Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to the government motion to reinstate bills from the previous session.
The Prime Minister claims to have formed a new government. Yet with this motion he is claiming the privileges of being the former government of Mr. Chrétien. Procedurally speaking, the Prime Minister wants to be seen, as most Canadians see his government, as the old Chrétien government. While we in opposition would agree with that definition, my argument today will put to the test the Prime Minister's self-proclaimed public definition of being a new government.
I accept that it is a well established practice for a government to reintroduce a reinstatement motion in a new session. However, it is not established that a so-called new government in a new session can reinstate bills from the previous government. I have examined all the precedents and I could not find one example of a new government reinstating bills from a previous session.
From Journals of October 21, 1970, at page 46, it is recorded that the House adopted a reinstatement motion. The Prime Minister was Pierre Trudeau and the motion reinstated bills of Mr. Trudeau's government from the previous session.
For May 9, 1972, at page 281 of Journals we have another motion adopted with, once again, Pierre Trudeau being the Prime Minister in that session and the previous session.
On March 8, 1974, at pages 25 and 26, a reinstatement motion was adopted with the same circumstances as those of May 9, 1972.
On October 3, 1986, at pages 47 to 48, Mr. Mulroney's government introduced a reinstatement motion reinstating bills of the Mulroney government from the previous session.
On March 4, 1996, at pages 34, 35 and 39 to 41 of Journals , Jean Chrétien's government reinstated government bills of the Chrétien government from the previous session.
On November 12, 2003, the government of Jean Chrétien once again successfully reinstated bills from a previous session, although he ran into a bit of a problem with his attempt to reinstate other business, resulting in a Speaker's ruling that divided the motion into three parts.
Mr. Speaker, many arguments have been made against the practice whereby a Prime Minister reinstates his government bills from a previous session. It goes against the practice, consequences and reasons for a government to prorogue. It contradicts the notion of beginning a session with fresh ideas and a new direction.
What we are talking about here today is far worse and, I would argue, procedurally unacceptable. The current Prime Minister is attempting to reinstate bills of another prime minister from a previous session and has the moral effrontery to call his government “new”.
When this Prime Minister promised democratic reform and made a commitment to do things differently we thought he meant to improve how Parliament functions. So far the Prime Minister has behaved less democratically than his predecessor, something most of us thought would be impossible.
Mr. Speaker, I am asking you to examine the precedents and rule the motion to reinstate government bills out of order.