We could use the money for more useful things such as giving the right to speak to those who represent the public, who were democratically elected on the strength of political platforms and who have something to say. As far as the $27,000 an hour argument is concerned, I suggest that the leader of the government first abolish the other House where nobody is elected and where members only represent themselves or the government.
Time allocation motions were first introduced in the House of Commons in 1971. At that time, the government said that they would only be used exceptionally, on occasion, that they would simplify the procedure, allow the government to govern and keep the opposition from stopping government initiatives thoughtlessly. Although rarely, there would be times when the government would resort to time allocation motions. Unfortunately, things have evolved and the leader is an expert in this regard.
From 1984 to 1993, under the Tory government, there were 49 time allocation motions in the House, and a total of 519 bills. These are the real statistics; I did not invent them, they are the figures of the House of commons. These 49 gag orders were all vehemently condemned and the opposition of the day gave some solid arguments against them, but that opposition is now our government and now it resorts to gag orders. Therefore, under the Tories, we had 49 gag orders for a total of 519 bills; that means 9.4%. During the Tory regime, over a seven-year period, 9.4% of bills ended with a gag order.
Yet this government presented over 60 closure motions in the case of some 350 bills introduced in the House, a ratio of 17.4%.
The Conservatives in the previous government were criticized for being undemocratic, because 9.4% of parliamentary initiatives ended through closure. The figure for the current government of 17.4% is nearly double that. It is a cause for some concern when the government to all intents and purposes doubles the number of closure motions in order to settle bills and debates in the House and when this same government today wants to prevent the opposition from introducing amendments or at least to give the Speaker the right to decide whether an amendment is valid or not.
Mr. Speaker, I contend that this government is trying to transfer to you the responsibility that is ours here, namely that of voting on and deciding at some point whether what has been submitted to parliament is valid or not, must be selected or rejected, especially in the context of the passage of a bill.
We will never agree to let the Speaker of the House assume the power given its members by their electors to express their points of view, exercise their judgement and decide whether an amendment or a bill should be approved or rejected.
We will never agree to let the Speaker of the House of Commons be invested with such power by the government, not because the Speaker wants this power, but because the government in its laxity wants to divest itself of its responsibilities by giving the Chair the duty and obligation to impose closure on the members of the opposition, on amendments and on debates in this House.
Earlier, when the debate was going on, my colleague told me that in today's parliament our debates are merely a way of passing time until it is time to pass a bill. This is a far cry from what parliament was at the beginning. We are passing time until the bill is passed. It is indeed how things now work.
This is far from those great debates when openness and human intelligence prevailed in this House, when the government would listen to the opposition, including third parties, express its views as to how things could be done. This is far from the days when people truly believed that they were mandating members to represent them here and work in their best interests.
Now, all too often, government orders are initiated by teams of public servants who are out of touch with reality and they are sponsored by ministers who lack independent thought. Bills are introduced in this House, but the government does not want openness.
The Minister of Justice should have shown some openness toward the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, who proposed very significant and interesting amendments to improve this bill, a bill drafted behind closed doors by the minister's officials. But no. As is the case with all the debates, the Minister of Justice listened to us, but it was difficult for her to do so. It was already taking too long.
Even though the debates are just a way of using up the time while waiting for the government to pass its bills, it has become too much to bear. It is hard for the minister to have to listen day after day to opposition members using strong arguments and logic to show that her bill is not a good one.
It is extremely difficult, but the government has reached the point where it does not even want to assume its responsibility to listen to the representatives of those who did not elect a Liberal candidate, but a candidate from the Bloc Quebecois, the Canadian Alliance, the NDP or the Progressive Conservative Party.
