Tony Valeri

[Government of Canada, May 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition is frankly misunderstanding a procedural motion for a confidence motion.

Constitutional experts have said in fact that there is no constitutional crisis. Patrick Monahan today said that the situation would be a crisis only if the government refused to have a confidence vote.

I tried to schedule that confidence vote for next Thursday. The official opposition and the separatist party that want to have a confidence vote in the House have refused to allow the House to have that vote on Thursday.

[Message from the Senate, May 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to convey to the Chair that once again the Leader of the Opposition has shown his complete misunderstanding for the procedure in this place.

[Message from the Senate, May 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I think we have attempted to demonstrate that the hon. member and his colleagues can vote for the budget on Thursday, May 19 and give Atlantic Canadians the accord they deserve. That motion could take place on May 19.

[Message from the Senate, May 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. After consultations with the House leaders of all parties, I am asking for unanimous consent that the following motion be adopted unanimously, without debate or amendment:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice, the second reading stages of Bill C-43, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 23, 2005, and Bill C-48, an act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments, shall be disposed of as follows:

1. Any division thereon requested before the expiry of the time for consideration of Government Orders on Thursday, May 19, 2005, shall be deferred to that time;

2. At the expiry of the time for consideration of Government Orders on Thursday, May 19, 2005, all questions necessary for the disposal of the second reading stage of (1) Bill C-43 and (2) Bill C-48 shall be put and decided forthwith and successively, without further debate, amendment or deferral.

[House of Commons, May 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we are in fact adhering specifically to democratic values. We are looking at a confidence vote on a budget, which will take place on May 19. I fail to understand why the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition party cannot accept yes for an answer.

[Veterans Affairs, May 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I think what is very clear is that what is a reasonable proposal is deemed to be unreasonable by unreasonable people. Again, we had leaders of every party agreeing on a veterans charter and had it pass at all stages here. Those members were looking to dissolve Parliament yesterday when it did not have an opportunity to get through the Senate. It will be through the Senate on Thursday.

If anything, what Canadians understand is that there will be a legitimate vote of confidence and that will take place next Thursday. We will work to win that vote and we will continue to fight on behalf of Canadians.

[House of Commons, May 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, again they link their argument to the vote last evening, which was a procedural matter. It was not in fact a confidence matter; it is a report that is going back to committee.

I do not understand why the members opposite do not see the merit in the approach that has been taken, but I would say this. That party has never stood up for Canada. In fact, it wants to destroy Canada

What is the rush? What is it that you are really looking for? You will have a confidence motion, a legitimate one, that--

[House of Commons, May 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said over and over again in the House, a reasonable proposal has been put forward that the vote take place on May 19. I do not understand why the opposition leaders cannot take yes for an answer. There is an opportunity to debate the budget bill. There is an opportunity to get the veterans bill through. There is an opportunity to get the DNA bill into the House and get that through.

It is not just the government that sees this as reasonable, but constitutional experts do also, so I would hope that the members would participate, but have that legitimate confidence vote later.

[House of Commons, May 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is really unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition was mistaken in his conversation with the hon. member. I have all due respect for the hon. member. It is very unfortunate that he is suffering from his illness. I would not wish any illness on anyone. There has to be a level of respect here that we can exchange in the House in a proper way.

If the Leader of the Opposition informed the member that yesterday's vote was in fact a confidence vote, the Leader of the Opposition was mistaken.

[House of Commons, May 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand the position of the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues. They cannot take yes for an answer.

I would like to point out something. There are some fundamental inconsistencies in the position of the members opposite. Yesterday they agreed in the House that they wanted to pass the veterans charter. Today they are trying to end this Parliament, which would kill the veterans bill. Reasonable people would wonder what the opposition's commitment is worth.

Yesterday as well the justice critic stood in his place and wanted to get the DNA bill through the House. We are attempting to do that. Today they want to dissolve Parliament. They cannot keep their word.