Debates of Feb. 10th, 2004

Reinstatement of Government Bills

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, allow me not to use the same kind of vocabulary as my colleague across the way because I do not think it is very valuable for the House.

My colleague said something which I found very interesting. She says that actions speak louder than words. In this case could I perhaps be enlightened about the contradiction I see in a document produced by that member's party called “Building Trust”.

That party has recommended a number of items which are in our action plan on democratic reform. When I tabled my plan, which included these recommendations, the opposition backed off. Who are actually putting their money where their mouths are and who are not? The document proposed some action that we are prepared to take, and the opposition has refused.

Finally, when we talk about free votes, opposition members do not have the right to talk about free votes because they have refused to implement it for themselves. They have no lessons to give to anyone.

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

Mr. Speaker, we see it time and time again: deny, distract, delay. This has become the trademark of the government. We will see it again today in the Auditor General's report.

Over 80 times now the government has intervened and shut down debate in the House of Commons. It took it six days, not a full calendar week, to intervene and shut down debate. It did it on what bill? It is on the early election bill, the ability to bring back legislation that will give the Prime Minister a mandate to call an early, a snap election.

Was it important legislation about giving aid to the provinces for health care? Was it a bill to somehow aid our ailing armed forces? Was it a bill about BSE and how to address the crisis in agriculture? Was it something for fisheries? Was it something for students or the average Canadian who would get a break on his or her taxes? What was it about? It was about crass, political advantage. This House leader is following in the footsteps of his predecessor who is being used as a tool to manipulate Parliament, to shut down debate and to time and time again bring disgrace to this place.

Why is the government of the member opposite so intent on denying democratic debate in the House of Commons on important issues? Why is the government and that member so intent and so keen to delay important matters coming to the House of Commons for resolution rather than just this desperate clinging to power?

It reminds me of how Elizabethans used to deny that they wanted sex. Instead, with this government, it is power. It claims to loathe it. It claims to not need it, but it desperately has to hold onto it.

I would ask the House leader to give us his latest spin.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, the closure we are evoking now is aimed at getting to the substance of the issues because procedure is not what Canadians are expecting us to spend time on.

Second, it took us six days to come to this stage, but it took only one day for the opposition to go back to the old traditional way of opposing for the sake of opposing. It is opposing work which would permit us to have an independent ethics commissioner, to help Africa, to deal with electoral matters, to deal with a number of issues. We took the initiative to have a take note debate, which already took place in the House, to deal with the BSE issue.

One thing is quite interesting. I would very much appreciate if my colleague across the way, instead of simply being physically present in the House, would also be intellectually present in the House, listen to the Speech from the Throne and see all the issues that were included and addressed in the Speech from the Throne.

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

Mr. Speaker, I notice the rather frigid response over there to what is really going to be one of the most defining moments for what the Liberals consider a new government. I do not think they are fooling anyone.

The question the House leader has to answer is this. Beauchesne's makes it quite clear that it is the proper role of the opposition to use debate in the House of Commons to air its concerns and to raise public profile about issues of concern to Canadians. The only tactic available in a free and democratic society is the power to debate in the House. All the cards are held by the government. On this side all we can do is debate and show Canadians that are not happy with it, we propose alternatives and so on.

By shutting down debate, can the House leader not see what is happening? What he saying is the government will not allow a reasonable amount of debate. We debated this motion half a day on Friday and half a day on Monday. It is not like there has been weeks of delaying tactics. It is not like there has been a filibuster to end all filibusters. This is the first motion before us, and we have debated it for two half days. It is not the time for closure.

I reiterate the offer I made earlier in a point of order, which the House leader has chosen to ignore. He has brought in closure because he says that we are up to the same old games, that we will not debate this wisely and judiciously. Here is the offer again. We know what is going on over there. On this side of the House, we will withdraw our amendment and subamendment if the House leader will withdraw his closure motion.

In other words, let us get on with the debate. If we do not have a subamendment, there are no delaying tactics. We just want to debate the issue. If the House leader will withdraw his closure motion, we can continue to debate. He says he is favour of it and so are we.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand why opposition members are prepared to withdraw their amendment now when they proposed it in the first place.

Beauchesne's explains the rules and I think the rules should apply equally to all. However, by trying to use the rules to block debate on substance, they are using the rules to actually start debate on substance.

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, later today we will see quite an amazing thing happen in this place. We will see the current government trying to extricate itself from the previous government when the Auditor General brings down the report on the grant and advertising scandal in which the Liberal government is involved.

We probably will see all the ministers fan out and given their spin, in both official languages, to whomever they can, saying that no, that was Jean Chrétien's government; that was the previous administration; that was the other government and that they are the new government. They are not the new government. It is the same old group. They are using the very same tactics on the very first motion we have in this place.

How can the House leader possibly say that it is the new group when it is bringing in the old group's legislation and invoking closure with a sledge hammer six days into the new Parliament? They cannot have it both ways.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when a bill is good for the people of Canada I do not care whether it was in the past or introduced by a new government, it ought to be taken into consideration and passed because it is good for the people.

In terms of the debate, I will repeat to my colleague what I have just said in answer to a number of questions already. I do not want to delay on the basis of procedure the important debate on substance which we need to undertake in the House. Canadians are not interested in our little bubble in Ottawa as if we were the centre of the world. They are interested in making sure we pass legislation that will serve them in their everyday lives and things of interest to them. That is what we want to get to.

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

Mr. Speaker, the new Prime Minister has announced not once but twice that he will stop discrimination against the west. Obviously he understands that there is discrimination against the west, otherwise he would not have made that statement. However in the next sentence he said that he was not prepared to take a look at the constitution.

At the present time in my province we have a $177 million deficit. The farmers lost money at record speed. I have not heard one word from the government opposite as to what immediate measures it will take that are necessary to stop discriminating against the west.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of Parliament from Quebec, I understand the concerns of the west. I would not be honest if I were to say that I fully understand them. I want to know more and understand more about them. One of the ways to do that is to get to the substance of things. I want to really care about all the regions of the country on the basis of the substance of what will be useful to them to feel good and to be part of this country, not on procedure.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the government House leader a question because, like I did, he probably heard the discourse, if we can call it that, from the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.

In that speech the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough complained about one of the bills that he saw as being reinstated, namely the former bill to deal with the acceleration of the redistribution.

I want to know from the government House leader if he recalls, like I do, the speech given last August 28 or 29, I believe it was, when the same member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough was trying to take credit for such a measure, saying at the time that it could not be passed fast enough.

Is this another example of the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough doing a 180 degree turn, a little bit like he did with his signature on another document?

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the question that was just put to me includes a number of fundamentals, but everything revolves around the same problem. That party is full of contradictions. There is the contradiction regarding the proposals for a democratic reform. When we make such proposals, these people backtrack. There is the contradiction regarding the ethics commissioner. When we proposed the establishment of an ethics commissioner, they rejected the idea. Now, they want one, but at the same time they do not because they want procedures first.

The contradictions in that party show to what extent it can be harmful, negative and counterproductive when politics take precedence over substance. That is what their problem is all about. It is one of credibility caused by the inconsistency in their positions.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member down the way, the former House leader, reminds me a bit of a dog that has been run over by a tractor and then runs up on the lawn and licks itself afterward.

As a member of the opposition the hon. member opposite used to come into this place, light his hair on fire and do cartwheels down the aisle when the government invoked closure. This is the height of hypocrisy, and I know I cannot use that word, but it is absolutely bald faced and the height of hypocrisy for the member to get up now and to somehow suggest that because his rump is on the opposite side that he has cleansed himself of any previous statements that he might have made in the House.

However I do have a quote by the member for Etobicoke North who just yesterday stood up in the House and said that he will see that the government operates very differently.

Well, the previous government invoked closure on bills 83 times. It railed against members of the government in the Progressive Conservative Party but it exceeded that number within a shorter time. Now, just six days into what is really a fourth mandate that it is seeking as a government, it is offended that the opposition is somehow upset because it is invoking closure on a bill.

Here we see the incredible duplicity of the so-called new government that is practising things the same old way. It used “new” some 30-plus times in the throne speech but this is anything but new. This is trying to polish a rotten apple. It is an attempt to put on a new face. It is said that the fish stinks from the head. We know that the head of the government was the finance minister for almost 10 years and was part and parcel of every decision, every deception, every duplicitous statement that was made, including being an author of the red book.

Here we have it, plain and simple, laid bare for all Canadians to see. This is anything but new. This is a government that is simply rehashed, recycled and trying to reinvent itself now. It is practising the same old hammer approach when it comes to Parliament and when it comes to democracy.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I need any lesson in integrity from a member who reneged on his own signature at the time of the Progressive Conservative Party leadership convention. I do not have to go that low as to rebut arguments that are really not arguments but simply an abuse of language in lieu of arguments.

We are very different. For the first time in the history of Parliament, the motion we have before us today will be subjected to a free vote and, hopefully for the last time, unless those members still do not understand it, I will hear a commitment from them that they will have a free vote on their benches on the motion we have before us today.

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

Mr. Speaker, it will be a free vote. However I do not understand how the government House leader can possibly think anyone on this side of the House is in favour of the government shutting down debate. I do not know what he is looking for. Does he want us to disembowel ourselves on this side of the House? Does he want us to just take the sword out and commit hara-kiri right on the spot? Of course we are going to vote against it. It is just logical.

The minister wants to bring back legislation concerning an independent ethics commissioner but the legislation is flawed. The position will not be independent. It will be an appointment by the Prime Minister. It is just not right. Besides that, the member, as well as the Prime Minister and the rest of them, voted against a verbatim quote from the red book creating an independent ethics commissioner when we brought it to the House two years ago. They voted against explicit words from their own document.

More than that, he keeps saying that it is about process. Well people out there in the real world do not care about process, and they are probably right. It is like watching sausages being made in this place. They do not want to see it, they just want the end result.

There is nothing to prevent the House leader from bringing forward specific pieces of legislation, and he has mentioned a few. He can bring forward the legislation on an independent ethics commissioner or the legislation on AIDS drugs for Africa. We will get right into the debate. Let us have at it. Drop the legislation on the table and let us start it.

Nothing is stopping the minister from doing that but he does not want to do it. He wants to bring forward an old agenda from the past government as a partly regurgitated process. He wants to put it on the table and now we are supposed to sift through the entrails and see if we can make heads or tails of it. Let him bring forward legislation that the minister likes and the Prime Minister supports, let him table in its entirety and let us start with it.

What we are debating today is not procedure. We are talking about the ability to bring forward legislation, some of it good, some of it flawed, from an old government that never had to get this stuff off the table. It did not have to prorogue Parliament but it did and it dismissed this legislation. Now the government wants to bring some of it back. It is wrong.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the process we are going through is one, which I recall, was called originally in I think 1970 for the first time. Let me very clear. If the opposition members want to vote against the motion today that is okay, that is their privilege. However they will have to answer to the Canadian public for that.

They are in fact voting against an independent ethics commissioner. They are voting against bills on the protection of children. They are voting against aid to Africa. They are voting against public safety bills. They are voting against the Westbank self-government act. That is the effect of their position.

They want to talk procedure. I want to talk about those bills right here because they do count for the Canadian people.

[Diane Ablonczy, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, first, the point needs to be clearly made that what the government has in mind is not an independent ethics commissioner. The commissioner will be appointed by the Prime Minister, report to the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister will have the whole say about how cabinet ministers are dealt with, and the cabinet ministers are the problem. Let us not talk about an independent ethics commissioner because the government has no such thing in mind.

Last week the government brought forward a throne speech. What is a throne speech? It is a new agenda for the government: new Prime Minister, new agenda. Now we see that there is nothing new about this at all. It is not a new agenda. What the government is doing is fighting tooth and nail to bring back the old agenda, the old, tired, worn out, discredited agenda that this same bunch of people tried to push through for the last few months. Now they are at it again. There is no new vision and there are no new ideas.

The most bizarre statement, in what surely is a bizarre day for the government, was when the House leader said that this was good for the people. Well let me tell the government House leader that democracy means rule by the people. That means that the people's representatives should have a say on what happens in this Parliament and that is exactly what this government is cutting off. It is chopping off the debate, the rule by the people through their representatives in the House. That is a shame and a disgrace.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest very kindly to my colleague that before making empty rhetorical comments on the ethics commissioner, she should read the bill again to see that the commissioner in fact will be reporting to the House and his or her appointment will be sanctioned by the House. This is a perfect example that shows that debate on substance is of no interest to them.

The last point that my colleague made is extremely important. She said that MPs should have a say and MPs who represent their constituents should have a say. On this side of the House, we will do that and we will give a free vote on this. They interpret the role of MPs only in a collective way. They are not prepared to trust their own MPs to stand up and vote in favour of their constituents.

[The Speaker]

The time for questions has now expired. Therefore, the question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen: