Debates of June 23rd, 2005

Extension of Sitting Period

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, what is very sad is that the Bloc Québécois is speaking against the people in western Canada. It is 4:15 p.m. in Yukon and that is totally disrespectful to my constituents for the Bloc to suggest that they should lose the time from four o'clock in the afternoon because some phantom officials cannot go. Why can the officials not go?

Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day is tomorrow. It is a very important day for me personally. I celebrate it every year. I have been to celebrations with the Association franco-yukonnaise in Yukon, which I was once a member of. It is a very dynamic association. Its members are a very important part of our culture in the Yukon. They are 3% of our population. Quebeckers have a very dynamic culture and add to song and dance in Canada. It is that cultural diversity that is so important.

I would hope that the members of the Bloc Québécois, because I note that no other people in Quebec have complained to us, would have an appreciation for the other cultures in Canada and for the other time zones in Canada. All of us who like to celebrate the great and exciting culture of Quebec also have respect for western Canada as well.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the member from the Bloc, let me point out that it was not the Conservative Party that proposed this motion. Motion No. 17 came from the government side. The government is asking that we sit until midnight every night, including tonight. I agree with the member that the celebrations of St. Jean Baptiste should have a lot more importance than sitting here talking about a motion to sit until midnight every night next week.

One of the things in Motion No. 17 being proposed by the government side, which makes one wonder exactly where the Liberals are coming from, is that Parliament would not come back potentially for 95 days after we recessed. If we are here all next week until June 30, July has 31 days, August has 31 days and September has 30 days. That would still leave another three days in October. The Standing Orders say we are supposed to be back here on September 19.

Does the government have something up its sleeve for not wanting us back here until October? If we sit another couple of weeks, it means we will not be back until after Thanksgiving. I think the government owes us an explanation about the 95 days. It is amazing how the Liberals have put these little quirks in the motion and we do not know what they mean.

The motion is also an amendment to the Standing Orders. I would have thought that when the Standing Orders are amended, we would have a right to send them to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for debate so it could be examined from every aspect. Every party could put their points forward. The committee could then bring a report to the House saying whether it agrees or does not agree. But no, the government just rides roughshod over Parliament and democracy. It brings in a motion with its new-found friends in the NDP and thinks it is going to ram it through. That is not democracy.

It is interesting that today we received the first annual report on democratic reform. The very day the government is running roughshod over democracy is the day that it brought out the very first report. The report does not say very much. It is only 16 pages long, including a foreword and a few blank pages. The first paragraph of the introduction states:

When the government was sworn into office on December 12, 2003, the Prime Minister made democratic reform a priority, saying, “We are going to change the way things work in Ottawa in order to re-engage Canadians in the political process and achieve demonstrable progress in our priorities”.

The report closes by stating:

Finally, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons will continue to oversee the parliamentary component of the Action Plan for Democratic Reform and work with all parliamentarians to ensure that Members of the House of Commons can effectively represent their constituents and continue to play their role in holding the Government accountable.

That report came out the very day that closure was introduced in the House of Commons. Can anyone square that circle? I cannot. The very day that this report has come out, we have had closure foisted upon us, and the report says, “to ensure that members of the House of Commons can effectively represent their constituents”. I am sorry but I find it rather disappointing that the government would present this report and closure on the same day.

We have talked about the introduction in the report. One of the headings is “Ethics and Integrity”. There is one page on ethics and integrity. Of course, this is on the day after the Ethics Commissioner released a damning report on the former minister of immigration. The Ethics Commissioner refused to look into the Prime Minister and his chief of staff and so on, but we have a page here on ethics and integrity saying that the government is going to do a great job on ethics and integrity. Well, I do not believe that.

There is another page or two on the restoration of the representative and deliberative roles of MPs. Now there is a big handle, but it means nothing on the day the government introduced closure. It is the hypocrisy that gets to us when we read these things. There is one on the expanded role of committees to shape and influence legislation, and here we have the procedure and House affairs committee being bypassed, ignored by the fact that this motion should have gone there and it has not. I could go on, but is there really any point?

Another one concerns the role of ministers and parliamentary secretaries. Last year, it was rather an unusual situation. As members know, I chair the public accounts committee and a year ago the public accounts committee was investigating the sponsorship scandal. It was rather interesting that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works during question period stand on that side of the House answering questions and defending the government. After that, we went down the hall, the committee resumed after question period and he was supposed to be investigating on behalf of Parliament. Within the space of a few minutes he would be there defending the government, answering questions from the opposition and then he would go to the committee to do the “investigation”. That is the role of parliamentary secretaries.

Anyway, I think we will just leave that report alone. It really does not say an awful lot because the democratic deficit, I think, is getting bigger and bigger. It is getting a lot bigger, not smaller. Therein is the problem. I would hope that we can deal with that soon so that we can have an election and move those guys from over there to over here, and we can really get some democratic reform in the House.

The reason we are having all of this foisted upon us is of course Bill C-48, all two pages of it. It is going to spend up to $4.5 billion with no plan. Not only is it going to spend $4.5 billion but it is going to be spent fast. It is going to be spent this year and next year. We have 18 months because we are well through the first part of fiscal year 2005-06. From April 1, 2005, we are already three months into the quarter. By the time the bill passes, gets through the Senate, we bring the Governor General back--I am sure she is going somewhere--and get her to sign this into legislation, then we start spending this $4.5 billion. We only have 18 months to do it. That is a pile of cash going out the door, but where is the money going to go?

Earlier today there was a member from Assiniboine who was talking about how Bill C-48 was essential, how it was urgent and how the dollars were required. I took a look at this document which is called “Budget Plan 2005”. It has several hundred pages, 420 pages. It is the budget plan presented in the House by the Minister of Finance on behalf of the Liberal Party.

How long did you say I had to speak, Madam Speaker, only one minute? There must be more than one minute. It was a 20 minute speech. I am just getting warmed up. I thought it was 20 minutes, Madam Speaker.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

It just seemed like 20 minutes.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

No, I am just getting warmed up.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

Your speech is a 20 minute speech. According to my monitor you were on for 10 minutes, but we will add the 10 minutes.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Madam Speaker, in any event, budget plan 2005 does not even mention anything that is in Bill C-48. This just appeared magically, all of a sudden.

Bill C-48 does talk about putting $900 million into the environment. The government says this is important, but let us take a look back to the springtime when the government tabled the budget. It was going to put $5 billion into the environment over the next five years, $1 billion for the innovative clean air fund, $225 million to expand the successful EnerGuide for houses retrofit incentive program, $200 million for this and $200 million for that. That was a budget that the Conservative Party supported.

All of a sudden the government said, “We want to bring in the NDP as our friends and we are going to spend another $900 million on the environment just to buy their love”. Bill C-48 is not urgent. it is not dollars that are needed. Bill C-48 is for the Liberal Party. This is not for the people of Canada.

Then we go on to things like education and support for training. What does the big document say? Education, investment in Canadian capabilities, investing in people, $5 billion over five years to start building a framework for learning, and $120 million over five years for first nations children, $398 million for integration, supported by the Conservative Party no less. That is not enough for the NDP members. They need more.

What about housing? The Minister of Finance is going to deal with first nations housing. He is going to deal with development assistance abroad. On page 206 there is an increase of $3.4 billion over the next five years so we can meet our international obligations for the poor in Africa and the poor elsewhere around the world. That is important. The NDP wants to squeeze another $500 million out of the Canadian taxpayer, even though we as the Conservative Party supported this budget of $3.4 billion in extra foreign aid. This is generous. Now there is another $500 million to buy the support of the NDP. This is not about public policy. This is not about helping Canadians. This is about helping the Liberals stay in power with the support of the NDP.

There are only 308 members in the House, half on that side and half on this side. The House is evenly divided as everyone knows. We have had too many tied votes around here recently.

That is the price of buying the NDP, $4.5 billion, out of the pockets of Canadian taxpayers. It is rather unfortunate.

Then we have Bill C-38, the same sex marriage bill. The Supreme Court brought down its reference response last December, as I recall. That is more than six months ago. All of a sudden there is a great urgency to get this bill out of the way. Two weeks ago the Prime Minister gave the indication that we could deal with this in the fall, but he has had a change of heart. He wants it done now. We wonder why he wants it done now and he wants to keep us around here to get it done, even though many Canadians, perhaps even a majority of Canadians have said, “We don't want this legislation”.

Everyone acknowledges and has agreed and given to same sex couples the same benefits that any other couple enjoys. But the word “marriage” is a hallowed name, a word that has come to us down through the centuries. The government is going to change the definition of every dictionary in the land and even around the world because it wants to capitulate and give the definition of marriage to same sex couples.

We disagree with that and half of people in the country, or more, disagree with that.

I think the Liberals have found out that the polls are moving against them on this issue. On that basis, they wanted to get this issue out of the way so that in the summertime it would not fester. They wanted to have smooth sailing, hopefully, into the next election. Well, it will not be smooth sailing into the next election because we will ensure that the people who are opposed to this will show up at on polling day and register their concern and their absolute disgust at what the government has done.

I was talking to a friend of mine who is in the polling business and he told me that this was intergenerational, that the younger people tend to support same sex marriage and the older generation say “no way”. It is interesting that the people who say “yes, there is nothing wrong with same sex marriage” when they are young, tend to change their mind when their children arrive. Their children, of course, come from a heterosexual relationship and no other kind of relationship that I am aware of. When their children arrive they are the ones changing diapers, raising them and doing everything that parents do. I know this as I am also a proud parent. However we realize that perhaps the heterosexual relationship is not only the normal way but the right way and the way that has to be endorsed by society and that is what marriage is all about.

The question we have to ask is why the big rush.

[An hon. member]

What's the hidden agenda Paul?

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Hidden agenda? There are hidden agendas here and there. The Liberals are going to keep us here to get Bill C-48 through, which is the NDP budget, the tail wagging the dog.

I see nothing about Bill C-48 in budget plan 2005. I can go through all the documents. I can go through the budget speech by the Minister of Finance. I can do a full review of the budget and move toward a green economy in the budget. I can move on to securing our social foundations in the budget. I can see achieving a productive and sustainable economy in the budget. I see a new deal for Canadian communities in the budget. I can see meeting our global responsibilities, the budget in brief, in the budget. However I do not see a word about Bill C-48.

How did this conversion on the road to socialism become all of a sudden such a big deal, this two page budget spending $4.5 billion with no programming whatsoever? The Liberals are just saying that we should spend the cash, blow it out the door without having a program by which to deliver it.

They talk about more money for housing. We do not disagree with more money for housing but all it says is:

for affordable housing, including housing for aboriginal Canadians, an amount not exceeding $1.6 billion;

In the province of Alberta and right across this country we are going to build more than 200,000 housing units this year. For the fourth year in a row we are now going to exceed 200,000. The building industry is going flat out. Construction workers are working at the maximum. I am thinking about putting an addition on my house and I cannot even get people to do it because they are all working so hard. How are we going to be able to put another $1.6 billion into housing, apart from just creating an inflationary environment in the housing market? The Liberals do not think about that. They just say that if this is what it takes to get the NDP, that is what it takes.

It also talks about the energy efficient retrofit program for low income housing. We have a program for retrofit of energy inefficient houses. We are building the industry. We cannot just expand it in an explosive way overnight because that does not work. I am surprised the members of the NDP agreed to this but I am not surprise that the Liberals promised them anything.

However this budget will not work. A year from now the Auditor General will be saying that things are falling off the rails.

I am opposed to Motion No. 17 that would allow us to continue to debate Bill C-48 and Bill C-38 because both of those bills should have been in the trash can. If that were to happen then we could get on with doing the real business of Canada.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Edmonton--St. Albert for highlighting various aspects of the budget. We are proud of the fact that we have kept our promises on a number of social files. Yes, the budget is a great budget in the fact that it talks about a green economy, about housing and about the doubling of foreign aid to Africa. It also addresses issues of concern when it comes to post-secondary education.

However what is fascinating is that members opposite have only recently converted to the importance of these social files. In fact, when the budget was first presented the Leader of the Opposition rushed out, gushing to reporters about corporate tax cuts.

What the opposition was gushing about was the corporate cuts for its Conservative corporate clients. What is fascinating is that as soon as there was a bump-up in the polls, the Conservatives went back on their word. They pulled their support for this budget that this member opposite is now gushing about and talking about the importance of these social files.

If they are so concerned about these social files and not their corporate clients, why would they not be concerned about the 900 million additional dollars going into the budget? There is the Alberta energy lobby.

Why are they not concerned about an additional $1.6 billion for housing? Their corporate clients are not very concerned about people out on the streets.

Why are they not concerned about $500 million for foreign aid? There are not a lot of Conservative voters in developing countries.

I would just like to find out why the recent conversion. Is it not a matter of hypocrisy and is there real concern that there is $4.6 billion that, instead of going to their corporate clients, is going to students, to foreign aid to housing and into taking care of the environment?

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Madam Speaker, yes, we did support the budget. It did contain a tax cut, which the Liberals took away and threw away because they had to pay for the NDP votes that they bought.

I think back to October 2000 when we were presented with a mini budget the week before an election was called. It was presented at the time by the then minister of finance, who is now the Prime Minister, and it contained $100 billion in tax cuts. He was so proud of that and then they went off and won the election on the tax cuts that they promised because Canadians want tax cuts.

I have already explained why we cannot absorb $1.6 billion in the housing industry. It is because it is going flat out. The way he trashes the province of Alberta, he must not realize that the Deputy Prime Minister is on a knife edge. She is my neighbour in the city of Edmonton, in the province of Alberta, and if he keeps talking that way he can kiss her goodbye because she will be gone.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I commend my hon. colleague for a very thorough presentation.

I want to address the issue of these corporate tax cuts for just a moment. Members on the government side of the House and, of course, their coalition of corruption partners over there in the New Democratic Party, seem to be portraying this as something for just the rich who donate to our campaigns or something like that.

Let me begin with some of the news from today: indefinite layoffs announced by General Motors of Canada; rumours that Ford's Essex engine plant in Windsor may be closing down; loss of a third shift possibility at a Windsor assembly plant. The government just heard a presentation of money for DaimlerChrylser in its cabinet this week. The industry needs some help but the government wants to get rid of corporate tax cuts that could help them.

Does my colleague not believe that it is a benefit to the average working Canadian, the communities and this government, through tax revenues from these high paying auto jobs, to keep them here? Is that not the real reason that tax cuts are important in this country?

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Madam Speaker, of course the Liberals and the NDP will soak anybody for a tax dollar if they get the chance, including the auto workers who support the NDP.

It is interesting that our finance critic has been challenging the Minister of Finance these last few days about the tax on the tax on the gasoline that is now costing 90¢ a litre and our auto industry is in deep trouble because although people like to drive SUVs they cannot afford to keep them on the road anymore because of the tax on the GST, and the excise tax and the provincial Liberal taxes on the price of gasoline. Had these taxes not been there, gas would be affordable for Canadians and they could drive the car that they wanted. However this tax, tax, tax until people squeak is the way the government has survived so far.

It is interesting in Bill C-48 that any money the government has over and above a $2 billion surplus is to be spent. Let us just blow the wad. There is no concept that this is taxpayers' money in trust and if it is not needed it should be given back. No, no. Just blow the wad. The Liberals and the NDP are now cozying up to support each other at the expense of Canadians, not for Canadians.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have to call the member opposite on something. He mentioned again the collaboration between the NDP and the Liberals on this budget and he referred to the auto workers. His finance critic today got up in the House of Commons, referred to that collaboration and referred to Mr. Buzz Hargrove and the auto workers.

He asked the Liberals how low they could go. Shame on the Conservatives who would denigrate and call low labour unionism in this country. Labour unions built this country throughout the 20th century. Shame on them. If that is their view of Canadian society reflected by their finance critic, and the hon. member has just referred to that now, that is an excellent political relationship and it will continue to serve Canadians well. I know the members opposite have trouble with big numbers. They do not like the fact that we have a trillion dollar economy. Maybe they cannot understand it.

Amidst all of the good news, the great financial record of this economy, and I know he has heard all of this before, there has not been a deficit for eight years. We have been reducing taxes for five years and for eight years we have been reducing payroll taxes on EI. It is down from $3.05 to $1.95. We have paid over $50 billion on the debt. The national debt is now under $500 billion and less than 50% of the GDP.

What else is there out there that he could possibly find to criticize about the economic management of this country and why is he not supporting both these bills. Let us get our budget passed. Why does he not?

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad he did ask about how low can they go because I am not sure we have found out how low they actually can go. Let us talk about the EI surplus which is at $40 billion. That is theft out of the pockets of the working people. The auto workers who voted for the NDP and the Liberals have been squeezed to support the cash hungry Liberal Party that thinks it deserves to be in power by taking the $40 billion out of the pockets of working Canadians.

That is how low the Liberals and NDP go. Canadians will see the light and, when they do, they will be gone.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be, I suppose, the final speaker to speak to this motion that our government House leader was forced to put to the House because of the lack of cooperation of the hon. members across.

It is always unfortunate of course when a minister has to move either closure under Standing Order 57 or time allocation under Standing Order 78 but the responsibility of the government is to provide good governance for the nation, which our Liberal government wants to do.

Today the House has continued debating a motion to extend the sitting period beyond the planned adjournment date of June 23, that is beyond today. This motion is, of course, within precedent, and we know that.

The opposition's intent is simple. The official opposition is hindering the passage of urgent bills that are before the House at this time. If there happens to be anyone who does not believe that statement, he or she just needs to look at what the opposition, the Conservatives in particular, have been doing these last few days.

Day after day we have witnessed Conservative MPs rising in their places and moving concurrence in committee reports instead of proceeding with the orders of the day in order to deal with the business at hand. Why did they do this? They did this to delay everything that the government needed to pass before adjourning.

Yesterday we had the sad spectacle of the opposition House leader saying to the House that the government was wrong to extend the session because the opposition tried to delay the House from doing its work. Obviously if the opposition--

[An hon. member]

The House had lots of time.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I am glad the hon. member across said that the House had lots of time. I sat on the legislative committee dealing with Bill C-38. It is a legislative committee and that committee of course was supposed to deal with technical witnesses. The hon. member for Provencher and others across the way insisted that we hear some 62 witnesses on a bill that has about four clauses.

Why did they do that? It is obvious. They wanted to delay the passage of the bill. They did not want to vote against the bill. They wanted to delay its passage. They did not want to vote at all.

That is not the way it works. The government has a duty, a constitutional responsibility to this nation, and that is exactly what it is going to do. It is going to proceed and get its legislative programs through because that is why governments are there: to get things done. That is quite normal.

If the opposition delays, and I am not saying this of everybody, but if the Conservative opposition delays the government in completing its work, then obviously the government has only one or two choices. It can either curtail debate, that is, move time allocation on individual bills, or it can extend the sitting in order to get the legislation through, or possibly both, which the government may well have to do now.

That is not because the government House leader and the government were not totally efficient in their way of doing their business. That is because the opposition does not know what it is doing.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

The opposition thought that it could just delay and there would be no consequences. It does not work that way. I would ask the hon. member who is heckling across the way to listen to this. He might learn something, but then again maybe not.

Let us listen to what the opposition House leader said yesterday afternoon at roughly 15:45. He said:

--I think that 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.

There are a whole bunch of things wrong with that, of course. First of all, if the opposition House leader knew for months, as he said, that there were a number of things for him to do after June 23, then why did he delay the legislation which would cause a delay in the adjournment of the House? Obviously he did not think those things through. He got to thinking about them seriously only when he figured out that he would not be going home on the day that he originally thought he would.

Here, we can see, there is a bit of mea culpa necessary on the part of the Conservatives for not having acted properly, for having misbehaved. That is what the Conservatives did. They misbehaved and now they do not want to pay the price. When you and I were children, Madam Speaker, and I know that in your case that was not long ago because you are so young, but when we were children and we misbehaved, we had to pay the price for it.

Members across the way have behaved for the last number of weeks in a totally irresponsible and childish manner and now they have to pay the price. They cannot go outside and play at recess. They cannot go home and play with their marbles. They will have to continue to work until the work is done, until the homework is complete, because those are the rules. The Conservatives have refused to play by the rules.

Let me continue. I am quoting the speech of the hon. opposition House leader. He said:

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.

If the hon. member is telling us that he used to be cooperative and he has ceased to be, that is not a redeeming value. That is a further admission of the guilt on the part of the official opposition. That is all it is. The Conservatives do not want us to pass Bill C-48. I just heard an hon. member--

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

They are applauding that. I want the record to show that the Conservatives are applauding that they do not want to have more foreign aid and they do not want to have more money for housing. That is what the Conservatives are applauding. They are applauding the fact that they do not want to give more benefits to Canadians. That is what the Conservatives are applauding. Let them applaud that, if that is what Conservatives want to do. That is not what I want to do.

Here is what a Conservative member from Alberta said a little while ago in the House. We cannot help people with social housing because the housing industry is overheated, said he, and therefore there would not be anyone left to build houses. That was the answer of the member across the way. If that is a problem anywhere, it is not in my riding.

I ask my colleagues from Cape Breton, is there a terrible shortage of labour in their area so that they could not possibly build an additional house? I do not think so. What about my colleague from P.E.I.? I do not think it is a problem there either.

I will ask myself and gladly respond that there is room to build more houses in Hawkesbury in my riding. There are people who need additional housing in Hawkesbury, in St. Isidore, in Sarsfield and all those other villages that I could enumerate in the constituency I represent.

Let us think of this as a matter of social conscience. The member said that they cannot build social housing because there is a shortage of labour in his riding. That is quite a way of looking out for the greater good of the nation, is it not? That is, “I am doing all right, Charlie, so for...”. I do not want to use the words, but the message is clear that the rest of the country does not matter providing he is all right.

That may be the Conservative way of looking at things, but it is not the way that Liberals look at things. It is not the way, I say on this bill, that the New Democrats look at things. We are looking here--

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member has been around a long time and is finishing up not so stellar a way these days, but he knows that he cannot address other members by the name Charlie. He has to refer to their constituencies. I would appreciate it if you would brief him on that.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

I thank the member for the intervention, but I think it is common parlance when the name Charlie is used. I somehow did not think it was referring to a member. The member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I definitely was not calling the hon. member opposite who just rose by that name, nor was I calling you by that name, Madam Speaker. Let us make the record clear that I was calling neither the member nor you “Charlie”.

In any case, let me continue. There is the issue of Bill C-38, which the hon. members across say they do not want to vote on. Maybe I should remind members of something that appeared in today's Quorum , I believe, and definitely in a number of newspapers. It is an article written by columnist Don Martin, who gave some advice to the hon. members across about that issue. He said that for their own political good maybe what they should consider is getting the vote over with before they embarrass themselves even further, not only on that issue but on many others.

I say for the hon. members across that whether they agree or disagree with the content of the bill, this issue has been in the public domain for three years. Sixty-two witnesses have been listened to by the legislative committee. The bill has about four clauses. The members across have all spoken at second reading, every single one of them who wanted to, and every single one of them on the amendment as well, and on the subamendment and so on.

We have listened to what they had to say. It is not a matter of the House needing more pearls of wisdom in that regard. In any case, if I listen to what the opposition House leader says, it is not that they want more time. It is that they do not want to do that particular work at all because they do not like it.

I know that Madam Speaker is a teacher by training. Do people have a choice in doing their homework based on whether or not they like it? That is not the criteria.

Let us hear what the opposition House leader said today, June 23, after question period in the foyer of the House of Commons:

We've been consistent in saying right from the beginning that we are strongly opposed to these two bills.

That is all right. They can vote against them. He stated further:

There's not a Canadian left out there in the real world that doesn't understand that.

Of course: they have all spoken two or three times each so every one of us understands what their position is. It does not need to be clarified much further.

I will continue to quote the opposition House leader:

We have no intention and it's not our role, frankly, to make things easy for the government to pass bills that we're opposed to.

There we are. They do not like Bill C-38. They do not like Bill C-48. They do not like the fact that we are going to give more money to social housing. They do not like more money going to the Canadian International Development Agency to help the world's poor.

What is their solution? Is it to vote against that which they do not like? No, it is to not want to do the work. Not wanting to work is the way in which they solve their problems.

Now, not wanting to work just does not cut it with Canadians. Their constituents and mine will not put up with that. They sent us here to do the work.

Let us do the work. The hon. members say they want to go home. Of course they do. Their House leader said that on their behalf and their House leader always says it the way it is, or generally. In any case, if their House leader says they want to go home, I am not opposed to that.

We are going to vote on this motion tonight. We have from now until midnight. Let us vote on the two bills and go home. Canadians will say, “You did your work, Mr. or Ms. MP”. We will all have done our work and we can go home to do all the things that the opposition House leader said we should be doing.

I agree with him that we should be going home, but we should do our work first because when we do not do our work we have to stay in class at recess or after hours to get the work done. We are supposed to do the work before we go away. Those are the rules.

I say this in the presence of a teacher, namely our Acting Speaker, because I know she used to teach for a living and she will know these things in the truly objective manner in which I am sure she sees these matters.

I ask all my colleagues to join together and vote for this motion. After the motion, let us join together again and vote for the bills. Let us get the work done and then we can go home, in that order. That is the way it should be done.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

It being 8:00 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.

Is the House ready for the question?