Mr. Speaker, I want to state at the outset that it is now becoming evident to all Canadians what the government is up to and how it intends to proceed to endeavour to prevent being held accountable in any way, shape or form in this chamber.
Notwithstanding what we heard at some length, it is my contention that the amendment does not in any way depart from the rules and practices of the House. When the amendment was moved on Friday, April 22, 2005, it was ruled in order by the Speaker. In fact, we had one hour and nineteen minutes of debate. I would question why the House leader, if he believed the amendment was not in order, chose not to raise it at that time.
It has now been more than a week, because of the break week when all MPs had the opportunity to return to their ridings, and after more than an hour of debate in the chamber. The amendment was moved and it was found to be in order.
As the Speaker knows, Standing Order 10 prohibits a challenge to the decision of the Chair. Standing Order 10 states:
The Speaker shall preserve order and decorum, and shall decide questions of order. No debate shall be permitted on any such decision, and no such decision shall be subject to an appeal to the House.
However that is exactly what we are dealing with. We should not even be entertaining debate on this question. The government has resorted to breaching our Standing Orders, which it says it wants to uphold, by challenging the Speaker.
Since the government has been allowed to challenge the Speaker, and I would suggest to go on at some length here today, I trust the Speaker will allow me to defend your decision.
The first line of the amendment follows a basic wording that has been used many times before. The next part recommends that the government resign. It is perfectly in order to make a recommendation to the government. The fact that the committee is being instructed to recommend that the government resign is of no procedural significance provided it relates to the mandate of the committee.
We heard the government House leader go on at some length about the mandate of the committee. That is what the third part of our amendment addresses. The amendment instructs the committee to amend the report to recommend:
--that the government resign over refusing to accept some of the committee's key recommendations and to implement the budgetary changes that Canadians need.
It cannot now be argued that the amendment is not relevant to the mandate of the Standing Committee on Finance.
With respect to any argument that amendments to concurrence motions cannot introduce the notion of confidence, I refer the Speaker to page 44 of Marleau and Montpetit where it recounts how the government of Mackenzie King retained the support of the House until June 1926:
--when the official opposition moved an amendment to a motion to concur in a committee report that amounted to a censure of the government;
Therefore it is established that the notion of confidence can be part of an amendment to a concurrence motion.
What is interesting is that today we are experiencing a very similar situation to that which took place in 1926. In 1926 the King administration tried a number of manoeuvres to avoid facing a confidence vote, which is very similar to what is unfolding here.
Another parallel was that King's government, like today's Liberal government, was mired in scandal.
With respect to any interpretation as to the outcome of this confidence motion, if the House concludes that the government should resign, whether that takes the form of an instruction to a committee or not, how can it be argued that the House supports the government and how can it be argued that it should remain in office? The amendment clearly states that the government should resign.
Marleau and Montpetit at page 44 accepted that an amendment to a concurrence motion could be worded in such a way to amount to a motion of confidence.
Mackenzie King viewed an amendment to a concurrence motion as a matter of confidence, unlike what I think we are seeing across the way, where the Liberals are trying everything possible to resist being held accountable through a motion of non-confidence.
The arguments put forward by the government today have no procedural significance I submit. They are opinions that communicate desperation.
I would like to quote something Isaac Asimov said about death that relates to the Liberal government which might be of interest. He said, “Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful. It's the transition that's troublesome.”
The desperate attempt by the government to avoid the judgment of the House is nothing short of disgraceful. One would think the government would at least attempt to go through its own transition with a little more dignity.