Debates of May 2nd, 2005

Question No. 109

[Bob Mills, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Giving details for each with the department, a description, its date of introduction and any other useful information, what regulations have been introduced to prepare Canada for the coming into force of the Kyoto Accord on February 16, 2005?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 112

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Specifying for each the date it was awarded, amounts payable, a description, the name of supplier and whether the contract was awarded through open competition or sole-sourced, what contracts were awarded by the Business Development Bank of Canada to the following companies: ( a ) Lafleur Communications; ( b ) Groupaction; ( c ) Groupe Everest; ( d ) Media I.D.A. Vision Inc.; ( e ) Tremblay Guittet Communications; ( f ) Gosselin, Vickers and Benson; ( g ) BCA Group Ltd.; ( h ) Groupe Polygone; ( i ) EKOS; and ( j ) Earnscliffe?

(Return tabled)

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

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

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Committees of the House

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have no objection to having to speak on security on the hill. Clearly, the matter has already been settled within the committee. The opposition parties are being accused of delaying debates. The voters are not fools. Presenting this motion at this point in time is a way of delaying the proceedings of the House. It is not the opposition parties that are interested in slowing them up.

It was not very long ago that I was elected. I ran with the intention of advancing matters and not playing circus as we have today or in earlier proceedings. Some members rise in the House to talk about their Quebec cousins and say they have tried to do them a favour. In fact, their approach has hurt Quebec ideology and runs contrary to it.

When one claims to want social housing for Quebeckers while ignoring Quebec's jurisdictions, one goes against Quebeckers' interests. Here we have a minority government and the member who just spoke told us that a minority government must get along with the other parties. Unfortunately, since the throne speech we have had to put this party up against the wall to finally make it talk and try to get along with opposition parties. Lately, it even had to buy the support of some parties.

Such things should not even exist. This government should have done the sensible thing by recognizing from the outset that a minority government must be open to discussion to make things move forward as quickly as possible, and to at least gain some credibility, which is not the case right now. In that sense, it is disappointing for voters who are looking at this circus. No wonder politicians' reputation is worse than that of car dealers. This is incredible.

In light of all the testimonies heard regarding its behaviour, perhaps the time has come for the party currently in office to refer the matter to the public and to ask it to pass judgment.

We hear about parties getting together, about alliances between parties on this side of the House. But now we have to talk about parties from the other side of the House that also form the opposition, as we do on this side. Incidentally, we do not always agree with the Conservatives. We are not even sure we will agree with them when they present their motion.

However, we are in agreement with ourselves. We will vote against the budget, because it does not provide anything for Quebec workers and businesses. In this respect, we cannot support the budget. Whether the Conservatives support it or not is of little importance. Still, it is up to them to present this motion, considering that they are the official opposition. Once they do, we will decide whether we will support their motion, or whether we will support Quebeckers.

I am now getting to my question for the last speaker. Why is it that a minority government feels the need to recognize the other parties only when it has its back to the wall? Is it not logical to them to discuss issues before proposing measures?

[Judi Longfield, Liberal, Whitby—Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I take some offence to the member's suggestion that we bought off another party. There were some pretty intense negotiations between the leader of this party and the leader of the New Democratic Party. Both parties wanted to continue to work for seniors and for the environment.

The member opposite said that he will vote against the budget because it does not do enough for workers. I would suggest that as a result of some of his negotiations with this party we made some concessions with respect to the throne speech. Somehow the negotiations we made with respect to the throne speech are correct and appropriate but negotiations we may have made with another party are inappropriate because they do not seem to meet his priorities. It does not serve any useful purpose for him to think that his ideas are better than anothers and negotiating will only be done if it serves his purpose.

We are here today talking about members' rights and privileges. We need to get back to this topic because we keep losing sight of it. We are talking about the obstruction of a member's rights and privileges on November 30 when a foreign head of state was in this building. We had perhaps not given the issue of members' identity enough forethought.

People often stop me on the street and ask me about the ring I wear or the lapel pin I wear. They are impressed by the fact that this little symbol worn on the lapel or on the finger or sometimes around the neck signifies to our security staff that we are members of Parliament. After I leave this place I keep this right and privilege. All former members of Parliament and members of the other place get to keep our identification and this lets our security staff know that we have a right to be here and that we have earned that right by getting elected to this place.

Every member in this place has the same right, whether they be the Prime Minister, a cabinet minister, a backbencher on the government side or a member of the opposition. There is no seniority in these little symbols. They are identification and it needs to be understood and recognized when we come to this place.

This debate is about concurring in a report tabled by the procedure and House affairs committee, a committee that is set up to look after these things. I would suggest that most members have absolutely no idea what happens in the procedure and House affairs committee even though it deals with a number of things. It is not a sexy committee nor is it a committee that makes the front pages of newspapers but it does very important work. Part of its work involved making recommendations concerning the protection of members' rights and privileges. Tomorrow the committee will be dealing with the alleged violation of a member's rights and privileges with respect to information going to the member's riding.

The procedure and House affairs committee also looks at conflict of interest involving members of Parliament. It is working with the Ethics Commissioner to ensure the form we all fill out is user friendly and accomplishes what government said it should accomplish. This work does not bring headlines but it is important work.

It is important to draw the House's attention and Canadians' attention to the kind of work that is being done in committees.

The procedure and House affairs committee is also studying electoral reform. Members from all sides of the House have been talking and witnesses have spoken to us about the possibility of changing the way members are elected to Parliament.

We may be looking at consulting with Canadians. I think that was one of the amendments that came out of a recent throne speech. We may be looking at electoral reform and ways of consulting Canadians.

It comes down to the fact that if we do not have access to this place we will be unable to do that good work.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Madam Speaker, like my hon. colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, I too am quite puzzled by the Liberal strategy. I cannot understand why a government that claims to want Parliament to work would put forward a motion to delay the business of the House. I have never seen anything like that in the British parliamentary system, and I have been sitting in this House for 20 years. Usually, motions are brought forward by the opposition parties in an effort to delay legislation which they want to amend, because they want more time to explain what it is all about to the public.

But today, we have the ruling party putting forward a committee motion on security, which has already been debated, and bringing the whole thing back to the floor of the House for three hours for no reason, and we learn at the same time that it has 43 other similar motions to present. This means that it will be another 43 sittings before Parliament can consider any of the current bills. That is incredible. The government itself is blocking its own legislation. I do not understand how the NDP can applaud that. I said NDP, but I should have said NLP, or New Liberal Party, given that the party's designation changed over the past week.

I was listening to the Liberal member who spoke just before me saying that Canadians do not want an election, that they are in no hurry and that we should wait for the report of the Gomery inquiry. I have here in my hands an article from the Journal de Montréal from May 9, 2004. A week and a half before the election was called, what did the current Prime Minister say? He said, “Canadians know enough about the sponsorships. We will call an election immediately.” He has changed his tune a year later. It was in the paper.

Why did they call the election? There was a poll indicating that there would likely be a Liberal majority government. It was political opportunism. Given the history of the Liberal Party, it is no surprise they acted that way. Think back to 1979, when the Conservative government of Joe Clark brought down its budget. On December 10, in the middle of winter, the Liberals defeated the government and forced an election during the holidays. That election was held in the first week of February because at the time we had eight weeks to campaign instead of 33 days. Why did they not wait to defeat the government? The polls were in their favour, that is why, so they defeated the government.

When Prime Minister Chrétien won a majority in 1993, did he stay in power the full five years for which he had been elected? No, with a new Conservative leader in the wings, he decided to call an election at a cost of $250 million to $300 million, after only three years and three months out of political opportunism—the polls were good—in order to destabilize that party. It worked. Three years and three months later, he did it again. In 10 years of being in power, Jean Chrétien went before the electorate three times out of political opportunism. He called three elections when there should have been only two, if he had stayed for the duration of the majority government mandate for which he had been elected. He could not claim that Parliament was not working. Such is the history of the Liberal Party, political opportunism.

Let us now talk about the by-election the Liberal Party called in Sherbrooke, immediately following the departure of Jean Charest for Quebec. It was called right in the middle of the opposition party leadership race.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, with due respect to the hon. member, I rise on a point of order in that he has yet to talk about the report dealing with an infringement on the rights of members of parliament. His talking about everything except that is an infringement of my rights to participate in the debate on a matter that is extremely important. His comments are not relevant and he should get on to the subject matter.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

The debate has been progressing so far with very little relevance. We would ask the member to get to the point of relevance.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Madam Speaker, thank for your sound remarks. I was about to say exactly the same thing. The member for Mississauga—South must have been away a while ago, for he would have heard three or four speeches which were not much more relevant in terms of the motion. Indeed, most members in this House are outraged, with good reason, that an old topic was used to hold three hours of debate, for absolutely nothing, to delay the work of their own government. The Liberal government puts forward motions to delay its own legislation. It is incomprehensible.

I was saying that in the riding of Sherbrooke some people did not hesitate, out of political opportunism, to call a by-election. Why? Because they knew that the Conservatives were in a leadership race and they thought they could win the riding. They had forgotten that the Bloc would be there. It was present and it won the riding of Sherbrooke. This is consistently what happened.

Let us also remember this. I see the promise of a $4.8 billion agreement made to the NDP, the New Liberal Party. That party has no memory. When did the Liberal Party ever respect a promise? It has always had two discourses: one during the election campaign and the other after. Let us recall the Trudeau against Stanfield period. Stanfield had promised a price and wage freeze. Trudeau campaigned against it and, three months later, he implemented the price and wage freeze.

Let us remember 1980, when the Liberals had promised to freeze the price of gas. Three months later, the price went up 60¢. It has consistently been like this.

My time has expired, but I would have had so many things to say about the Liberals' broken promises.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings on the motion at this time. Twenty-two minutes remain in the three hours for debate provided for by Standing Order 66.

Accordingly, debate on the motion is deferred until a future sitting.

The House resumed from April 21 consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

It being 6:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the motion for concurrence in the third report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division;)

[The Speaker]

I declare the amendment lost.

The next question is on the main 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 yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Speaker]

The hon. chief government whip on a point of order.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you were to seek it you would find unanimous consent for all the members having voted on the last question now being deemed as voting on this question with all Liberals present voting against this motion, except those Liberals who would choose to be recorded otherwise.