House of Commons Hansard #7 of the 37th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was bills.

Topics

Canada Elections ActRoutine Proceedings

10 a.m.

Brossard—La Prairie Québec

Liberal

Jacques Saada LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-3, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Interparliamentary DelegationsRoutine Proceedings

10 a.m.

Liberal

Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian branch of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie, as well as the financial report relating thereto.

The report relates to the meeting of the APF, held at Cayenne, French Guyana, from January 21 to 23, 2004.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Roy H. Bailey Canadian Alliance Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present another petition from my constituency. My constituents call upon the government to immediately hold a renewed debate on the definition of marriage and to reaffirm it as it was in 1999. They urge it to take all necessary steps to preserve marriage as a union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions. The first comes from a number of residents of Montreal asking Parliament to maintain the traditional definition of marriage.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a second petition.

It expresses support for the people of Canada who are covered by the pay equity settlement and who feel they are prejudiced by the imposition of interest on arrears, which considerably reduces the pay equity adjustments, thereby depriving them of equal pay for equal work.

This petition therefore calls on the House to remedy this abnormal situation. I wholly support this petition.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

The Speaker

The hon. member is well aware that it is against the rules to express an opinion on the petitions we present in the House. I am certain she will not make the same mistake again.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Progressive Conservative

Rex Barnes Progressive Conservative Gander—Grand Falls, NL

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition, one of many that has been presented through me on behalf of my riding of Gander—Grand Falls and many throughout the whole country. This petition calls upon Parliament to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

Pat O'Brien Liberal London—Fanshawe, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am in receipt of a petition from some 25,000 Londoners and people in the district of London, Ontario. I present now the latest approved 1,500 signatures to Parliament, calling upon the Parliament of Canada to uphold the traditional definition of marriage and to take all necessary steps to defend the institution of marriage as it has been constituted since Confederation of this country.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Chuck Cadman Canadian Alliance Surrey North, BC

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of 143 constituents of Surrey North. The petitioners call upon Parliament to pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being the lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

Janko Peric Liberal Cambridge, ON

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my privilege to present to the House a petition signed by 200 concerned constituents of my riding of Cambridge. The petitioners underscore that physicians must provide complete information about the health risks of abortion and that they should be held accountable should they perform abortions without the informed consent of the mother or should they perform abortions that are not medically necessary. Therefore, the petitioners request that Parliament support legislation calling for a woman's right to know.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:05 a.m.

NDP

Dick Proctor NDP Palliser, SK

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for saving the best for the last. I am pleased to present a petition today suggesting that star wars would undermine Canada's proud tradition of supporting arms control and acknowledging that Canada will not participate in a star wars missile defence program. The petition strongly condemns the destabilizing plans of the President of the United States. The petitioners urge parliamentarians to work with our partners in peace for more arms control and to bring an end to the production and sale of weapons of mass destruction and any materials used to build them.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Sarnia—Lambton Ontario

Liberal

Roger Gallaway LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

The Speaker

Is that agreed?

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Reinstatement of Government BillsRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Brossard—La Prairie Québec

Liberal

Jacques Saada LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform

With respect to the consideration of the motion under government orders, Government Business No. 2, I move:

That the debate be not further adjourned.

Reinstatement of Government BillsRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

The Speaker

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30 minute period for questions.

I would like to know how many hon. members wish to ask questions. We will allow a maximum of two minutes per question.

Reinstatement of Government BillsRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

James Rajotte Canadian Alliance Edmonton Southwest, AB

Mr. Speaker, this is absolutely shocking. We are six days into supposedly what is a new parliamentary session and the government is already invoking closure and shutting down debate. The Prime Minister is simply continuing in the path of the former prime minister.

I want to quote the current Prime Minister on his supposed democratic reform initiatives. In his letter accompanying the democratic reform package, the Prime Minister stated:

Parliament should be the centre of national debate on policy. For this to happen, we must reconnect Parliament to Canadians and renew the capacity of Parliamentarians--from all parties--to shape policy and legislation.

Let us look at another quote from the Prime Minister. In December 2002, he said, “My position on parliamentary reform is that closure should be the exception, not the rule”.

Let us look at this Prime Minister's record. He has voted for time allocation and closure 85 times. Six days into a new parliamentary session, he is already invoking closure. How can the Prime Minister possibly say that he has any initiative or any intention to democratic reform or reforming this House of Parliament? This should be a centre of national debate and not just a place where he can shut down debate at his own whim.

Reinstatement of Government BillsRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Liberal

Jacques Saada Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC

Mr. Speaker, the quote that was given from the Prime Minister is quite accurate, and I will read it again. He said, “Parliament should be the centre of national debate on policy”.

My colleagues across the way have tried to waste very valuable time on debates on procedures, as they demonstrated on Friday, which has delayed the debate on substance. As soon as this motion is passed tonight on reinstatement, we will have a chance to actually debate the issues of interest to Canadians, and that is what we want to do.

The second is in terms of closure. It is quite interesting to note that it is the very first time in the history of our country that closure will be subjected to a free vote in the House, or maybe I should correct that. It will be a free vote on this side of the House because on the other side they do not believe in free votes.

Reinstatement of Government BillsRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Chuck Strahl Canadian Alliance Fraser Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The House leader has suggested that there is a problem with dilatory motions, or a problem with wasting debate, I guess on the fact that we put forward an amendment to his previous motion. We are willing on this side to withdraw both our amendment and our subamendment in order to continue the debate if the House leader is willing to withdraw his closure motion. We could do that by unanimous consent and get--

Reinstatement of Government BillsRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

The Speaker

I do not know that this is a point of order. It sounds like perhaps an offer for negotiations, which of course can go on behind the scenes, but we would not want negotiations proceeding on the floor, particularly during question time on this motion.

I am sure the government House leader will deal with the point of order, which is not a point of order, in his next response. We will move to the hon. member for Rosemont--Petite-Patrie, who wishes to raise a question.

Reinstatement of Government BillsRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, the least we can say this morning is, the more the government changes, the more it remains the same. The government is using the same old dilatory and partisan strategies and tactics to use the House to, in theory, improve the democratic process.

Last December, Jean Chrétien left the House and the new Prime Minister arrived a few months later. Would the government House leader admit that, in fact, the government would not have had to use this dilatory motion if we had continued to sit and if the House had not been prorogued? Thus, the fact is the same strategies, the same dilatory practices and the same partisan tactics are being used from one government to another.

Reinstatement of Government BillsRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Liberal

Jacques Saada Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like something to be explained to me. Unless I no longer speak French, a dilatory motion or a dilatory strategy is aimed at extending and dragging out debate, whereas the motion we are now proposing, the initiative we are taking, is aimed at speeding up debate. There is a total contradiction in French.

The opposition should use the right terms, if we want to talk about the same things. What we are seeking to do is quite simple. We want to go through the procedural process quickly so that we can get to the substantive issues as soon as possible. When we talk particularly about issues such as the creation of an independent ethics commissioner, our role at the international level in helping Africa fight its pandemics, these are the substantive issues. This is what we want to do, and we are anxious to get to it.

Reinstatement of Government BillsRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Speaker, surprise, here we are the second week back in Parliament and the government is reverting to its usual tactics by now bringing in closure on basically the first order of government business, which is its reinstatement motion.

I would like to ask the government House leader this. In the light of the fact that he has tabled his so-called action plan for the democratic deficit, how does he explain to the Canadian people that already the government is now shutting down debate? How is it that the government chose to prorogue the House, thus arresting all the legislation that was before the House? The government chose to shut down the House back in December, several weeks early, and now all of a sudden there is an urgency to rush back in with legislation and close down debate.

How does the government reconcile those realities and explain to the Canadian public that somehow it is addressing the deficit around democracy in the House?

Reinstatement of Government BillsRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Liberal

Jacques Saada Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I take from the question of my colleague across the way that she is in support of the action plan and would like to see it implemented.

There is a difference between empowering MPs and preventing government from assuming its normal constitutional responsibility of management. Of course my colleague has used an expression which I find quite interesting. She said “shut down debate”. I want to shut down debate on procedures so we can open debate on substance. She should be interested in that.

Reinstatement of Government BillsRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Diane Ablonczy Canadian Alliance Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Mr. Speaker, there is a truism in human affairs that actions speak louder than words.

The government talks a lot about the democratic deficit and how the new Prime Minister will address it. It will be a whole new regime under this new Prime Minister. Things will be different. Members of Parliament will really have a say in what goes on. There will be open debate. There will be free votes.

In the first week that the government has been back with a new Prime Minister, guess what. An offer of free votes has been mysteriously withdrawn. An offer of full and fair debate on an important matter on which legislation will come back before the House, chopped off, closure. That is not democratic reform. That is not actions that prove the words.

I want to ask the government House leader this. Is it not true that this is simply the same old corrupt, undemocratic franchise under new management?