Debates of Feb. 9th, 2004

Reinstatement of Government Bills

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I was not intending to rise until I heard the hon. member, for whom I have great respect, say the words “government” and “wisdom and judgment” in the same term. That is what scares us on the opposition side: when the Liberals talk about wisdom and judgment. What kind of wisdom was it to have people who have disabilities go back to their doctors so they could say that they indeed they are still blind or still missing a leg, all in order to get a tax credit? What kind of wisdom is it to have a throne speech that does not mention this country's shipbuilding crisis or the softwood lumber concerns in this country? Those are the kinds of things we have a problem with.

I have a question for the hon. member. I checked with the Clerk at the table and it is very clear that the government is very concerned that we get these bills back--the ones it would like to have--because they are important. They are relevant and the government does not want to waste a bunch of time reinventing the wheel, as he said. If this government were so concerned about the respect of Parliament and the respect of opposition members, we would not have had two prorogued sessions in the 36th Parliament. Now we are working on our second prorogation. I have only been here since 1997. There have been four prorogations and one election in the middle.

The government decides that when the heat is on or when a big challenge is coming up, it will stop the House, prorogue, put on a fresh coat of paint, give a new throne speech and life will be all wonderful again. The reality is that all it had was a change of captains on the sinking of the Titanic recently. Instead of Mr. Chrétien, we now have the new Prime Minister. The House did not have to prorogue. The House could have continued. If the government were serious about respect for Parliament, it could have continued. There is no reason why Parliament had to prorogue. There was no reason the last time it prorogued.

I would like to ask the hon. member, why does he think that the government can just play yo-yo in this place and shut it down whenever it feels uncomfortable?

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore for his comments. I know that the member is a very valuable member of the parliamentary hockey team, a very good goaltender who we miss from time to time.

Nonetheless, just to clarify one point first, it is the Governor General who really calls for the prorogation. It is not the government. It is the Governor General. I think we need to make that point just so that Canadians understand completely.

Second, the member knows full well, unless he was not reading the papers, that in our Liberal Party we just had a leadership convention. We just elected a new leader. Would the new leader not want to bring in his own imprint, his own stamp, with a throne speech and with the flexibility to deal with some legislation that has already been debated in the House? That was the reason for the prorogation. The member implies that the reason for the prorogation is to get rid of some ugly bits of legislation. He knows full well that the new government wants the chance to come out with a throne speech to set the direction and the vision moving forward. That is why we prorogue. That is why we have a throne speech. I am surprised that the member opposite does not know that. He should have studied that in poli-sci 101. It is clear that this is the reason for the prorogation.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, God love him, as we say in the Maritimes. The member knows very well that the Governor General does not ask for prorogation. The Governor General is advised by the Prime Minister of the day that this is what the Prime Minister would like to do. The Governor General does not just wake up one day and say, “I will prorogue the House of Commons”. That direction comes directly from government.

If we really want to know the truth as to why the House was prorogued after the change of captains at the Liberal leadership convention, we will find out tomorrow. It is called the Auditor General's report, which should have been released prior to the transfer of the captainship from Mr. Chrétien to the hon. member for LaSalle--Émard.

Would the hon. member like to stand up in the House and tell us the real reason why the House was prorogued? We will find out tomorrow that it was because of that damning Auditor General's report that is very damaging to the Liberal government.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Let us keep it on the reinstatement.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I tried to patch together the linkage there with what we are debating today. I think what we need to be clear on here is terms of accountability. It is true that the Prime Minister might go to the Governor General and request a prorogation, but the Governor General decides whether there is going to be a prorogation or not. This is clear.

The member opposite should study the Constitution. The Governor General has the accountability for deciding on prorogation or not. In this particular case, I think she made an excellent decision. That is totally her prerogative. It is not the prerogative of the government. The government can recommend, but that is where the member needs to understand the difference between recommending and decision making and the accountabilities that flow from that.

[Carol Skelton, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was telling us about how the Governor General prorogued Parliament and now he is going on about how we have to bring back these bills so that we can have electoral reform. I have the maps of the new boundaries of my riding; they are all in place. Bringing back this bill does not have anything to do with the redistribution or anything. Basically it gives the new government and the new leader the right to go ahead and have an April 1 election. I want to hear the member's comments on that, because our boundaries are all in position right now.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Let us try to bring it back to reinstatement of bills.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will try but we have gotten so far off topic that it is going to be difficult so please bear with me.

The member opposite needs to be clear on what happens with an election. Again let me say that it is the Governor General who makes the decision about an election call. It is true that the prime minister of the day might go to the Governor General and say, “Madam Governor General, Your Excellency, I think it's time for a general election in Canada”. The Governor General could turn around and say, “Mr. Prime Minister, I don't think so. I don't think we'll have an election right now”. So again we need to come back to accountabilities and the Canadian Constitution.

These boundary changes will be good for the member's province and I urge her to support the motion so we can get on to this legislation and have an election, and she will have more members from Alberta in the House if the bill goes through.

[Carol Skelton, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar is in Saskatchewan.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I assume the hon. member from Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore will be voting for this bill after his eloquent speech on why there should not be prorogation so we could deal with these excellent bills.

I want to compliment the Bloc for patiently putting up with this debate of the opposition to stall the House and bring back the same speeches over and over again. Quietly sitting there, it is very good.

I do want to ask the member a question. I keep trying to find the opposition's reason for not moving this. The opposition is really just reaching for straws at this time. Quite often it has some rationale, but not in this particular case. One of its arguments was that we have a new prime minister. It is fine that it is historically done in our Parliament and in Britain that the same prime minister brings back a good bill, but if the person changes then we cannot bring back a new bill? I wonder if the member thinks that makes any sense as an argument against this. Or has he heard any good arguments against this motion?

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Yukon for a very good question. Frankly, I have not heard so far in this debate any good reasons for not supporting this motion. I find this passing strange from the party opposite, the Conservative Party, which was always concerned, and rightly so, about managing things wisely and spending the taxpayers' dollars very frugally, and so it should be. People on this side of the floor agree with that. However, to bring people back to debate the very same bills that the House has unanimously supported is not wise management. It is not as though the bills are different. The Clerk and the Speaker can only accept those bills that are the same as those that had been debated before. We would be asking the House of Commons to come back and debate the same matter over and over again.

To answer, I think it would be a waste of taxpayers' money, and I agree with the member for Yukon that there have not been any convincing arguments, apart perhaps from a partisan need to put forward this notion that it is a whole new government so we need all new legislation, which patently does not make any sense.

[Carol Skelton, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, seeing that it is almost 6:30 and we have a minute and a half left, could we see the clock as 6:30 and start debate tomorrow morning?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

It being 6:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:27 p.m.)