House of Commons Hansard #122 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-48.
Mario Silva Liberal Davenport, ON
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will have all summer to explain to the mayors and premiers across this country why the bill did not go through.
From my reading and understanding, and speaking to many mayors across this country, they are very supportive of this bill. They want us to support it and move it forward as fast as possible.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Hamilton Centre.
I am happy to speak to this motion to extend the sitting in order for Parliament to pass legislation that has been held up and tied up in knots because of the antics, games and aggressive obstructionist tactics of the Conservatives.
It is unfortunate that we are in this position. It is unfortunate that we have to resort to this motion to get to this point, but that is exactly what is happening today.
I want to set the record straight in terms of what the member who just spoke from the Conservative side said about the bill and about the money and when it will be spent. The Conservatives, in a very crafty way, are deliberately distorting the purpose of the bill and the mechanisms to implement these budget provisions.
I have listened day in and day out to the Conservatives suggesting that this money will not be spent for another year or two, the budget will not come into effect right away, this budget is so big, and there are no details. I want to say hogwash and rubbish to each and every one of those claims.
I will start with the most obnoxious of those claims contending that the money will not flow for another year and therefore, what is the hurry? The members are wrong. The budget bill states very clearly that this money, $4.6 billion divided over two fiscal years, the one we are in and the next one, will flow immediately upon the Minister of Finance determining the exact unanticipated surplus.
We know from past experience and from statements by the government that by early September the exact amount of unanticipated surplus will be known. It is not a question of waiting for another year to know that. The Minister of Finance will know just as we knew in the House when the government actually miscalculated and lowballed its surplus and the Conservatives made a big deal about the numbers.
The government said it was $1.9 billion and we found out it was $9.1 billion. Who screamed the loudest? The Conservatives because they said that was mischievous, dishonest and that the government should be straightforward and honest about the money and about what it knows.
This time that is exactly what is happening only we were out of the gate long before the Conservatives even woke up to this possibility. We negotiated a deal based on the fact that we knew the surplus was going to come in at a much higher rate than expected and listed in the fiscal framework of budget 2005.
I will put it in very clear terms. We are now talking about an anticipated surplus in each of the next three years to be $8 billion. In this budget proposal we have recommended that the government set aside $2 billion for the surplus contingency that would then flow and be put against the debt. That leaves $6 billion.
We are simply saying that $2.3 billion of that should be spent to meet some basic needs of Canadians, to meet the needs of people who want a decent roof over their head, who want to live in safe lodging, for students who want to go to university, for people who want to breath clean air, for people who want to use public transit, and for good hearted Canadians who want to share a bit of the wealth of this nation with people who are living in poverty around the world.
That is what we are doing. We are setting $2.3 billion aside for each of the next two years, leaving a huge surplus, more than the $2 billion that we asked for. There will be more than was ever expected and anticipated.
The Conservatives should get it through their heads that the money ought to be spent to meet the needs of Canadians, create jobs and grow the economy. They should not be sitting here kvetching, yapping and griping over the fact that the New Democrats had some initiative, had some chutzpah, and had the gall to go to the Liberals and say, “Let's make a deal”. Yes, it was a deal. It was a good deal for Canadians.
I suggest that the Conservatives stop the nonsense. We are dealing with a budget bill that is sound, fiscally responsible, based on good economics and not the wacky mathematics of the Conservatives. It meets the needs of Canadians. It is based on what Canadians from one end of this country to the other have told us through the prebudget consultations.
People have said to us, “We deserve a part of the surplus which came from us in the first place. It came from us because of the cutbacks that occurred over the years when the Liberal government started engineering its social cuts in 1993. It is money owed to us because all that happened under the Liberal government is that corporations and the wealthy got the tax breaks and we did not”.
Canadians are saying it is their turn. We in the New Democratic Party have said yes, it is Canadians' turn. We are going to respond to that need and do whatever we can to make the government sensitive and responsive to the needs of Canadians.
The Conservatives are way off the mark when they suggest there are no details in the bill and there is no way the money can flow. The bill is more detailed than the provisions that the Conservatives supported in Bill C-43. The bill is more specific in terms of where the money will flow, how it will flow and who it will benefit than half of the provisions the Conservatives voted for in Bill C-43. The hypocrisy; that is why we say they are disingenuous. They are simply stalling and obstructing the work of this place for their own political agenda.
We are talking about a political party that is so desperate. It needs an issue. It put all of its eggs in the basket of forcing an election on the sponsorship scandal, only to find out that there will be an election on the scandal. There will be an election on corruption. Canadians wanted more from the Conservatives than simply a one issue program. They wanted some plans from the party. They wanted some insights in terms of what the Conservatives would do, but they found out there was nothing there.
All the Conservatives can do in the House is obstruct, play games and put on a big macho act. All we have heard in the last two days is big macho talk: “Who is going to hold up what; how are we going to stall this; how are we going to interrupt witnesses; who can be the most rude; who can be the most impolite?” That is what it has come down to. I reject and resent it and I think Canadians do as well.
This is a plan that Canadians want executed as quickly as possible. This is a budget that will make a huge difference in the lives of Canadians. This is a budget that will see money flow as early as this fall. It is imperative that we pass it now and not wait until the fall. We need to pass it now so that the plans are agreed upon, the programs are developed and all those who have access to this money have the chance to participate.
I want to emphasize that the money will flow this fall. The minister will know how much the surplus will be beyond what had been projected in the 2005 fiscal forecast and in the 2005 budget that we have all seen. It requires us to work in the next three months with members of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, with the mayors of the towns and cities of this land. It requires us to work now with aboriginal Canadians who will benefit from this money in terms of housing and education.
It is incumbent upon us to work with the provinces and the Canadian Federation of Students to develop plans to ensure that the money will actually make education more accessible. It is incumbent upon us to make sure that the work is done and the budget is passed so that the money will flow this year. If it does not flow, it will only be because the Conservatives delayed, stalled and prevented us from getting the job done. I say to them to stop the game playing. Let us get down to work to pass this budget bill as soon as possible so that Canadians can reap the benefits.
Joy Smith Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the member opposite. She is from my city. I was a little reluctant to get up and ask a question, but I too can add, very well actually.
Bill C-43 was put together under the normal budget process, where one looks at the initiatives one wants to promote, collaborates with people in the field of expertise, and then looks at what can be done. It takes a certain length of time to accomplish this process. Bill C-48 on the other hand was much different. It was constructed in a hotel room in Toronto in a very short period of time. It was constructed with the NDP. The NDP, quite frankly, was not elected to this House of Commons. There are 19 members here--
Joy Smith Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
As the governing body. The NDP is not the governing body. Nineteen members do not constitute a majority government. On this side, we are a very formidable opposition, but we are not in governance either.
It is the responsibility of the Liberal government at this point in time to make the budget, because the people of Canada elected the Liberals to it. They did not elect a Liberal-NDP government to rule this country.
Having said that, this is what we are talking about when we are talking about democracy. People on this side of the House had a lot of input into Bill C-43. With regard to Bill C-48, no one on this side of the House was consulted in any way, shape or form. Bill C-48 was simply the result of two parties getting together to shore up a corrupt government.
The member opposite in my view is a woman of integrity. I have personally looked up to her. With all due respect, how can the NDP shore up the corrupt Liberal government? How can it ignore the democratic process? Governments in power are supposed--
Extension of Sitting PeriodGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
The hon. member for Winnipeg North.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, that is the best case of sour grapes and NDP envy I have heard yet from the Conservative side.
I do not know about the member for Kildonan--St. Paul, but I came here to work as hard as I could for my constituents and the people of Canada. I came here to make a difference, not to sit on the sidelines and not to be a backseat driver, but to actually try to effect change.
Opposition members are not prevented from trying to influence things in this House and trying to make a difference and effect change. That is exactly what we did. It is not like the Conservatives who took a look at the February 2005 budget and said, “Oh, it is not bad. It is better than we thought,” and ran out and supported it as their leader did on February 23.
Instead, we said the budget was not what we expected. It did not reflect what we had heard in terms of the democratic process of prebudget consultations, in which I might add members of the Conservative Party were involved. They were part of the finance committee that heard from so many Canadians right across the country who said that something had to be done about education. There is a hodgepodge of programs. Students are not able to get access when they want higher education and then they are not able to repay their huge student loans.
If the member has not heard that from hundreds of constituents, I do not know what she is doing, because that is one of the number one issues we are hearing now. We heard it during the prebudget consultations.
It just so happened at that point the Liberal government did not respect the democratic process to ensure that there was something in the budget for education and housing. We reminded the Liberals. We used the power we had as 19 members, not the 99 members over there who did nothing. We have 19 members and we used our power to make a difference. We effected some change that will help students and homeowners. It will make a real difference to this country.
All I can ask the member is, is she prepared simply to see more money going to the profits of big corporations as opposed to lowering tuition, creating affordable housing and cleaning the environment?
Extension of Sitting PeriodGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
The member is very popular. There are so many people who want to ask her questions, but we are out of time.
We will move now to the member for Hamilton Centre.
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up where my colleague left off and point out that one of the reasons the Conservatives are having such difficulty was the original blunder they made when the budget was tabled in this place not that long ago.
What did we see? Before, underscore before, the finance minister was finished reading the budget, the leader of the official opposition stepped in front of the cameras and surrendered. He surrendered, and not only on the budget issue. As far as the NDP is concerned, the official opposition surrendered its responsibilities to provide loyal opposition in this place. We do not need an opposition to cave and fold and run up the white flag. Opposition is there under our parliamentary system to provide opposition. Those members did not do it. They caved.
What is driving the Conservatives crazy is that the NDP had sense enough and enough presence of mind to look at the budget and say, “We watched the Liberals in the last campaign. We listened carefully and in the final days of the campaign they sounded an awful lot like New Democrats”. They talked about all the things that we have consistently and historically fought tooth and nail for.
Canadians responded by allowing the Liberals to remain in office. They still get to ride around in their limos, but they do not have absolute control of this place. The message from Canadians was clear. They heard what the Liberals had to say. They liked what the Liberals had to say, but they sent a minority government to Ottawa to make sure there was some way to keep the Liberals honest and to hold them accountable and to make them actually govern the way they said they would in the campaign.
The official opposition surrendered right away and said, “We give. We give”. But right off the bat we in the NDP said that we were opposed to the budget because it did not fulfill the mandate that the Liberals in a minority situation were given by the Canadian people. We decided that if we had the opportunity we would use our 19 seats and leverage them in a minority situation with the sole purpose of forcing the Liberals to deliver on the issues Canadians expected them to implement.
What are we talking about? We are talking about affordable housing. My hometown of Hamilton desperately needs affordable housing. We need affordable housing in downtown Hamilton more than we need more corporate tax cuts which nobody ran on and nobody had a mandate for.
While I am on that, let me point out that the NDP made sure in Bill C-48 that we maintained the tax cuts that were there for small and medium size business because those are good investments. We all know that the job generators in this country are not the huge multinational corporations. The actual jobs are created by small and medium size business. That is why we made sure that those tax cuts stayed in there because they help Canadians.
The Conservatives were not interested in helping anybody beyond their corporate pals. Once their corporate pals were taken care of in the budget, there was nothing further for them to do because that is their constituency. That is fine. It would be nice if they were a little more up front about it and acknowledged it, but if they want to pretend that they care about other things, they can do so. They can make those arguments. Canadians understand. The white flag went up on that budget because of the billions of dollars that nobody had a mandate to give from the public treasury into the corporate profit bottom line. That is where the NDP drew the line.
As a result of the NDP better balanced budget, we will have a balanced budget. We will have tax cuts where they will do the most amount of good, small and medium size business.We will ensure there is repayment on the debt. We have the priorities of Canadians correct where the Conservatives in particular have it wrong. We have ensured that those billions that the Conservatives wanted to give the Stronachs of the world would go where it would make a difference.
I talked about my hometown of Hamilton needing affordable housing. Let me also underscore the absolute critical importance of public transit, infrastructure, roads and bridges. When I talk to the Chamber of Commerce in Hamilton, it is as concerned about the status of roads, bridges and sewers as anyone else, more than most, because its understands the importance to the local economy.
The money that is to be invested in cities is a benefit to virtually everyone who lives in Hamilton, except maybe any family members of the Stronachs who happen to live in Hamilton. They may not be so thrilled. For the most part, Hamiltonians are pleased. They want this budget.
Let us talk about money to clean up the environment. I do not need to tell my colleagues here the kind of challenges we face in Hamilton. It is not unlike many other cities and constituencies across the nation. Money invested in a Kyoto plan that works affects the lives of Hamiltonians just like it affects the lives of every other Canadian. We made that a priority. We thought that is more important than Frank Stronach getting an even bigger tax cut.
The bigger priority for us was our students. Again, we are blessed in Hamilton. We have McMaster University and Mohawk College. We have Redeemer University. We have a number of institutions of which we are very proud and which Hamiltonian students want to attend, but they need means. Unfortunately, under the Liberals for the last 12 years, the effects of the cuts to the post-secondary education system have meant that for many Hamiltonian youth going on to university, no matter how talented they are, or how smart they are, or how hard they are prepared to work, many of them are facing family circumstances where they will be unable to go on to university or college.
That is one of the secret geniuses of Canada. In addition to our ability to maintain and respect cultures from around the world, we also ensured that our young people historically over the past decades, no matter what the income of their family, if they had a desire to go to university or college, we ensured they had opportunity to do that. We have done quite well, but we are living off the dividends of that investment from decades gone by.
The Liberals cannot stand very proud I am afraid and talk about their investment in post-secondary education over the last 12 years. This new better balanced budget, Bill C-48, negotiated proudly by the NDP, will make a difference and will put money on the line to help Hamilton students and other students across the country achieve their fullest potential. Is that not the promise--
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is our understanding that the speeches are supposed to be relevant to the subject being discussed. It seems like the member is far off track. He does not seem to understand that we are not talking about Bill C-48 right now. We are talking about the motion.
If you could help him understand that, Mr. Speaker, it would be appreciated.
Extension of Sitting PeriodGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)
I thank the hon. member for making his point of order. I understand the hon. member who had the floor had opened a bracket of parentheses and was getting back to the subject.
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker. let me just say that my comments are very germane to the motion in front of us. It speaks to why the NDP is prepared to support extending this House, why we are prepared to shut down any shenanigans that get in the way of passing the bill and why we are ready to move heaven and earth to ensure Bill C-48 and the billions of dollars that are invested in this nation and in the families within this nation passes this House.
If it means we have to stand here all night long and force votes that ultimately brings about the enactment of that bill, then dammit, the NDP is prepared to do that. We are here to make a difference for Canadians, to help Canadians and pass legislation that will be meaningful for Canadians. That is exactly what Bill C-48 is about and it is exactly why the NDP will support the motion on the floor now.
Andrew Scheer Conservative Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that even though he sits quite far away from the Chair, his microphone is still working and we can all hear him fine.
His colleague, the current longest continuous serving member in the House of Commons, went through this debate before about extending sittings. I want to ask him if he agrees with the comments of the member for Elmwood—Transcona? The last time a similar motion was debated he said:
I feel obliged to get on my feet on behalf of the members of those two reform committees that I belonged to, on behalf of Members now, and on behalf of future Members of Parliament, to say that if we sacrifice this parliamentary calendar to the Government's political agenda--and that is all it is--it is not as if there is any great emergency;
The member stood in 1988 and he foresaw situations such as this. He spoke against the practice of changing Standing Orders just to suit the government's political agenda. We have heard a great deal about that. This can be a dictatorship by a majority. We can overrule any Standing Order we want to if the government feels that way.
Imagine if the Liberals became sick and tired of the daily scandals of its own corruption and criminality and said that question period was too embarrassing for them, so they decided to get rid of question period and they brought in a motion to that effect. The opposition would not have an opportunity to question the ministers. That could happen if we allow things such as this to happen.
The parliamentary calendar is just as important a Standing Order as is question period, as is members' statements, as is all our routine proceedings and Standing Orders that we abide by. Changing those orders, like changing the rules in the middle of a hockey game, is undemocratic. It is unparliamentary. Imagine in a hockey game if one team was down and decided to play a couple of extra periods until it scored a few more goals. Once it was ahead, then it would end the game. That is exactly what we are talking about today. It is unparliamentary and undemocratic. His own member spoke against these types of tactics.
Does he agree with his colleague from Elmwood—Transcona that these kinds of parliamentary tactics are unparliamentary and undemocratic?
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, the member neglected to mention that my colleague is all of those things. He is the Dean of the House and also a former House leader. He has all of the qualifications. Do I agree with my colleague, the former NDP House leader? Absolutely. What is his position on this motion? He is in favour of it. What is his position on Bill C-48? He is in favour of it. He is a proud member of this caucus. He wants to see the budget bill pass too.
Let me also comment on the loudness. Some might use my loudness to leave the chamber when I speak, but I am not so sure. I think they could find others. However, I was elected to come here and ensure Hamilton had a voice, and it is bloody well will be heard whether the hon. member likes it or not.
Larry Bagnell LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, before I ask a very short question, I want to ensure that everyone who is watching and members of Parliament and their staff know a very important event has just started in the Senate lobby. It is a celebration of which every member of the House is proud, and that is the Labrador Inuit land claim. Anyone who can get there should, and of course I have an Inukshuk on my tie to celebrate that.
I have a hard time understanding the reasons that the other two parties are against this motion. The Conservatives in particular are asking for more time. Could the member outline the rational, reasonable and logical arguments the Conservatives have, given in the excessive time they have had so far to debate Bill C-48? If the member thinks they need more time, what more logical, rational, objective arguments might they come up with?
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I did not hear any members of the official opposition say that they were opposed to affordable housing, or public transit, or to money going into infrastructure for cities. I did not hear members of the official opposition say that they were opposed to cleaning up the environment or ensuring that our students have access to post-secondary education.
They did not talk about the content of the bill being problematic. They talked about everything around it. That is usually a good clue that they are nervous about their position vis-à-vis the content of the bill and the substantive matters before the House. One of the parliamentary tricks one uses in that circumstance is to start talking about procedure.
The hon. member asked me if I thought the official opposition needed more time. I think Canadians know that the official opposition is in a bind. The popularity of that party's leader is going through the basement. A few months ago it looked like the Conservatives were about to roll into power. Now they are on the way to rolling out maybe into oblivion, but I doubt that is going to happen.
That is a glum group over there compared to what they were a few short weeks ago. The Conservatives are desperate to find something so they want to take a stand and fight Bill C-48 because it is an NDP thing and that cannot be good. Therefore, they talk about procedures.
The reality is I have not heard members of the official opposition say that they do not think these are good investments or that they are investments that they do not want. I have not heard them say that this is not something that should be a priority for the country as a nation, in terms of taking care of our people and putting us on a strong footing for the future.
The fact that they are talking about procedure, I take it to mean they are desperately floundering around trying to show they stand for something when in reality all they are doing is standing in the way.
James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask for unanimous consent to extend the time for questions and comments for that member. I am sure a lot of members would like to interact with him.
Extension of Sitting PeriodGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)
Is there unanimous consent to extend the period for questions and comments?
Extension of Sitting PeriodRoyal Assent
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)
Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Rideau Hall
Ottawa
June 23, 2005
Mr. Speaker:
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 23rd day of June, 2005, at 4:10 p.m.
Yours sincerely,
Curtis Barlow
Deputy Secretary, Policy, Program and Protocol
The schedule indicates the bills assented to were Bill C-9, an act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec—Chapter 26; Bill C-56, an act to give effect to the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement and the Labrador Inuit Tax Treatment Agreement—Chapter 27; Bill C-58, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2006—Chapter 28; and Bill C-3, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act and the Oceans Act —Chapter 29.
The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Mr. Speaker, as we look at the Standing Orders presently, there is no question that the calendar of this House is a fairly significant event that is agreed to, according to the Standing Orders, by the House leaders.
According to the Standing Orders, during the adjourned period when members of Parliament are in their constituencies, the House does not get called back unless there is need for royal assent on something that is of some urgency. If that is the case, the House can be called back for a short period.
The Standing Order 28(4) reads:
The House shall meet at the specified time for those purposes only; and immediately thereafter the Speaker shall adjourn the House to the time to which it had formerly been adjourned.
When we have a calendar it ought to be respected and, if it needs to be interrupted, then after the particular business is done the House needs to go back into adjournment. There needs to be a reason for the House to reconvene that is of substance.
This House could probably be guided by Standing Order 28(3) which talks about the Speaker utilizing his or her discretion to recall the House. It states:
Whenever the House stands adjourned, if the Speaker is satisfied, after consultation with the Government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time, the Speaker may give notice that being so satisfied the House shall meet....
Therefore there needs to be some evidence that would satisfy the Speaker. There has to be some public interest that requires an interruption of the House calendar.
I would think this House would at least have to satisfy those same principles before this House could put forward a motion that would require this House to extend itself for a further period. What is the public interest?
We have heard discussion about Bill C-48. It does not get implemented until next year. In fact, when we look at the budget implementation portion of it, it talks about the moneys actually being requisitioned or looked at in the next year. What is the urgency? This is not in the public interest. This could be debated in the fall sitting. In fact one could argue that perhaps there is something to Bill C-43 passing.
Bill C-43 has cleared this particular House and is now in the Senate chamber for approval. We have a senator saying that the Conservative senators were prepared to expedite the passage of Bill C-43, the budget legislation bill, which includes the Atlantic accord, but that the Liberal senators were refusing to pass it. He also said that they agreed to waive certain procedural steps in order to speed the passage of Bill C-43.
He goes on to say:
Two other government bills are receiving clause-by-clause consideration immediately following testimony by witnesses in Senate Committees today. The Liberal government will not permit the same procedure to be followed for Bill C-43, thus putting the bill at risk should Bill C-48, the NDP budget bill, be defeated in the House of Commons in the next few days.
We just received notice that those two bills are here for royal assent.
How is it that the Liberal government, on one hand, says that it wants the bill to go forward so the funds can start rolling on that particular bill, but on the other hand, refuses to have it passed expeditiously, as it could have? I think it is playing games with this House.
Let us look at the marriage bill, Bill C-38. Is there a public interest to have it passed or at least a public interest sufficient to call the House back to order when it ought to be adjourned? What is the public interest in that bill? In fact, a large percentage of the Canadian public do not want that bill to pass. Therefore it is definitely not in the public interest to call Parliament back for that purpose and that purpose alone.
What has the government done? It has attempted to lump and link Bill C-48 with Bill C-38, the marriage bill, in an attempt to justify, on some kind of national basis, that it is in the public interest to reconvene the House. However this is not in the public interest. It is all subterfuge. It is all playing with the rules to get their ends.
The House leader stated earlier in the press that he was prepared to not have Bill C-38 pass if Bill C-48 passed, but then he changed his mind, dug in his heels and decided to connect the two and call Parliament back for that purpose.
What is the rush? Bill C-38 is fundamentally changing the definition of marriage. It is fundamentally changing society as we know it. It deserves the time that is needed to discuss it and the public need an opportunity to participate. What we had at report stage was a sham.
During question period today the member for London—Fanshawe asked whether limiting the witnesses at the committee was really doing the job it ought to be doing. Is it appropriate to give witnesses 24 hours or 48 hours notice to appear? Is changing members of the committee appropriate? Is setting up a separate committee to ram through the committee hearings appropriate? Those hearings should have been the widest possible hearings across the country in every city with every member of the public having an opportunity to address the government before that bill completed report stage.
However the Liberals are ramming it through, despite the concerns of Canadians, despite public interest and despite our nation's interest, because they want to. They have confused national agenda and public interest with their own interest. They have confused the House of Commons calendar, which should not be interfered with easily, with their own ends and their own desires.
I think it is appalling. It is appalling to democracy and it is appalling to this institution for the government to go further and put a motion in the House that would limit debate on whether the hours and sittings of this House should be extended. How can it be in this free and democratic country that we cannot have every member in the House speak to whether the preconditions exist for the House to be extended?
We have to justify the pre-conditions of the House. That is why the Standing Order is there. That is why there are safeguards. We cannot, just on a notion, say that we will pass a motion that will change the Standing Orders and call the House back because we want to. There must be some basis for that and that basis is the public interest, because that is the basis, Mr. Speaker, that you might have to contend with.
The Liberals chose not to allow every member in the House to speak. Since when does a government decide that closure is the way to go on an issue so important as whether or not this House should sit in the summer to deal with the marriage bill, Bill C-38.
This is not a national crisis. This is not a national public interest that requires us to do it. The Prime Minister and the government confuse their own interests with the interests of the nation.
When the Prime Minister appeared on television I thought he was going to speak to something that was of national interest or of some national crisis, or even perhaps proroguing Parliament or calling an election.
What was the purpose of that particular television address? At great expense to this nation and every taxpayer of Canada, the purpose of that television appearance was to protect the hide of the Prime Minister and his government because they were on the ropes of losing in a possible election. He used the media and the resources of government to bolster public opinion and that is shameful.
Even the NDP leader acknowledged that. In question period he said, “First, let me add my voice to those who are concerned about the televised address this evening. This is a Liberal crisis; it is definitely not a national crisis.” The government is confusing its own interests with those of the nation.
In the next question, the hon. leader went fishing to see if he could change the government's budget. He said, “Putting aside the issue of corruption, let me see if I can be bought”. How could he do that? He was speaking about the sponsorship scandal and the things that have happened. People were paid for doing little or nothing with Canadian taxpayer dollars for which many people worked very hard to put in the coffers of the government. Some people work 12 hours a day, six days a week, only to lose half of their money to the government to spend on projects and programs.
However we find the government using and abusing those funds to pay ad agencies for little or no work and then having some of that money filter back to the party to fund an election. It was buying votes at $250 million per member to get another party's support to cling to power and giving people positions to cross the floor. Those are the kinds of things that should not happen in the House but it gets worse than that.
The House raised a motion of confidence, if not directly, certainly indirectly. At that point, constitutionally, the Prime Minister and his government had an obligation to Canadians and to the House to raise the issue of confidence themselves and they did not have confidence. They did not have confidence for a week.
The House should have been closed shut. There should not have been one order of business happening until that issue of confidence was settled. For that week we were without a government because it should not have been exercising the powers of government, the levers of government, the position of government to advance its own interests.
However all the while we had ministers and the Prime Minister travelling across Canada signing deals, committing money, spending money, campaigning at public expense and doing the kinds of things that would be shameful in a third world country that is run by a dictatorship.
We should have closed the House down and went to the wall to prevent that from happening because it was an injustice. It was illegitimately trying to legitimize government. It waited until it had the numbers and then it put forward an issue of confidence, and that is wrong.
What is wrong with the government is that it confuses its own interests with the interests of Canada.
We expect far better. We expect to have a government with vision. We expect to have a government that is prepared to take a loss, prepared to sacrifice on behalf of the country and one that puts the country's interest above its own, above its own greed and its own temptations, not a government that tries to shove a bill through the House when the public of Canada does not want it.
We need a government with backbone and a government with the courage to lose if it has to. An election should have been called and that confidence vote should have been respected. The public would have made a decision on Bill C-38.
Now the Liberals are trying to ram it through. It would not surprise me if they would put closure on Bill C-38 and Bill C-48 to get their will, despite the will of the people of Canada. That is wrong and the people of Canada will pass judgment. Believe me, it will not end in this session and it will not end in the summer.
I am prepared to stay here in July, all of August and into September to preserve the democratic right of the people of the country to express their views through members of Parliament on Bill C-38 because what is happening here is wrong.
One could ask whether I was looking at this objectively. I would like to make reference to an article in the Toronto Sun . Chantal Hébert said, “One thing we have learned from the tape affair is that precious little stands between the Prime Minister and a repeat of the sponsorship scandal. It is a culture that's wrong. It is what permeates government that's wrong. It is the thing that says the end justifies the means. It doesn't matter how we get there, it just matters that we get there. Our objective is to stay in power and we'll do whatever we have to, twist and bend every rule we have to stay in power”.
Supply day motions happen once a week every week and it was during that time that a confidence motion could have been put by any one of the parties, including our party. The Liberals took those supply days away and the ability to make a confidence motion until the end of May.
Why was that? To me, that was something I expected to happen every week. It was tradition. It was something the House had as a constitutional kind of arrangement that happened week after week. The Liberals took it away for the sole purpose of preventing confidence because they knew they would lose. They then put them at the end of May. Why? So any election would take place in the middle of summer.
They wanted to have the opportunity to continue to buy, pay, promise, and get to the position where they could win and then call it. There is something fundamentally wrong with that. There is something very wrong with that. That is why the country is going astray. It needs some direction. It needs some commitment. It needs someone with some backbone who says there is a right, there is a wrong, that this is right and we will do it, regardless of whether it costs us or not, and not what we see here.
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
We need a principled government that raises the principle above itself. Subjecting oneself to principle shows good leadership. It shows good leadership because one is prepared, at personal sacrifice, to see the good of the country, and that is what is lacking here. It is the good of the party and clinging to power that is more important over there.
Chantal Hébert said there was one thing that Gomery could not do in his report and that was to make up for the poor quality of the moral fibre of a government. When the moral fibre of the government is gone, our nation is gone too. Only one thing will cure that and that is the replacement of the government. We will see to it and so will the people of Canada in due course.
She went on to say:
Given the lengths to which [the Prime Minister] and his team have gone just to prolong the life of their minority government for a few more months, one has to wonder how many more ethical niceties they would dispense with if, like Jean Chrétien, they, too, were faced with the implosion of the Canadian federation.
What if there was a real crisis? What if there was a real test? What if there was a real cost? What would they do? Would they stand in the face of that?