Debates of March 17th, 2010

Opposition Motion—Prorogation

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague, but I would first like to make a few comments.

The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said there are other issues we should be debating here, in particular the economy and jobs. The government leader gave the opposition three opposition days this week, because the government had nothing important it wanted the House to pass. Otherwise it would have separated the opposition days.

In response to a question from the NDP leader, the Prime Minister said the Constitution would have to be amended to change the rules on prorogation. I do not believe that is the case, but I wonder what the hon. member thinks. Would the Constitution have to be amended?

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague very much for his question.

Parliament resumed on March 3 with the Speech from the Throne. The government's budget was presented on March 4. Since that time—today is March 17, St. Patrick's Day—the government has introduced only two bills. One has to do with the free trade agreement with Colombia and is exactly the same as the previous version. Not a single comma had been changed. That was not work. The second bill has to do with young offenders.

In answer to his question, no, a constitutional amendment is not needed to limit the Prime Minister's powers. A simple change to the Standing Orders would suffice. Now if we wanted to change the Governor General's authority or powers, that would be different. That would require a constitutional amendment.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, in fact there was another bill that was introduced, Bill C-3 on the McIvor decision from the B.C. Supreme Court. That bill still has not been brought forward for debate in the House despite the fact that there is a deadline of April 6 for implementation of that very important decision for first nations across this country.

When the Conservative House leader was speaking, he characterized what was happening today as a waste of time. I would like the member to comment on the fact that the Conservatives seem to characterize having a debate about the fundamentals around our democratic process as a waste of time. What we have heard from thousands and thousands of Canadians is their concern around what they see as a unilateral abuse of power.

I wonder if the member could talk about the fact that contrary to this being a waste of time, this is an important debate about how this House should function in a democratic process.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Madam Speaker, I truly and sincerely thank my hon. colleague from the NDP for that question because the point she is making is very important.

For any parliamentarian to call a debate on the supremacy of Parliament, the people's Parliament, on our parliamentary democracy a waste of time is completely unacceptable. It demonstrates a lack of belief in democracy itself.

Democracy is so precious that debate on democracy and on the instruments that protect, ensure and enhance democracy are important. They are crucial. That is one of the ways that practitioners, those who are the elected officials, better develop their understanding of their own democracy and it better educates the Canadian population.

I am scandalized that a government House leader speaking on behalf of the government would say that a debate on parliamentary democracy is a waste of time. If we wish to attack, if we wish to address issues of unemployment, women's rights, reproductive rights, family planning or climate change and do it in a proper fashion, we need our parliamentary democracy. We need it strengthened, not eroded, not attacked as the Prime Minister has done.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Madam Speaker, I want to start this debate by reading the NDP motion. So far I have heard some of the comments primarily from the government side. It has been a collection of four months of mixed metaphors, mixed messages as to why this prorogation existed in the first place. Let me get to the motion first, which I support. The thrust of the motion is exactly what the House needs in order to attain the supremacy of the House, in which I firmly believe. I think all members do unless placed under a cone of silence:

That, in the opinion of the House, the Prime Minister shall not advise the Governor General to prorogue any session of any Parliament for longer than seven calendar days without a specific resolution of this House of Commons to support such a prorogation.

Therein lies the thrust of this. I fully support that the House of Commons should support such a prorogation.

Let us put the clock back for a moment and paint a picture of what we have heard. Today I have heard three different responses as to why this recalibration was to take place. At Christmas, I heard the reasoning of many individuals. This is my favourite and it is the one that really made me laugh at them, not with them.

My hon. colleague from the Conservative Party said that we needed to wait so we could put our attention on the Olympics. I have no doubt that our two-man bobsleigh team was very excited and thrilled to have those members of Parliament rooting for them at home, with their feet up drinking a nice hot cup of coffee. As a matter of fact, poor Pierre Lueders never even stood a chance. He never got to the point where he wanted to, and the government is to blame. How absurd is that? However, to basically say that we needed to shut down the House so we could focus on the Olympics had to be at the pinnacle of why we would shut down a functioning House such as this in such a democracy. It was absolutely ridiculous at the time.

Then the answer had shifted in many directions. I called it the prorogation that ran madly off in all directions. We had one answer about the Olympics. We had another answer about the economic action plan. However, what I do not understand, and I will not even condemn the Conservatives on this one but I do have a lot of questions about, is this. They said that they needed to implement the second phase of their economic action plan so they had to shut down the House. What changed? Nothing really. The money rolled out as they said it did under the way they said it would. There was nothing in the way of taking money from one area and putting it in another area. The deadline was January for major projects in my riding. Everything was proceeding as they said, as normal, or maybe it was not.

The only thing that really changed was the fact the Conservatives did not renew the tax credit for home renovations. They do not need to sit around for over 30 days to realize they will not do something. Where was the vision? I expected a modicum of vision to come away from the prorogation. Instead I was told I had to leave, go home and watch the Olympics. However, I did not get to watch much of the Olympics because I was working in my riding, like many other MPs.

However, can we not walk and chew gum at the same time? Can we not elevate ourselves to be smart enough, to be talented enough to do two things at once? On this side, maybe. That was a catty remark and I apologize to my hon. colleagues. I say this because there is a whole heap of scorn being thrown upon us for what happened. It is not the time nor the venue to do this.

Let us have a look at prorogation. What exactly is it? One of the definitions is that we have to close down the House because the bulk of the work has been done. Professor Errol Mendes, University of Ottawa, said:

A proper democratic use of the prerogative power is a legitimate power to end one session of Parliament after a substantial part of the legislative agenda has been fulfilled leading to a new speech from the throne.

I see the nodding heads, therefore we all agree. Here is what else he had to say:

The use of the prerogative power by the [Prime Minister] in Dec. 2008 and again in Dec. 2009 has been used instead to avoid democratic accountability and transparency...

This is the best part. Remember I talked about the Olympics? Remember I talked about the fact that the Conservatives had to recalibrate the economic action plan? If the economic action plan had to be recalibrated, rejigged, then it really was not much of a plan to begin with, but we could go on about that for quite some time.

Every time we asked why Parliament was shut down, we were told that it was normal because this party had done it when in government. Shame on the Conservatives. Congratulations, the Conservative government has now become everything it said it would never be. That is the crux of it. Every time the Conservatives are in trouble, they always turn the spin this way.

In Atlantic Canada there is a fish called a flounder. It is flat fish. It has two eyes on one side. It swims along and whenever it sees trouble, it flips, rolls over and goes back in the other direction.

We have the government floundering its way through excuse after excuse. At times it becomes absolutely comical. It is like an episode of Yes Minister from BBC. It is absolutely ridiculous. What I call a bit of a charade continues. The Conservatives talked about the fact that they recalibrated. They came back to the House and what did they want to do? Change the national anthem. That is the best they could do, change the national anthem and only 48 hours later, like the flounder, went in the other direction.

The issue then becomes this. Where is the vision? Does the Conservative Party not have the vision by which it can see beyond this point? Did the Conservatives not know that Canadians would be upset if they changed the national anthem? Did they not know that they would be upset by shutting down Internet sites under the CAP program? Then 48 hours later, we remember the fish, back the other way. That says they lack vision. Five year programs relegated to one year funding. This is the recalibration.

To top it all off, at the end of the day, what does the world think of what we are doing here? The Conservatives keep talking about this, that and the OECD. Let us hear what Ned Franks of the Economist has to say:

Far from completing its work, Parliament was still considering important measures, including bills that are part of [the Prime Minister's] crackdown on crime, as well as ratification of free-trade agreements with Colombia and Jordan. All must now be reintroduced.

The Economist asked, why shut down Parliament? It did not make sense to it. A lot of people around the world thought the same thing. It was rather bizarre. The British Columbia legislature stayed open during the Olympics. Members of legislature did not feel it was necessary to focus on the Olympics by being off work. For some odd reason, the Conservatives did. They did not have to recalibrate. They kept pursuing their agenda.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Before we move on to questions and comments, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Bramalea—Gore—Malton, Citizenship and Immigration.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I loved the speech of my hon. colleague. I want to make a comment and then ask him a question.

In December the government said that it needed to prorogue the House because it had to recalibrate, that it had to listen to Canadians, so it padlocked the doors to this chamber. In the meantime, a whole lot of other places were being padlocked too, workplaces in Ontario and indeed right across the country, such as U.S. Steel in Nanticoke, for example, where it padlocked the doors and locked the workers out. Workers were profoundly worried about their jobs, their pensions and their wages. That happened from coast to coast to coast.

Did the government listen? No. A short time after saying that it had to prorogue to recalibrate and to listen, the finance minister was in the Toronto Star saying, “We know what we have to do. We have to stay the course”. Staying the course means that we have 1.5 million unemployed Canadians. We have 810,000 Canadians who are about to run out of EI. We lost valuable House time for us to be debating those issues and to be bringing solutions to our constituents in our ridings.

One of the things that was so heartening in my hometown of Hamilton about the prorogation rally was that people got it. They knew it was not about us and our right to speak. It was about the right of their voices to be heard in this chamber.

Could the member comment on what the rallies were like in Newfoundland and whether the response by Canadians, particularly young Canadians, was as positive and as vehement as it was in my hometown of Hamilton?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Madam Speaker, we did have rallies in our province and they were well attended, rightly so, but I was fascinated by how engaged people were in this issue, as was she.

What warms my heart is that we know deep down in some back room, there are strategists who seldom get out to the seniors' dinner in Lewisporte or to many communities in my riding. They are strategists. They do not come to terms with what is happening on the ground. They do not talk to the 100,000 people who are unemployed. They do not talk to the 700 people were laid off because the mill shut down in my hometown.

Somewhere in that back room, they had to say they were going shut down Parliament. Somebody in that room had to say that maybe people would be upset. Somebody else must have said not to worry, that they would not remember. Shame on them.

Guess what? People remember, like those people who are unemployed, and that is what so enlightening about this exercise.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Madam Speaker, I found it very interesting to hear my hon. colleague express his outrage. I do have a few questions for him.

Why did his leader took more than a week to come back from his Caribbean vacation to express outrage on the issue, if this was of such crucial importance to democracy? It seems that a week in the Caribbean relative to democracy might be somewhat important.

The second question is this. If I remember correctly, both the member and I were in the House in the fall of 2007 when Parliament was prorogued, one of the 105 times in parliamentary history. I do not remember any outrage from any of the political parties about the prorogation then. Why is the member upset this time, whereas the previous time, he thought it was acceptable?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Madam Speaker, I remember reading over the break about one individual talking about a Conservative MP who was in California. The media called me and asked me how I felt about a Conservative guy being in California while we were prorogued. I said what were we going to do. The guy went on vacation and it was one of those things.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

He was not down there. Was he in the Caribbean?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Obviously the member is concerned about the Caribbean. Maybe its legislature, in many cases, sits more than we do, which is a shame.

Let me remind the member of a particular quote, and maybe he can jump ahead and ask his leader about this. In 2005 I remember his leader sitting at the table talking about his concern for Parliament. He was sitting next to the leader of the Bloc and the leader of the NDP, and we never talk about that. He said, “When a government starts trying to cancel dissent or avoid dissent...is when it's rapidly losing its moral authority to govern”. The Conservatives have now become everything they never wanted to be.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will start by saying that the Bloc Québécois will support the New Democratic Party motion concerning restrictions on prorogation.

We must admit that this motion is wishful thinking. Nevertheless, it is what most members of the House as well as the Canadian and Quebec people want. Obviously, the Conservative government and the Prime Minister have used prorogation to evade their responsibilities too often in a short period of time.

We agree with what we are hearing in this regard. For example, the Liberal Party talked about the possibility of setting up a special committee to study this issue.

It is not easy finding a way to restrict the authority of the Prime Minister to ask the Governor General to prorogue Parliament.

Some solutions are constitutional in nature, whereas others require legislation or amendments to the Standing Orders.

But that is a technicality. What is important at this point is that we express our political will that the government not repeatedly use its power to ask the Governor General to prorogue the session in order to evade its responsibilities, as the Conservative government and the Prime Minister have done.

The prorogation, which began on December 30, 2009, lasted two months; the new session did not begin until March 3. We were told that the purpose of the prorogation was to recalibrate the government's agenda. When the Speech from the Throne and the budget speech were read, it was obvious that two months to rewrite the same nonsense found in the previous throne speech and budget was far too long. One week would have been enough and it would not have been such a waste of time.

It is very clear that on December 30, when the Prime Minister asked the Governor General to prorogue the session, it was to avoid having the opposition, the Bloc Québécois and the people of Quebec and Canada ask the questions to which they wanted answers. They are still waiting for those answers.

The Prime Minister bet that after two months, the people of Quebec and Canada would forget the questions they were asking when we adjourned on December 10. That is why the government needed time. It was not to recalibrate its policies or write its throne speech or budget speech.

Unfortunately, the Prime Minister lost his bet. He lost it in the first couple of hours after Parliament resumed, when a great many Quebeckers and Canadians quickly understood that the Prime Minister and his government used this tactic simply to avoid answering the opposition's questions. These were and still are very valid questions.

Let us go back to what was on the order of the day at the end of the last session in December.

First, there was the economic crisis. The Bloc Québécois was asking questions almost daily through its industry critic, the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, about the government's inaction with regard to the forestry and manufacturing crisis, which is far from over. In February, in Quebec alone, 11,000 jobs were lost in the manufacturing sector.

For government members who like to wear rose-coloured glasses, the Minister of Finance in particular, it is time to take off those glasses and see that the crisis is far from over in a number of regions and sectors in Quebec and Canada.

What was the government's response to the legitimate concerns of Quebeckers, the Bloc Québécois and Quebec's National Assembly?

The response appears on page 259 of the budget plan, pompously entitled, “Canada's Economic Action Plan: Year 2”. Support for the auto sector is on the order of $9.7 billion. I will say it again: we are all in favour of the support that has been given to the auto sector. It is an essential sector for southern Ontario and for sub-contractors; there are some in Quebec as well. That is not the issue.

I was saying that the stimulus value of $9.7 billion was completely committed in 2009-10.

In the 2009-10 budget, the Minister of Finance announced an investment of $170 million over two years for the forestry sector across Canada. When we look at the two figures, it is clear that they are not even comparable. This is the kind of unfairness that the Bloc Québécois and all Quebeckers have been criticizing since the last budget. I am not talking about the budget tabled at the beginning of March 2010, but the one tabled in 2009. The forestry sector was treated unfairly compared to the automotive sector. But the forestry sector creates more jobs across Canada than the automotive sector. This sector has also had more job losses than the automotive sector.

This $170 million was a real slap in the face to the regions of Quebec, to Quebec as a whole and to all of the workers who are experiencing this crisis. How was this amount spent in 2009-10? Across Canada, $62 million was spent on stimulus measures.

What was announced this year? There is $108 million in stimulus measures; $108 million committed. Once again, the government is using its crystal ball here. The amount is so little that it does not take much to commit $108 million in a crisis as big as this one.

I know that the government is not very good at math. That became clear with the invoices made public last week for $2,000 potted plants, $1,000 doorbells, and so on. However, if we add up the $108 million announced in the budget and the $62 million announced last year, we have $170 million. The same $170 million that was announced last year was announced again in this year's budget. The government did not need to prorogue Parliament for two months for this. The figure they gave us in 2009 is the same one they are giving us in 2010, and they would have us believe that it is the second phase of a stimulus plan.

Therefore, they have not addressed this major issue, and the Bloc will continue to ask questions about the forestry sector as well as the manufacturing sector in general. The aerospace sector is going through tough times, could use a cash infusion and needs help. The government is stubbornly turning a deaf ear. And yet, we know what is needed: a refundable tax credit for research and development.

If an aerospace company were to undertake research and development, it could still get a refund for the amounts committed to this research even if it did not turn a profit. We know how crucial it is for this sector to remain on the cutting edge of technology, in this case, in order to benefit from the economic recovery, whenever it happens.

There are things that can be done. Unfortunately, in this very lengthy, but very empty budget—a truly empty shell—there was nothing more than what was criticized throughout 2009.

The government tried to make us lose sight of this major issue, the economic crisis and the forestry crisis, by proroguing for two months. Unfortunately, it did not succeed, as reported in the papers every day across Quebec. The problems have not gone away, and people have very high expectations of the federal government.

Recently, Guy Chevrette, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Quebec Forest Industry Council, was at a meeting of the Joliette Chamber of Commerce. He condemned the government's inaction and asked what is the point of abolishing customs duties on certain machinery that is needed if there is no money to buy it.

Once again, the Conservative government is being criticized for implementing measures in 2009—as well as in the 2010-11 budget—that provide assistance to those that do not need it: the oil companies, the banks and corporations that are doing well. First of all, they will benefit from tax breaks announced previously, breaks that will apply again this year, because they are turning a profit. Other companies are not profitable and will not be paying taxes. Second, they will benefit from the elimination of customs duties on machinery, a measure we agree with. But this will not help those who do not have the cash to purchase machinery and to invest in new technologies.

Once again, we are condemning the Conservative government for implementing measures in 2009, as well as in the 2010-11 budget, that help those that do not need help rather than helping the forestry and manufacturing sectors.

The second reason the government and the Prime Minister prorogued the session was the pitiful performance—and that is being extremely gentle—and the unacceptable behaviour of the Canadian government at the Copenhagen conference, where it won seven consecutive fossil awards. That is practically the fossil of the year award. As members know, this prize was handed out by 300 or 400 non-governmental organizations that focus on climate change issues.

Canada won the depressing fossil award every day of the conference. If we had resumed sitting at the end of January, as we were supposed to, we would have been able to question the government right away about its actions in Copenhagen that bordered on sabotage and about the fact that it was an environmental laughingstock on the international stage.

Once again, I believe that the Prime Minister acted in a partisan and anti-democratic way when he decided to prorogue the session, wait two months and not come back until March, using the Olympics as an excuse. He believed that by the time the games ended, Quebeckers and Canadians would have forgotten that we were the environmental laughingstock of the international community.

But that did not happen. The public's memory has not faded and we are being told every day that it makes no sense that Canada is acting the way it is, with its stance being more in line with that of Saudi Arabia as opposed to European countries, and that it has shown the world that we have become an oil state, like some Middle Eastern countries. That is far from being a force for change on the international stage.

Not only were the Conservative government's actions in Copenhagen unacceptable and a real embarrassment on the world stage, but Canada was the only country in Copenhagen to announce that it would lower its greenhouse gas reduction targets after the conference. The only country in Copenhagen to do so. What nerve.

Before going to Copenhagen, the Minister of the Environment talked about a 20% emissions reduction by 2025, in terms of intensity targets, if my memory serves me correctly. There was no question of absolute reduction targets. After the conference, it was announced that these intensity targets would be lowered to 17%. Imagine. Not only did Canada win seven fossil awards in Copenhagen, but it was the only country to lower its greenhouse gas reduction targets. Again, I am talking about intensity targets, not absolute targets.

The government also announced that it was using 2005 as the reference year, while the international community and Quebec are asking that 1990 be used as the reference year for calculating greenhouse gas reductions. They want absolute reductions of greenhouse gases. This is not coming from me or the Bloc Québécois; it is coming from the international community, the National Assembly of Quebec and the Government of Quebec. With absolute reduction targets, carbon credits could be sold at a carbon exchange here in Montreal. There are calls to use 1990 as the reference year, with regulations like the ones used in Europe.

However, with the Conservative position, the oil lobby position, we can just forget about the significant efforts Quebec has been making since 1990. Over the past 20 years, Quebec has cut its dependence on oil in half. That has had an impact on the production of greenhouse gases and CO₂, but that will not be taken into account because the Conservatives are going to use 2005 as the reference year.

Quebec's manufacturing industry has invested significantly in new technology, which allowed it to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by over 20% between 1990 and 2005. These reductions and efforts will not be taken into account in the Conservative government's regulations, when we see them.

This means that Quebec businesses are going to be asked to make efforts similar to those being made in western Canada, for example. They will have to work twice as hard, since the first reductions are the easiest to make. Indeed, the further along in the process you go, the more difficult and costly reductions become. In addition, this will penalize Quebec and diminish its capacity to earn carbon credits, which would have brought in some cash, particularly in the manufacturing sector, which really needs cash.

The government's environmental and economic strategies go completely against the interests of Quebec. What is interesting is that more and more Quebeckers are realizing this.

So these are some of the questions we would have been asking in January, although we have asked them since and we will continue to ask them in the weeks ahead.

The third issue the Prime Minister, the Conservative Party and the government thought they would be rid of after two months of prorogation is the issue of torture in Afghan prisons. Unfortunately, the government and the Prime Minister seriously miscalculated, because this issue is far from dead. Quite the opposite is true; it is heating up. Every week we receive new information suggesting that NATO has been aware of allegations of torture in Afghan prisons since 2005.

First we heard the testimony of diplomat Richard Colvin, who repeatedly sent memos—seven, if my memory serves—to his superiors concerning these allegations. The second in command at the Canadian embassy in Kabul testified that since 2005, she had informed Canadian authorities about allegations of torture. They tried to evade the issue, but all this evidence is piling up.

The government has been backed so far into a corner that last weekend, it came up with a mandate for former Justice Iacobucci that would turn his inquiry into a red herring. He has been given a very restricted list of documents to review.

The Prime Minister was rather mean—which is fair to say—when he said that Mr. Iacobucci could have access to all the documents from 2001 to 2005. That is when the Liberals were in power. But we have learned that by the end of the Liberals' term, information had been passed on regarding allegations of torture.

No one is fooled. This is a ploy to buy time and avoid complying with the orders of the House, which adopted a very clear motion on December 10, 2009, regarding the documents the Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan needed to do its job.

Prorogation was another attempt by the Prime Minister and the government to avoid answering these questions.

If it were the first time, we could pass it off as a mistake, we could assume that the Prime Minister has the wrong people around him. We know his Quebec henchman, Mr. Soudas; I think that he has the wrong people around him. They probably told him that this would pass without a hitch. Plus, it was the holiday season, the Olympics were coming, and there was an orgy of excitement and patriotism.

Unfortunately for the Prime Minister and fortunately for us, the public was much smarter than the Prime Minister's entourage thought. All the questions that were being asked in December are still being asked now. We want answers. The government must guarantee that it will truly listen to the people of Quebec and Canada regarding the forestry and manufacturing crisis, the government's actions in Copenhagen and the preparations for the conference to be held in Mexico; it must guarantee that it will refocus.

It does not take two months; it takes political will, which, unfortunately, we cannot seem to see. And I am very afraid that we never will. The Bloc Québécois has already permanently withdrawn its confidence in the government. Until the government changes its direction, this will not change.

If this was due to poor advice from the Prime Minister's entourage, then maybe we could say that it was just a bad decision. A slap on that wrist, and it would end there. But that is not the case; it has become a habit.

At the end of 2008, the government used the same strategy to avoid a vote of confidence in the House. It uses any means necessary. It even triggered an election in October 2008 in order to avoid answering questions. The government and the Prime Minister broke their promise about keeping fixed election dates.

I feel that this government is completely out of ideas. We have to find a way to keep it from repeatedly shirking its responsibilities. One way of doing this would be to limit the Prime Minister's power to ask the Governor General to prorogue.

We are open to all potential technical solutions. We are ready to work with the parties that want to experience a more democratic political life here in the House.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, my friend from the Bloc has given a very comprehensive speech, talking about recalibration or the suggestion that recalibration was necessary for the government.

One would think that, if the government went away and recalibrated, it might have come back with something to help 266,000 seniors living in poverty to get out of poverty. One would think it would have come back and acted upon the situation with the retirees at Nortel, AbitibiBowater and Fraser Papers because they are very concerned about how much of a pension, if any, they are going to have going forward.

While I was in Hamilton working with my constituents, I would stop at a Tim Hortons from time to time. One of the things being said there was that children's birthday parties often had a clown who would throw candy in the air to distract people as the clown prepared another trick. It strikes me that the recalibration is like that candy thrown in the air. I would like the member's comments.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

What he said is true: the government acted like those clowns who toss out candy to distract children while preparing another trick.

The problem in this case is that the public was not fooled. The children kept watching for the Prime Minister's trick. They are well aware that someone was trying to dupe them into believing that the prorogation was being used to recalibrate the government's agenda.

A lot of people were left out. The same people have been left out who were left out in the 2009 budget—seniors, pensioners and retirees, for example.

I will give but one example: the guaranteed income supplement, which is given to the poorest senior citizens, should have been improved and indexed. Everyone is asking for it. The FADOQ network has a campaign in Quebec about it. But it was not even mentioned. It does not exist for the backward-thinking Conservative government.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have two questions for the member. The first one is on prorogation, the subject of the debate today. The member criticized this government for proroguing the House. At the same time, René Lévesque prorogued the legislature in Quebec more frequently than we have. I heard no criticism at all from this member ever on the number of times René Lévesque prorogued the legislature in Quebec. Why the double standard?

Second, during much of his speech he spent bashing my province, Alberta, and the oil sands. This is at the same time that his province, Quebec, has invested more money in the oil sands and in companies operating in the oil sands than anywhere else in Canada. I would like to have him square those two seemingly opposing positions.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, the prorogation we are talking about took place less than a year after the last prorogation. I think this procedure is truly being abused, although it is completely legal from a constitutional standpoint. No one is questioning that.

What should be used by the government to recharge its batteries at the end of a political agenda, the Conservative government used simply to stall for two months, only to come back with the same old story, the same old unpalatable measures.

And they had better not suggest that they are talking about the same kind of thing done in Quebec under the René Lévesque government. That was not at all the same as what this Prime Minister is doing in Ottawa.

Regarding Alberta, we are not bashing that province, unlike many people here who like to bash Quebec. We do not have a problem with the oil sands, as long as there are regulations that comply with environmental standards similar to those that other businesses in Canada and Quebec have to meet.

I know some Quebeckers who are very worried about the fact that the oil being extracted from the oil sands is not regulated. I am convinced that if the oil sands development in Alberta were regulated, we would see greater foreign investment than we do now. Let me be clear; we never said to shut it down. We do not want to encourage it. We do not want those developers to benefit from tax shelters, but it has to be regulated. They are killing the cash cow, the goose that lays the golden egg.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Madam Speaker, I certainly uphold some of the comments from my NDP colleague as well. We are talking about pension security and the many people whose pensions are in trouble right now. They are low in their value, in essence, as bankrupt companies go under. This could be a major problem for the smallest of communities. I was hoping that a recalibration would deal with that because I know that my province of Newfoundland and Labrador and his province of Quebec have been the only two provinces provincially that have been engaged in the forestry issue, particularly for newsprint, such as the mills like AbitibiBowater.

He mentioned some of the ideas that he would like to see put forward. I was wondering about the reconstituting of committees, allowing parliamentary committees to continue to function during the period when Parliament is prorogued until the start of the new session. I was wondering if that is one of the ideas that his party, or even just he, would agree with.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, we are prepared to examine all proposals that might be brought forward by the parties. I know that the Liberals were thinking of a special committee. It might be a very good idea to have committees continue their work. Naturally, that will require changes. Something else that has been mentioned is the possibility of having the House vote on a prorogation that would last longer than seven days.

We are open to all ideas. We know that some may be easier than others, but we have to get to work. I believe it all starts with the adoption of the New Democratic Party's motion.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Joliette on his clear presentation.

Does the reaction of the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party to this motion not represent the rejection of parliamentary democracy? According to the motion, the government would have the right to prorogue for seven days. If it wanted a longer period, it would be up to Parliament to decide. The Conservatives are against Parliament.

I would like my honourable colleague to comment on the degree to which the Conservatives reject parliamentary democracy.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi for his very good question.

This prorogation has been described as an anti-democratic and partisan move on the part of the government and the Prime Minister.

Let us talk about the way this government treats the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Kevin Page, simply because he is like a guard dog and keeps parliamentarians abreast of the government's financial situation. The government is just being vengeful and trying to silence this voice by cutting funding to the parliamentary officer. There was also the intimidation of witnesses. I am referring to Mr. Colvin, who was clearly intimidated by this government. How many senior officials were threatened? They also select which journalists will be granted an interview. Let us also talk about the Access to Information Act. When the Minister of Natural Resources was the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, he tried to prevent the disclosure of information, which is against the law. This attitude is pervasive.

I will close by saying that personally, I get the feeling that after four years, this government is tired and has run out of steam. It only governs by making authoritarian and anti-democratic moves, such as the prorogation on December 30.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a question. When the Conservatives came to power, they promised honesty, openness and accountability. Canadians have been disappointed. Would he like to comment on the secrecy of the government?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be brief.

The Conservative government said that with Bill C-2, things would change in Ottawa. We see that things have changed: contempt in the House has reached new heights.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

It being 5:15 p.m. it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.