Debates of May 9th, 2005

Committees of the House

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke about confidence. I can tell the House that Canadians do not have confidence in the alliance that has been worked out between the Leader of the Opposition and the separatist party. They are disappointed and they are appalled at this alliance.

The learned member across talked about the economy. For Canadians, let us talk to Canadians the economy.

The government was elected in 1993. The annual debt of the country was $43 billion under a Conservative government. Every year $43 billion was being added to debt of the country. Unemployment was 11.5%. Interest rates were 11.8%.

What has happened over the last number of years by using the correct fiscal and monetary policies that the country wanted? What has happened to our debt? For the last eight years, the country has operated at a surplus and that is something of which I am very proud.

What has happened to our unemployment rate that used to be 12% under the Conservatives and Brian Mulroney, the previous leader of the learned member across? Yesterday it was announced that it was 6.8%. It is unbelievably low. It is a dramatic decrease.

When the Conservatives were in power and they left the country in a mess, the debt to GDP ratio was 71%. What is it now? It is at 40%.

Interest rates are a true reflection of the confidence that the business community has in the government of the country. I remember those interest rates when the Conservatives were in power. I practised law then. I wrote the mortgages at 24% and it was not pleasant.

A whole generation of Canadians believe that interest rates were always at 6%. I can tell those Canadians that is not the case. Interests rates were at around 12%, higher than before that, and it was not a pleasant place to do business. It was not a pleasant place to work. It was not a pleasant place to raise a family.

The learned member across talked about the economy. He should look at the statistics, he should look at the facts and he should at the excellent job that has been done over the last number of years.

The last matter he was talking about was wanting to have a confidence motion. He will have that occasion. The budget vote will be coming up I assume over the next two, three or four weeks. If my learned friend considers the budget unpleasant, he will be disagreeing with every Canadian to whom I have spoken to over the last number of years. I will guarantee him tonight he will have friends in the Bloc Québécois because they are prepared to stand up in the House and vote against the budget.

Again, he will have the opportunity. If the member across and the Bloc Québécois want to vote against the budget, they will have their opportunity and Canadians will watch in disgust and shake their heads as they do it.

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

Madam Speaker, I realize that we would like to act on this immediately, but I heard certain things across the floor that I am really taking exception to.

When they talk about an alliance or a marriage, they should not forget that, whether it is based on the civil or religious definition, there is a contract involved. The only contract in effect in this House was signed by the two parties opposite. Here, we will never vote against a motion blaming the government. Indeed, the government has never done anything, except when it had its back to the wall. It has never come into this House with anything to offer to Quebeckers.

This is why I want to repeat a question that I already asked: Why does this government always wait until it has its back to the wall to try to reach agreements? That is my question.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Madam Speaker, in the preamble to the question the member talked about a marriage. I do not know if it is an alliance, a partnership, a deal, an agreement, or whether it is signed before a notary public in writing. I know what Canadians are telling me. They find this arrangement to be very distasteful and almost alarming. Perhaps I would call upon the member across the way to explain just what this arrangement is. Canadians are disturbed about it. The more he could enlighten me, the better.

He talked about being backed up against a wall. I do not know how to answer that. We are talking about a motion dealing with a committee report that was tabled two years ago. Those members are trying to dig it up from the archives of this building, bring it back before the House, and frame it as a confidence motion. That is a very unusual twist of the parliamentary rules and guidelines that we see here every day. It is distasteful and it is wrong. Nobody is being backed up against a wall. We are attempting to do our best to make Parliament work. We are attempting to do what Canadians sent us here to do. I will say quite clearly right here tonight that we will continue to do that.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to add a few comments to the debate.

The member said that we on the opposition side are trying to frame the debate. This is a debate on confidence. How much clearer can we get? It calls on the government to resign. What part of that do they not understand? That is as clear as anything.

We had to bring this forward as part of a concurrence motion because the government has denied the opposition days to us that are our right. We are not getting them. That is very wrong. These rights are not some sort of a gift from the Liberal Party. They are built into our system which is hundreds of years old. We have a right to bring in these motions. That is exactly what we have done and it is going to be up to Parliament to decide. We are calling on the government to resign and we will have a vote on this, hopefully in the next 24 hours. Parliament can decide and Canadians can accept that.

I apologize to the member from P.E.I. I did not catch all of his comments. He said something about alliances and because he raised the matter I feel compelled to make some comments.

I am assuming that he is talking about the alliance that was struck between the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport as one of the founders of the Bloc Québécois. I did not catch it all but I am assuming that is the one he talked about. The Prime Minister of Canada and one of the founding leaders of the Bloc Québécois made an arrangement. It seemed to me that he was throwing the question back to us on this side of the House.

All I can say is, ask the Prime Minister. I do not know what the deal is; I do not know the terms of the alliance, but it looks pretty cozy. They sit beside each other in the House of Commons and get the opportunity to chat, but what the details are of that alliance I am not in a position to say.

I suppose we could comment on the alliance between the New Democrats and the Liberals. I called it a marriage the last time I spoke on this. I guess the NDP budget details will be tabled tomorrow. We will all be very interested. When I heard this courtship was taking place and that a deal had been made, all I could think is that Canadian taxpayers had better hang on to their wallets. When the NDP and the Liberals agree on anything, we know there is going to be lots and lots of spending.

[An hon. member]

A billion dollars a day.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

That is right.

There will not be any suggestion of a tax cut. We could check that when we assemble all the details. Canadians do not have to worry about getting any money back because it is all going to be spent. Why would it not have been fair to consider the fact that Canadians are overtaxed? This is why the government keeps stumbling over billions of dollars somewhere in the lobby. Every couple of days the Liberals find a new bucket full of money that they find a way to spend, when they could be spending on some of the things that I think would be very helpful. Obviously, there is Canada's armed forces. They are all back-end loaded. We always have to wait for that.

On some of the tax cuts that would give us a break, why would they not look at the federal excise tax in the wine and beer industries? I could appreciate that the wine industry is not everywhere in Canada, but it is important nonetheless. I bet a lot of hon. members have breweries in their ridings. Why would they not look at that excise tax, bring it into line with what the Americans have? Why they did not do it I have no idea. It would have been a great idea. How would it be so bad for the NDP? I am not suggesting that they reduce all taxes because I realize that is against their philosophy, but to reduce this one tax, do they not think it would make such a difference to both those industries? I am surprised that did not make the cut.

They talked about reducing airport rents. What about Pearson International Airport? How could they have talk about airport rents and then have forgotten one of the largest airports in the world? What a difference that would make to the travelling public in this country.

We are treated to the spectacle of a government that has been caught. They can deny all the want but the proof, among other things, that the Liberals have made up their minds about this evidence is that they have launched a lawsuit against a number of the companies and groups to try and get the money back. I think it is a fair assumption to make that they must be pretty convinced by the evidence because they have started a lawsuit to try and recover money from them.

It is too bad the Liberal Party could not be added as a co-defendant to get some of the money back from them. Why is it that the evidence that all these other groups have got the money is all right, but all the evidence that the Liberal Party got the money we cannot touch that one because it has not been proven yet? This is sworn testimony and guess what. All those people appearing before the Gomery commission are members of the Liberal Party. They are all officials of the Liberal Party. They are the people who ran the operation. They are the ones with whom other members of the Liberal Party are not agreeing.

This motion is a necessary one. I indicated to the House that the government through the House leader's office has reorganized the schedule and is not giving us the opposition days that are our due, that we have a right to expect. The opposition parties have been entitled to them for decades, for centuries. It is our right to bring this motion forward.

This motion is being brought forward calling on the Government of Canada to resign. The government should resign before it promises this country into bankruptcy. It should resign so we can get to the bottom of the corruption that has become a hallmark of the Liberal government.

I do not think that Canadians will buy the suggestion that only Liberals can get to the bottom of a Liberal scandal, that only Liberals can recognize other Liberals who are crooks. I do not buy that.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Get an arsonist to put out the fire.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

That is right. Get an arsonist to put out the fire. That is not what we are all about here.

A new government of this country will get to the bottom of this. Justice Gomery can continue to do the good work that he is doing. I hope Canadians will give my party the opportunity to get to the bottom of this issue.

That being said, the business of this House is to decide whether we continue to have confidence in the government. I hope that very soon we will have the opportunity to pass judgment on the government. If there has ever been a government in history that so badly needs to have judgment placed upon it, it is the government we are facing across the aisle. There is no question about it.

I say to the government that our democratic rights are not some sort of gift from the Liberal Party. The Liberals do not have the right to decide that. It is the Parliament of Canada. This House of Commons has the right to bring forward the motions that will test the confidence in the government. That is most certainly what we are doing. Despite all the procedural arguments, this is what the motion is all about. I commend my colleague, the member for Prince George—Peace River, for bringing this motion before the House so that members of the House of Commons will have that opportunity.

Canadians have recognized that the government has just about run out of time. That is the decision we will be asking Canadians to make in the very near future.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Canada—U.S.)]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if I can formulate one question in 60 seconds. I find it simply amazing to listen to members of the opposition and their unruly behaviour during what is supposed to be a serious debate. I think it proves that the opposition members have no interest whatsoever in actually working. They only wish to use procedural techniques in order to not allow the government to work.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have done our best to make this Parliament work, but we never bought into any kind of a deal between the Liberals and the NDP. Nobody voted for that. The amount of corruption that is uncovered every single day before the Gomery commission in sworn testimony and one group of Liberals pointing the finger at another group of Liberals is a disgrace. The time has come for judgment to pass down on this group over there.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order. It being 6:12 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Deputy Speaker]

The government whip has proposed that the vote be taken at 6:30 p.m. this evening. The chief opposition whip has asked that the vote be taken tomorrow at the end of government orders.

I will refer back to a similar situation that happened in 1995 when the Speaker at that time urged the two whips to sit down and negotiate, if they could, a time that was agreeable to both sides. Unfortunately, I have to do that because one proposal is for 6:30. I will ask the two whips to see if there is an amicable agreement they could come to in the next five minutes.

I will proceed with routine proceedings and the whips can inform me if they have been able to come to a decision that they both agree on before we finish with routine proceedings. They have five minutes.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe the longstanding tradition of the House is that whatever deferral is the furthest away, in other words, the deferral from the official opposition whip for tomorrow at the end of government orders, not 12 minutes from now, takes precedence.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I have already suggested that the Chair will rule on this in five minutes. I have encouraged the whips to get together and then the Chair will rule. We have to settle this before 6:30 p.m. because that is the earliest possible vote. I urge the two whips to get together. If they can come to an agreement, we will return within the five minutes and rule at that time.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I respect your wisdom. I would only offer as a point of order that my understanding is that as whips, both the government whip and the opposition whip, if we come to the table at the same time, you are then obligated to take a further deferral.

However, I would point out, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, that I had completed my motion for deferral. You had accepted it before the opposition whip sought clarification and then came forward with another motion. I would contend that I had completed my deferral motion before the opposition whip had been alerted to it and decided that he, too, would come.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Bloc Québécois House leader, on a point of order.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, similar situations have occurred on a number of occasions. You in fact referred to one on June 15, 1995, when the government whip sought deferral of a vote, at the latest, during the course of the day, while the opposition whip wanted it to be held at 5:30 p.m. the next day. The Speaker asked the two parties to reach an agreement, as you have done. However, as they did not, the Speaker ruled that the vote would be delayed until the following Monday, the latest day.

The same situation occurred in 1996. Having ruled on a similar case, the Speaker deferred the vote to the next day, the later of the two dates. There is a well established practice in this House, which is referred to in House of Commons Procedure and Practice , whereby in the event of a difference, when there are two requests for deferral, the request for the later day takes precedence, generally speaking.

This is the third situation, and I believe you should act as did your predecessors, who acted very wisely.