Debates of June 22nd, 2005

Extended Sitting Period

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond directly to the hon. member's question. When he makes reference to a budget implementation bill that just passed the Senate, what he is referring to is a budget finance bill which contained housekeeping tax measures. The budget implementation bill from budget 2004 passed within months, not a year. In fact, it was presented in March and passed before the House recessed in June of last year.

I must correct the member. While he makes his argument, the argument is incorrect. I would also encourage him to look at the facts to see that the budget implementation bill itself was passed quite expeditiously, much along the same lines that Bill C-43 was passed. We hope to have Bill C-48 passed expeditiously.

With respect to disagreeing with Bill C-48, I accept the member's ability and right to disagree on legislation. I have no qualms with that at all. That is what this House is about. I think that debate is about changing minds. I do not think the debate should be about stalling the question so Parliament can decide, and the opposition members have done a very good job of trying to do exactly that.

Editorials across the country are asking why members continue to stall, why they do not allow the question and why they do not allow Parliament to decide. That is democracy in action. Members should be able to oppose, but I do not think they should be able to use debate just to delay.

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

Mr. Speaker, it just gets more and more peculiar, the longer I have been here. It has been almost 12 years that I have been an elected member of Parliament. I always say to my constituents in Prince George--Peace River that it is 12 good years in the sense of having the privilege to have served them and to have been elected and then re-elected to come to this place and express what I believe to be in their best interest. However, it gets more and more peculiar when we look at what the government is setting out to do.

Today, we are debating a motion to have us sit beyond the normal day of adjournment for the summer break.

Right here I want to stop and represent not only myself but I think all members of Parliament. There is a misconception, and it is often repeated by the media, that somehow when the House rises members of Parliament go on holidays, they have this three-month summer break. I think I can speak for all members of Parliament from all four of the recognized parties, and even the independents, when I say that nothing could be further from the truth.

I say this in a non-partisan way that members of Parliament work extremely hard. I think I can speak with some experience on that. Before I got into politics I farmed and I worked in the oil and gas field. Very seldom in my life, except for I think for about a one-year period, did I have a nine to five job. I think it was more accurately 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. However, it was a job that had defined hours of employment. Other than that, I have worked at jobs where one worked until one got the job done. My experience has been with members of Parliament from all political persuasions that this is the way they work.

If there is work to be done they do it. It does not matter whether it is in Ottawa or in their constituencies, the job changes and the dynamics of the job change considerably. When the House rises, members of Parliament put on a slightly different hat. Instead of being legislators, they are constituency members of Parliament but they still work hard to interact with their constituents back in the ridings. If they get any break at all, usually it would be in the order that most Canadians get, a couple of weeks off in the summer.

I wanted to put that on the record because what we are debating today is having the House extend its sitting. There might be some people out there who will ask why members of Parliament should not work or what is wrong with extending the sitting? That is why I need to point out that members of Parliament work even when they are not in this place, in this chamber, even when they are not in their office in Ottawa and even when they are not meeting with lobbyists, that terrible word we have come to know all so well, who try to persuade us and educate us. Even when members are in their ridings, they are working and oftentimes all hours of the day and night.

[An hon. member]

How about those functions in the ridings that are planned?

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

Exactly. One of my colleagues is prompting me a bit here about functions which they have committed to in their ridings. Many of those will be for next week.

Again I think I am not just speaking for the Conservative Party of Canada and our 98 members of Parliament. I think I could speak for all 308 members. I am sure they have events planned to which they have committed. Some might have been committed to some months ahead of time expecting, before this extremely abnormal request on the part of the government, that the House would rise on schedule tomorrow night at midnight. That is not going to happen.

I wanted to put that on the record just to clear any misconception there might be that we are talking about going on holiday on Friday. That is not the case. We are speaking to Motion No. 17 put forward by the hon. government House Leader, which states:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice,--

And I just talked about the usual practice.

--when the House adjourns on June 23, 2005, it shall stand adjourned until June 27, 2005; at any time on or after June 27, 2005, a Minister of the Crown may propose, without notice, a motion that, upon adjournment on the day on which the said motion is proposed, the House shall stand adjourned to a specified date not more than 95 days later; the said motion immediately shall be deemed to have been adopted, provided that, during the adjournment, for the purposes of any Standing Order, the House shall be deemed to stand adjourned pursuant to Standing Order 28; commencing June 27, 2005 and concluding on the day on which a motion that the House stand adjourned pursuant to this Order is adopted, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays shall be 12:00 midnight.

That sounds extremely convoluted to anybody that is trying to follow it. I could not even follow it and I was the one reading it.

What does it basically say? This motion allows the House to begin sitting again next week. Then, once the government is satisfied that it got everything it wanted, a minister can deem the House adjourned to a date 95 days into the future.

We have a situation where a minister can wave his magic wand and deem that the House is adjourned. Why would we support that?

Obviously, depending on when the government gets what it wants, the House could be conceivably out until November or December or whenever. Once the government gets the bills that it wants, and we have seen this happen and certainly I have seen it happen in the almost 12 years that I have been here, the government could use prorogation. The government would prorogue the House until it deemed it most advantageous for it to have the House sit again.

I do not think it is a huge secret, that I am about to reveal, that this particular government is the most scandal plagued government in the history of our Parliament. Obviously, the Liberals would just love to have some method whereby they would not have to face the opposition daily for question period and have to answer questions in this place.

I do not think it is beyond a reasonable assessment that if the government were to be granted this and were it to pass all the legislation that the government House leader said was “urgent legislation”, there would be at least in theory no reason for the House to sit much longer.

In fact, one of the things our party has been saying, with the exception of the same sex marriage legislation, is that there has not been a heck of a lot on the government's agenda for a year now.

Something else I always want to point out to people is that the Conservative Party of Canada is not in the business of opposing just for the sake of opposition. We are called the official opposition.

We assess each and every piece of legislation that comes before this place. We weigh it on its own merits. We determine whether or not it is in the best interests of the majority of Canadians. Then we determine whether we are going to support it or oppose it, whether we can support it if it is amended or oppose it unless amended. We take these positions.

We believe that is a responsible way that a political party in this place should operate. It is not a position that just because we are opposition we oppose for the sake of opposing.

It might come as a bit of a surprise not only to yourself, Mr. Speaker, but to the viewing public, that in the almost 12 years I have been here the parties that I have represented have supported more government legislation than they have opposed, even though they have been opposition parties and that continues today.

Of the current bills that are before this place, leading up to the dying days of this session, there are about 15 that are not tied up in committee or have not gone on to the other place. We support two-thirds of them, 10 out of the 15. As far as I am concerned, that would certainly indicate that, unlike what the government House leader just said, we are neither obstructionist nor are we constantly opposing the government's initiatives. We believe in weighing the pros and cons of each piece of legislation, weighing its merits and then determining our position.

The government gave its verbal commitment to the Bloc Québécois that it would only consider Bill C-48 and Bill C-38 if it got the extension into the summer. It said that if there were other issues, and I was there when we were discussing this, it would consider them on an ad hoc basis, only with agreement.

The government members failed to explain that when the House begins to vote on deferred divisions, for example, subamendments at third reading of Bill C-48 or Bill C-38, there will be times when the House will have nothing to do while it waits for the deferred division to come to a vote. It just cannot sit here idling in neutral. It is not like a government minister's limousine. The House will have to do something during that period of time. If the vote is deferred until the next day, we cannot just recess the House while we are waiting to have the vote.

The government promise to the Bloc Québécois members, to ensure they supported the extension so there could be more debate into July and the government assurance that only Bill C-38 would be discussed, is not entirely accurate.

I would also like to discuss why the government believes that it is so urgent that we get these two bills passed. A number of colleagues rose during questions and comments and asked the hon. government House leader exactly that question. They pointed out that, in the case of Bill C-48, the NDP budget companion bill, it will not come into effect until we know if there is a surplus.

I need to stop right here because one of the things that has frustrated me during my years as a member of Parliament is when governments start to talk about a surplus. Even the use of the word surplus is a misnomer in my books.

[An hon. member]

It is overtaxation.

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

Exactly. My colleague from Edmonton says it is overtaxation and she is exactly right.

A fundamental philosophical difference between a Liberal or a New Democratic member and a Conservative is on this very issue because what is a surplus to a Liberal is overtaxation to a Conservative.

Let us look at the very premise of Bill C-48. It is a piece of legislation conceived in the dark of night in a hotel room in Toronto by a unionist, Buzz Hargrove, the leader of the New Democratic Party and the Prime Minister of the country to spend $4.6 billion.

I happen to have a copy of this piece of legislation that I would like to show Canadians. If they ever wanted to see what $4.6 billion looks like, there it is. It is two pages. It was conceived in a hurry.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I realize that my hon. colleague is in midstream and I hate to interrupt his speech, but I would point out that being a veteran parliamentarian, he would know that it is unacceptable to use props. I would question why he would feel the obligation to use a tactic such as that, which is demeaning of a man who has been in the House for as long as he has. I would just like to point that out to the House.

[The Speaker]

I appreciate the diligence of the government whip. The thought occurred to me that it might have been in fact a prop, but when then the hon. member identified it as the bill that is currently before the House, I thought that perhaps it was not a prop because it is after all a bill that is under discussion. I think it is probably in order to wave the bill around when one is discussing it.

I realize that the bill is not the subject of the debate, but the motion that we are debating does relate to this bill, among other things. So I suspect it might not quite be a prop. The hon. member knows he will have to hold it respectfully, rather than waving it around and by doing so perhaps turning it from a bill into a prop. Other than that, he is fine.

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

I am disappointed to see the hon. government whip rush into the Chamber and then exit again after she raised this issue.

As some of my colleagues who have been quick to point out, during her bogus point of order, this is indeed a prop in the sense that the government designed this, built it, and wrote it to prop up its government. In that sense, it is a prop. It is an NDP prop. It props up the corrupt government, as thin as it is.

In any event, before I was interrupted, I was about to explain to Canadians, who are watching these debates at home, one of the reasons why we have been so outspoken against Bill C-48. During the debate the Conservative Party of Canada and its members of Parliament carried on for a couple of days until the wee hours, up until midnight in a period of extended hours. If this motion were to pass, the debate would be extended hours again next week until midnight, which is part of the motion.

Unfortunately, and it might surprise you, Mr. Speaker, given the amount of hours that we have debated Bill C-48 at report stage, not all of my colleagues have had an opportunity to speak to the bill yet. I think there are still a few who did not get the opportunity because an interesting development took place last night.

When there was a decision by yourself, Mr. Speaker, to have the emergency debate on the Devils Lake diversion, which will dramatically affect the people of Manitoba, negotiations and discussions took place among the parties and we agreed to have the debate on report stage of Bill C-48 end at a certain time. Once that time was agreed to and was laid before the House in the form of a motion, instantly something happened.

All of a sudden we had Liberal and New Democrat members participating in the debate. Up to that time they had not been, other than the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. I seem to recall, to his credit, that he stayed here most evenings and participated in questions and comments. However, time after time we expected that members of the coalition of the two governing parties would stand up and participate in the debate, but they did not because they did not want to prolong the debate. However, as soon as there was an agreement to have an end time last night, what happened? All of a sudden they started to participate.

But I digress. The point that I am making is that the reason why Conservative members of Parliament felt so strongly and spoke so passionately about Bill C-48 and will continue to when they get the opportunity at third reading is because of that philosophical difference between Liberals and Conservatives. It is right at the very heart of why many of us, and I would suggest almost all of us here, left occupations that we loved, in which we had for all intents and purposes bright future careers.

We left those occupations and came to this place to represent our constituents. We did so because we believe in the trust between Canadian taxpayers and their government. We believe in that. We believe in a government that takes that trust seriously, not once in a while, but all the time.

That is why we get so upset when we see something like this. I am trying to treat this with great respect, but it is extremely difficult. We get so upset with something like this because of the process by which it came into existence and because of the fact that the government takes for granted that it can spend taxpayers' money any way it wants.

This is a government that is already mired in scandal. This is a government that has been mired in scandal after scandal over the 12 years I have been here. I can give the House examples of those scandals, on which the government has blown billions of dollars.

There is the failed long gun registration scheme it came up with. There was the HRDC scandal, which occurred before probably half of my caucus colleagues even came here, but we remember it.

[An hon. member]

Shawinigate.

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

Money was blown on Shawinigate. I thank my colleague for the reminder. The past prime minister, Jean Chrétien, interceded to secure a loan for a golf course and a hotel that he had an interest in.

There was also the spending on Challenger jets. My colleagues are feeding me information here to make sure that I do not forget, because so many scandals have rocked this government over the last 12 years that it is just unbelievable.

And this is the government that has the audacity to come to this place with a bill like this and expect all members of Parliament from all parties to approve it. Bill C-48 was illegitimately conceived. I would suggest that it is the illegitimate child of that union in the Toronto hotel room. The government has brought this bill before the House and expects all parties to fall all over themselves because of all the great and wonderful things it is going to address.

We are not saying that the issue of foreign aid does not need to be addressed. We are not saying that the issue of homelessness does not need to be addressed. We are not saying that there does not need to be greater emphasis on public transit. We have never said those things. Those things have always been part of our agenda, but they should not be dealt with like this.

Canadians understand that. My constituents understand that. This is no way to draft a budget. Canadians put more effort into drafting their household budget on a weekly basis than the government put into drafting this bill.

No one in Canada is fooled when told that this is somehow urgent business, that it needs to be addressed immediately and needs to be passed to the extent that we extend a sitting of Parliament to accomplish it. No one is fooled by that.

People know what Bill C-48 is: desperation in the extreme. This was conceived at a time when the Prime Minister knew that his minority government was in desperate shape and was about to fall if he did not do something. The only thing that kept his government alive in February and March was our party, because, as I said earlier, we assess each piece of government legislation and weigh it on its own merits.

We assessed Bill C-43, the original budget implementation act. We felt that there was enough good in it to support it. We took the unprecedented step, never before done in the 138 year history of Canada, of abstaining on the original budget vote. If we had voted as most opposition parties normally would have, the government would have fallen then. The NDP voted against it. The Bloc Québécois voted against it; to the Bloc's credit, at least it is consistent. The government would have fallen. We would have been in an election in March. We did not do it because we weigh legislation based on its merits and on whether we believe we can improve it.

We believed that the flaws in Bill C-43, such as the CEPA amendments to implement parts of the Kyoto accord, could be taken out. We believed that the bill could be improved and amended, so we waited, on balance, and decided to take an unprecedented step.

At that time, the NDP criticized the Conservatives for this. The leader of the NDP went to the television cameras and dumped all over us and all over the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. He said it was unbelievable that the Conservative Party and its leader would abstain and allow the survival of Parliament.

Let us be clear on that point as well. The Conservatives did not support the budget that night. We did not support a corrupt government that night. We allowed Parliament to survive. We were very clear on that. We allowed to Parliament to survive because we believed that this particular piece of legislation, Bill C-43, could be amended and on balance could ultimately be supported. And we ultimately did. We supported it on May 19 and again on June 15.

It strikes me as more than a little odd that the government House leader moments ago said that this legislation, Bill C-48, the NDP budget, is of an urgent nature. Yet Bill C-43 has been passed to the other place. That is the budget, not this. Bill C-43, the original budget implementation act, was supported by the official opposition and the New Democratic Party and went to the other place on June 15. I have been informed that there it sits.

Conservative senators are ready to pass it because it contains things that all of us are under pressure to implement. It does not matter whether we are Conservative members of Parliament or Liberal, NDP or Bloc. We have all heard from our municipalities in our ridings, from our mayors, city councillors, regional district directors, reeves, et cetera. They are all of the opinion that they want Bill C-43, which contains the gas tax transfer of money to the municipalities, passed as quickly as possible into law so that money can start flowing.

[An hon. member]

And the Atlantic accord.

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

And the Atlantic accord as well. I will get to that in a second. I know the member was worried that I had forgotten about that. I had not.

I want to point out that there are good things in the budget. On balance, that is why, when we assessed it, we supported it. It is important that people in the real world outside of this bubble that sits over Parliament Hill understand this.

Bill C-43 is sitting in the Senate. Why would that be? The government says it is of an urgent nature and is quick to try to condemn the Conservative Party even though, as I have just laid out, it abstained on the original budget vote and has supported it twice since and ensured its quick passage.

In fact, let us talk about the Atlantic accord. The Conservatives wanted to expedite its passage. Time and time again my colleague from Newfoundland raised the issue and pleaded with the government to expedite it, to carve off the Atlantic accord from Bill C-43 and get it through this place.

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South, NL]

As did the Bloc and NDP.

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

As did the other two opposition parties. I should not say that. What I should say is that the one other opposition party and the coalition partner also supported the initiative to try to get that done, but the government refused. It said no, that it was all part of the package.

Time after time we heard in this place that we should pass Bill C-43 and get the budget through, that if we wanted the Atlantic accord we should get the budget through. How many times did we hear that? Now it is sitting in the Senate. It is going to be held for ransom until the government gets Bill C-48 through.

[An hon. member]

That's what they're doing. Shame.

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

That is what it is about.

The Liberals will hold it up until they pass this bill, which is two pages long and in which they are spending $4.6 billion. As has been said by my colleagues, let us not make any mistake about it, whether Bill C-48 passes today, tomorrow, next week or next month, it makes no difference.

Let us read from it. We do not have to read much more than the beginning of clause 1, which states, “Subject to subsection (3), the Minister of Finance may...”. We can just stop right there. It is “may”, not “will”. The finance minister “may, in respect of the fiscal year 2005-06, make payments out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund...”.

The bill is contingent upon there being what Liberals commonly refer to as a surplus. Even the New Democratic Party members have figured that out. They admit that. It is contingent upon there being a so-called surplus in order to pay for these things.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

So you like that. We did that for you.

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

I do like it. I just do not see the urgency for any of it.

My hon. colleague from the NDP said that he thought I would like that. Of course I like it. Anything that would bring any degree of financial credibility to the government and to its spending habits would be a good thing. I think it is great that the Liberals cannot spend themselves into deficit, although I wonder whether that is exactly the route we are headed for now, despite their pleas to the contrary.

Here we sit today and Bill C-43 sits in the Senate while the government holds us to ransom and tries to blame it on the Conservatives. Conservative senators are ready to expeditiously pass the bill so the money can start flowing to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador for the Atlantic accord and to municipalities all across the country for badly needed improvements to infrastructure, but it just sits there because the government wants to, as I have said, hold us to ransom until it gets this piece of legislation through.

Why it wants to is completely beyond me, when the bill will not come into effect until we know what the financial situation of the country is almost a year from now. The fiscal or financial year end for our country is March 31. Until we get to next April fool's day, we will not know whether there is enough money to spend on these so-called priorities, so what is the urgency?

Why would Bill C-48 be the urgent legislation that the government House leader states it is? Here is what he has said about Motion No. 17. If it fails, if we vote it down, if there are sufficient members of Parliament in the chamber who say it is not urgent enough to extend the sitting into July, with the accompanying costs--and why would it be?--he has actually said that he will go to the Speaker and request that Parliament reconvene after its adjournment. Let us just think about that.

There is a mechanism in our democracy whereby, if it is necessary, a government can recall Parliament in times of great peril when the House is in a recess period. Every Canadian would support this, because we do not have a crystal ball with which to look into the future.

We do not know what would happen if suddenly we were in a situation where some country declared war on us or if there were some horrendous natural disaster, like an earthquake or something, that required the urgent and timely intervention of Parliament. All sorts of crises might occur and they might not be so accommodating as to occur when the House is in session, so, of course, we need to have that mechanism in place. No one disputes that.

However to have a government demonstrate the arrogance that this legislation, along with Bill C-38, the same sex marriage legislation, are of such urgency that it would go to the Speaker and request that he recall Parliament to deal with it, is nothing short of unbelievable. I have never heard of such a thing.

If this unfolds, think about the precedent this sets. I would suggest that there is then no need to even worry about having a calendar whereby members of Parliament of all four parties can try to plan their lives, their commitments to their constituents and the events in their ridings.

As I said at the outset of my remarks, I know there are many members in all four parties who have important events planned in their ridings that allow their constituents personal access to their member of Parliament.

All too often we become so taken up with events in this place that it is all too easy to forget about how important that personal interaction with our constituents is. There are a few people who forget that at their peril and they will be reminded at the time of the next election. All of us have seen that happen.

I cannot and would not want to downplay how important this upcoming recess is for members of Parliament to be able to interact with their constituents.

While I am on the subject of this urgent nature, I just want to briefly refer to Bill C-38, the other piece of legislation that the government says is of such urgency that it has to get it through before we recess for the summer.

One of my colleagues makes a good point. Why did the Liberals not bring it through earlier if they wanted it? Why was it that in the entire month of May, the only day that we had for an opposition supply day was the last day of May. However in order to fulfill the requirement for the supply period, the government was forced to do exactly what I said it would be forced to do when it started down that road in late April, which was have all of the remaining six opposition supply days in early June. It took up a lot of time in the chamber but the government had to give those days to us finally, otherwise it could not have gotten its supply, which is its funding for the upcoming year. It had to complete that.

Now we are in a situation where the Liberals have determined that these two pieces of legislation are urgent: Bill C-48 and Bill C-38. I have already addressed the so-called budget companion bill, Bill C-48, so I will now turn to Bill C-38.

The reality is that we on this side believe that Canadians have some very deep reservations about enacting into law for the entire country same sex marriage. We believe the majority of Canadians have some very serious reservations about a government that is proceeding down that road. Many of these reservations came out in the debate that took place in the special legislative committee that was struck to deal with the legislation following second reading in the House.

The committee, however, certainly did not do the job that my colleagues, led by the member for Provencher who I know tried to ensure that the committee would travel to give Canadians better access. I spoke earlier about access to members of Parliament. He wanted to ensure that Canadians had access to discuss that face to face with the committee.

The Prime Minister promised at one point that the committee would ensure that Canadians did have that access and yet they did not. For my colleagues, the four Conservative members of Parliament who sat on that special legislative committee, it was a huge fight for them to even get the reduced list of witnesses who would appear. The government just wanted to fast-track Bill C-38 through that process. I say shame because there are some reservations.

However, even in that short period of time, it belatedly became obvious to the government, at the 11th hour, that there were some real legitimate concerns about the protection of religious freedom in this country. Even then, the government missed the deadline for putting forward its amendments at committee. This is how inept the government is; it missed the deadline for putting forward its amendments.

It had to be through negotiations with the Conservative members on that committee that concessions were made. However we have very serious reservations about the strength of those amendments and whether they will really do the job of protecting religious freedom and freedom of religious expression in this country.

We heard again today, in his brief remarks to Motion No. 17, the government House leader reading an editorial from the Globe and Mail that said that there had been enough talk about this, that it should just go to a vote and get it over with. In other words, we should just rush it through and never mind that there may be people hauled before courts or tribunals and punished if they question homosexuality. We constantly hear that there is enough protection. We have heard those words before, as have Canadian.

Why is there this urgency? Gays and lesbians are getting married in Canada. What is going to change if Bill C-38 passes through the House? I would seriously doubt it will pass through the Senate before the Senate rises for the summer. What difference does it make to the government whether Bill C-38 sits in this place for the summer or sits in the other place for the summer?

Only one thing comes to mind and it is that Liberal members of Parliament, when they know that the majority of their constituents are opposed to same sex marriage, do not want to hear about it all summer as they are out in their ridings interacting with their constituents. They are hoping that if we can deal with it, pass it and get it shuffled over to the Senate, that somehow that will take it off Canadians' agenda.

It might come off the agenda of the House of Commons but I can say that there is no hope in hell that it will come off the agenda for real Canadians in the real world. However supposedly this is of great urgency.

What is our position? We are not opposed to hearing an hour or two of report stage of Bill C-38. I conveyed that on behalf of my Conservative colleagues over a week ago to the House leader but the government wants the bill completed.

My position and the position of the Conservative Party of Canada was that given the very serious reservations that Canadians have about the protection of religious freedom of expression surrounding the bill, why would we not want to take those amendments, the ones which we and many others believe are too weak, out into the real world and ask Canadians what they think? What would be wrong in doing that for the summer if the bill is still here at report stage?

For those Canadians watching today, report stage is that stage of the legislative process where a bill can be amended. It can be improved and fixed. That was our position and it remains our position.

The majority of us do not believe that the bill is fixable but we do believe that at a minimum it could be improved before we send it on to the other place. We would like to get the opinion of Canadians over the summer as to whether they feel any cold comfort whatsoever with the amendments that have been put forward, both at committee and now put forward for report stage, if indeed those are not ruled out of order the way the vast majority were when it was at the special legislative committee.

The two pieces of legislation that the government says are so urgent that they require either the passage of Motion No. 17 or the extraordinary step that has only ever been taken in times of national emergency of going to the Speaker this weekend and telling him that we must reconvene Parliament next Monday, I would argue that I have just successfully disputed whether there is any urgency whatsoever.

In the lives of real Canadians outside of this place, nothing is going to change whether we pass Bill C-48 or Bill C-38.

[An hon. member]

Well, pass it if nothing is going to change.

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

One of the Liberals woke up over there and said “Well, pass it if nothing is going to change”.

I already explained that we base our opposition or our support--

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

We will draw you a picture. We will send you a picture.

[Rob Anders, Conservative, Calgary West, AB]

He didn't hear you. Explain it again.

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

I explained that we in the Conservative Party of Canada base our support or our opposition to legislation not on what is most expeditious or is most convenient for us, not because we might want to go home because we miss our families, our communities and our constituents.

We base our opposition or our support to legislation on the merits of that legislation.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!