can take over from the other, and so goes Canadian history.

I will resist the temptation to recite the Tommy Douglas story about mouse land, where the mice keep picking between the black cats and the white cats and maybe at some point they should actually be electing one of their own.

Members do not have to take my word for it. They can read an op-ed article in the paper today by Senator Lowell Murray, a distinguished colleague in the other place and a Conservative of long standing, who feels that the Progressive Conservative Party has made a horrible historical mistake. I share that view, not just for its own sake, but for the sake of the country.

These are just some of the things we wanted to bring to the attention of the House today. As I said, we are not interested in jumping from the frying pan into the fire any quicker than we have to. We think the member for LaSalle—Émard has already united the right. We look forward to meeting the member for LaSalle—Émard on the hustings next year and we wonder what the members here today who were so anxious to have him as the prime minister will be saying then.

I can hear what the member for LaSalle—Émard will be saying. He will be saying, “I don't know why you guys are so unhappy with me. You wanted me to become the prime minister three months earlier than I became the prime minister. In fact, when I wasn't the prime minister, you said to make me the prime minister, to fix the problem, the sooner the better”, and on and on, all the things that have been said here today.

It is a curious business indeed that so many opposition parties could be united around the very person they intend to run against in the next election.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always good to hear from the member for Winnipeg Transcona, and on a number of issues. He is a long-standing and respected member of this place.

Earlier I asked a question about jurisdictional authority and whether Parliament should be involved in decisions made by any political party, knowing about the political infrastructure of each of our parties. I also looked at the parliamentary calendar. It appears to me that following the Liberal convention, which will pick the new leader on November 14, Parliament then has four weeks before its scheduled recess from December 15 to January 26.

The member is probably familiar with the historic experience in regard to transition of governments. The member will know that until a new prime minister is sworn in and he or she has selected members of cabinet and they have been sworn in, et cetera, a transition would take a minimum of two weeks, if not four, to do it properly so that a new government being sworn in could appear in the House and would be able to properly respond to the questions from all hon. members.

Having said that, it appears that the motion, which basically says that the Prime Minister should step down “as soon as possible after November 14”, would have virtually no impact at all on the number of days in which the Prime Minister would be in fact sitting at his desk, because it is going to take virtually the four weeks between November 15 and December 15 for an orderly transition and the House is normally scheduled to be off between December 15 and January 26. That basically brings us to February 1, the date at which the current Prime Minister has indicated he is going to be stepping down.

Having said that, I would be interested to hear the member's comments on what benefit could be achieved by some other arrangement for stepping down, an arrangement that would somehow improve the number of days in which the next prime minister would be able to be here before the House to take questions.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I want to make it clear that we feel the House should continue to sit. We do not feel that what is happening within the Liberal Party, or whatever the succession rights may be, should get in the way of the House doing its business between now and the projected time of adjournment just before Christmas.

We have made that clear. Just the other day I was up on my feet in question period urging the government House leader to commit to having the House sit at least beyond the period in which the Auditor General could report to the House, because we know that the Auditor General has much to report on in the way of Liberal misspending and mismanagement. We do not want the Auditor General to be unable to report as a result of the House being prorogued.

So if the member is asking me what we think of whether or not the House should continue to sit, we think it should

[Howard Hilstrom, Canadian Alliance, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a kind of twisted logic that we have from the member for Winnipeg Transcona and this Jack Layton fellow.

Here in Parliament we have opposition parties, all four of them, including the New Democrats, that are supposed to be holding the government accountable. The way we hold a government accountable is to point out what it is doing that is contrary to the best interests of the people of Canada. On that, we have all been doing a pretty good job.

In order to enforce that accountability, just as we are doing with the industry minister, we are asking for resignations when incompetence and other mistakes reach a point at which a minister has to be removed from his or her position. I think our Prime Minister has reached that point and he should be removed from the House. I do not understand why the member is saying he is not going to vote to have the Prime Minister removed from his job due to incompetence and other mistakes.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned, the job of the opposition is to oppose that which is worthy of opposition.

I do not understand why my colleagues in the opposition today would want to act in such a way as to lend credibility to the view that the member for LaSalle—Émard represents change, that the member for LaSalle—Émard is something that the country cannot wait for. If he represents change at all, it is change going further to the right, which maybe the member for Selkirk—Interlake would like, but it is not something that the NDP would like, and therefore we have taken the position that we have.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg—Transcona is using the expression “jumping from the frying pan into the fire”.

This is one way of looking at things. We have a different way. We believe that we must get the real decision maker to come out from behind the curtains and step under the spotlight, since he is the one making the decisions. We have examples of this.

We have had enough of facing Fantomas or the Phantom of the Opera, who is pulling the strings from behind the curtains, so that we no longer have a government in front of us. We are not afraid of the member for LaSalle—Émard. He should come and take the Prime Minister's seat. We have questions for him.

What are the policies of the next prime minister for the next budget? Is he willing to continue to plunder the employment insurance fund? Perhaps it is time we asked him these questions.

This is also the case for provincial transfers for health care, where we have huge problems. The Minister of Finance just announced a $7 billion surplus. Suddenly, he does not know whether he will give the $2 billion to the provinces. Is he the one talking or is it the Phantom of the Opera behind the curtain?

This is what is going on, across the board. We are anxious to put him in the frying pan. He is the one we want to put in the frying pan. He should be here to answer questions from the opposition. This is his real role. As he will be chosen on November 15, he should take his seat and stop playing around behind the curtain and making all sorts of proposals.

We feel there no longer is a government in front of us. There is only His Holiness from LaSalle—Émard, who decides what the government's policies are. He should take his seat, and we will see if he can take the heat, because we will put him in the hot seat.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I understand where my colleague from the Bloc is coming from. I opened my remarks by saying that I understood the Bloc's argument, but our argument, which we think trumps the Bloc's argument, is that we already know what the member for LaSalle—Émard is going to be about. We already know what he is going to be like and we do not want that to happen to the country any sooner than it has to.

[Charlie Penson, Canadian Alliance, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg—Transcona alluded to the idea that the opposition parties, the Conservatives and the Alliance, are eager to see the member for LaSalle—Émard become the next prime minister, but I would remind the member that the former finance minister raised the level of spending in the last three years that he was finance minister, in the range of 8% to 9% per year, levels that we have not seen since the time of the late Trudeau era, which put us into all this financial difficulty to begin with.

I would suggest to the member for Winnipeg—Transcona that this is not what we would like to see at all. We are looking for the earliest opportunity to change the other side of the House and move over so we can accomplish some fiscal responsibility in this country.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there we have the inconsistency of the Alliance Party, and before that the Reform Party, which hopefully will soon be at an end. We will have a new form of inconsistency, I am sure, but at least the one that we are so tired of will be gone from the House.

Because there the member is, pretending that somehow the member for LaSalle—Émard is a big spender, when he is one of those same guys who, day after day, get up in the House and accuse the former minister of finance of gutting the health care system, taking billions out of the health care system, not spending enough on defence, not spending enough on this and not spending enough on that.

Yet in the same breath, he stands up and says that the problem with the member for LaSalle—Émard is that he is a big spender. He is not a big spender. He cut the guts out of a lot of good programs in this country. The percentage of government spending as a percentage of the economy is way down from what it historically was.

The member for Peace River is a good guy, but he is just wrong on this.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis.

Others before me have already said this, but the situation is so serious I feel I have to repeat it: the government is paralyzed. When we ask questions of ministers, they do not dare answer, for fear of displeasing the future prime minister, who will take over in the coming months.

The Liberals are not even taking their work seriously in committees, because they know that there could be a change of policy within weeks.

The fundamental question is this: is anyone at the controls? Yes, there is, but he is sitting back with the passengers, which is not very reassuring. That is pretty serious. Just as airline passengers would not be reassured by a pilot sitting with them, the public is not reassured by a government that is paralyzed, blocked day after day, because we are in a period of transition, a period when the future prime minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, has already decided to start pulling the government's strings.

There are two parallel governments. Things cannot work that way. We cannot have any budget policy, although this is being discussed within the budget consultation process in the Standing Committee on Finance. There is a total lack of interest. A policy is being set, but no one knows if it is the right one, because someone else will be taking over before long.

The member for LaSalle—Émard talks of slashing 10% from the departments in order to save money, while the present Prime Minister is telling us, “We will invest the amounts previously agreed to in health, education and social assistance”. The Minister of Finance, in a real bind as to what to say, tells us, “If we have the funds, maybe, and if we do not, maybe not”.

We have, moreover, just learned that the true surplus, as at March 31 last, was $7 billion. Nevertheless, the present finance minister does not dare speak up and make any commitments because, sad but true, the government no longer exists.

As a result, everyone is dependent on what is going on within the Liberal Party. I have just heard my colleague from Mississauga South ask the member for Roberval and House leader of the Bloc Quebecois if it is normal for one political party to interfere in the affairs of another.

Yes, it is normal. And why? Because it is not just an issue for the Liberal Party of Canada; it concerns every single citizen of this country. There is no government facing us that can give us an answer.

With regard to such basic issues as the Kyoto protocol, which was ratified by this Parliament, the government said it would be establishing measures to implement the various parts of the protocol. The government says, “Yes, we are moving forward”. But the other prime minister, the one hiding behind the curtain, who has all the benefits of being prime minister without coming in to take the risks of debating his ideas here in Parliament, says that he is questioning this policy and that he would prefer a made in Canada policy. But the Kyoto protocol, as we all know, is an international plan and an international commitment. We should be worried.

When even the current finance minister says, “Well, we really do not know very much about how to approach the prebudget consultations, and I cannot make a prebudget statement as I usually do each year, because I do not know what the future prime minister is thinking”, it can paralyze a government.

Normally, at this time of year, the bulk of the consultation has already been done. We know what is coming. We know what the government's priorities are. Today, we know nothing.

There were also commitments that seemed to have been made. Let us take for example the high speed train in the Quebec City-Windsor corridor. It seemed that the government was in favour of this. But now, the member for LaSalle—Émard says that no, the government no longer in favour of it. We do not know where the government stands any more, and that is a fact.

Earlier, I heard my colleague from Winnipeg—Transcona say that we want to put a man from the right in power ahead of time. I want to remind him that the man from the right is already running the government. He even making his presence felt on the international scene. It is not the current Prime Minister who was seen in Bangkok at the APEC summit. It is the future prime minister, who was seen on the front page of an international newspaper.

He is already shaping Canada's international policy. However, NDP members always make politics far too complicated. It would appear that they have difficulty remaining at the first or second level. It is always so complicated. In other words, they are difficult to follow.

We are anxious to see this man here in the House, and I am talking about the member for LaSalle—Émard, who, right now, has all the advantages of the office of prime minister and holds caucus meetings on Tuesday night when the regular caucus meetings are held on Wednesday morning. Members do not know what to do. They do not know whether they should attend the caucus meeting on Tuesday night or the one on Wednesday morning.

We would like him to be here, because he has a past. He has over a decade of political experience already. He has a track record. For nine years, he was the minister of Finance and, as such, he made decisions. He had better not try to tell us that he was not comfortable with the decisions he made. For nine years we questioned him, and he was quite comfortable. He even made fun of our questions.

He had better not try to tell us that he was not comfortable with the gutting of federal transfer payments for health, education and social assistance, and that it was not his decision. He was the Minister of Finance after all, and he is the one who set the course to get the federal public finances under control. He is the one who picked the targets to get our fiscal house in order. He targeted students, the sick and the poorest members of society.

He has to show up in this House without delay. Since memory has a way of fading, some may have forgotten the true face of the member for LaSalle—Émard and future prime minister. We are looking forward to seeing him here as soon as possible. That is the essence of the motion we put forward. Not only do we want a government that is accountable for its actions and statements, but we want the prime minister to come before us and answer our questions regarding the decisions he made in the past when he gutted social programs.

We want to see before us the man who essentially stole the $45 million surplus accumulated in the employment insurance fund. We want to see before us the man who, for the past 10 years, has steadfastly refused to terminate the tax convention with Barbados, because his own shipping company benefits from it. We want to see before us the man who refused to reform the federal tax system, which is unfair to middle and low income earners. We want to have him before us to question him and ask him why he did not do it.

We want to ask the member for LaSalle—Émard, the former finance minister, why it is that every time we ask a government representative a question and an answer is given, he then says the opposite outside the House? This morning, the government House leader ridiculed the Bloc Quebecois motion, saying that it was a non-confidence vote against the government.

Why? That was their only way out, but there is more to it than that. No one wants to admit that the majority of members and ministers from the governing party supports the member for LaSalle—Émard, while hypocritically, behind the scenes, they are working to push the current Prime Minister out to make room for the future prime minister as soon as possible.

The motion has been ridiculed and described as a non-confidence vote. It has been said that if the Liberal members or ministers vote in favour of it, the government will have to call an election because the government will have been defeated. Honestly. The Prime Minister himself announced a few months ago that he would step down in February 2004. Moving this deadline ahead three months is not a non-confidence motion, it is gently showing him the door to allow a real government to govern and a real prime minister to answer our questions, in order to prevent that prime minister from pulling the strings from behind the curtain and contradicting the current government. That is all we want.

Earlier I asked, “Is there anyone at the controls?” I would say yes there is. However, this pilot is not where he should be, he is not in the cockpit. He is seated here with the passengers and is doing nothing to reassure the passengers, the citizens of this country.

The current situation is serious. World leaders want to know who the future prime minister is rather than ask the current Prime Minister about Canada's position.

It is serious when even the social groups ask the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard directly and no longer the current Prime Minister to restore the funding they lost before the destroyer of social programs, the future prime minister, takes over.

It is serious when the financial world no longer pays any attention to the current Prime Minister or the current Minister of Finance, because most of the ministers here probably will not keep their jobs when the new prime minister takes over.

Furthermore, when the future prime minister, in the crucial context of planning the next budget, consults first those involved in Canadian and international high finance, second the bankers and third, industry, we have the right to ask, “What will be in the next budget”.

It will only include measures to benefit the rich, who are friends of the future prime minister.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I will make a few comments. I find this somewhat absurd. This is probably a sad day for Canadian parliamentarism. Not only do we hear members use the word “s'assire” instead of “s'asseoir”, which is rather poor French, but we also hear the future former member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot using rather derogatory language.

We know that some Bloc members, like Pierre Brien, did some good work. He decided to run as a candidate in the provincial election and joined the ADQ. The Bloc is this same party that worked against Pierre Brien during the provincial election.

It is true that renewal is tiresome. Strangely, when I was using the headphones, I heard a ticking sound. It probably was the countdown that has begun. The member talks about the curtain, but I have the feeling that the curtain has come down. During the last byelection, Quebecers showed they were fed up with the Bloc Quebecois.

I really look forward to the next general election, because we will take care of the Bloc in Quebec. This is the party that supported Bernard Landry, who was the appointed premier for eight months, almost a year. Is that democracy? He didn't have the decency to call an election immediately after his appointment.

For our part, there is a renewal. Not only did we have an exceptional Prime Minister for ten years, but we had a Prime Minister who showed his capacity as an administrator: yesterday, the finance minister announced a $7 billion surplus. We saw all those jobs created as a result.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Unfortunately for them, that is what makes them panic. They are panicking on the other side. We can hear it. They are complaining, and they have every reason to do so.

With the member for LaSalle—Émard, the next Prime Minister of Canada, we will even have more members to show how well things are going to be in Quebec.

That being said, I would like to know from the future former member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot if he believes, since Quebec is fed up with the Bloc Quebecois, as shown by a poll, if he should not move a motion that he himself should resign, to be consistent?