Tony Valeri

[House of Commons, May 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, that was another example of some hysteria coming from the members opposite and, in fact, their understanding of the rules of this House and how they operate.

It has been made very clear that the vote on yesterday's motion was not a matter of confidence. Experts from various parts of the country have also indicated that it was a procedural motion, and it was a referral back to committee itself.

There will be a legitimate confidence vote. It will be in the form of a budget vote. We have a proposal on the table that does respect a number of other interests that we need to respect. That vote will take place on Thursday.

[House of Commons, May 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I think that last question just proves the Prime Minister's point that the Leader of the Opposition, along with his friend from the Bloc, have no interest in seeing the veterans charter pass.

What we have said is a quite reasonable proposal. As I have said, there are constitutional experts who have said that it is a reasonable proposal. We will have a vote on Thursday of next week. There will be time for debate. We will be able to respect both the investment of the people in the Governments of Saskatchewan and Alberta with respect to the Queen's visit. I do not understand why the Leader of the Opposition cannot take yes for an answer.

[The Budget, May 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the budget bills are scheduled for debate today and tomorrow. A number of members wish to speak to them. I was hoping that the hon. members across the way would actually like to speak to them. That is how democracy works. Members of Parliament get to stand in their place and speak to the issues that are important.

If what the hon. member is asking for is a debate on the budget bills, that is what he will get.

[The Budget, May 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister indicated, there is a reasonable proposal that has been put forward and allows a reasonable amount of time, frankly, for debate on the budget bills and also for other pieces of legislation that are in the House. It certainly respects the time, money and effort invested by both the people in the Governments of Saskatchewan and Alberta with respect to the Queen's visit. It does provide a legitimate test of confidence, which is what the opposition parties are suggesting should happen. In fact, it also has the agreement of constitutional expert, Patrick Monahan.

I do not understand what the rush is. In fact, there will be a test of confidence. It will happen next Thursday.

[Government of Canada, May 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a couple of points.

First, I will reiterate that the motion last night was not a matter of confidence. In your ruling, Mr. Speaker, as a result of the vote, you indicated that the motion would now proceed to committee. It is a procedural motion, not a confidence motion.

What I would really like to say is that the Leader of the Opposition has shown how low he is prepared to go by suggesting that anyone would take advantage of someone's illness. I would not wish illness on any anyone. I think there has to be a level of respect in the House. If Canadians did not know the kind of person the Leader of the Opposition was before today, they sure know now.

[Committees of the House, May 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond and ensure that any Canadian who is actually watching the proceeding clearly understands that the leader of the official opposition has no knowledge of what in fact the motion actually said that he put forward.

It is an instruction to a committee. That instruction to the committee and the issue of it not being confidence is supported by Marleau and Montpetit and many other experts in procedure and constitutional affairs.

I would suggest that the leader of the official opposition leave as he is and we will continue to govern on behalf of Canadians.

[Government of Canada, May 10th, 2005]

Again, Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member pays very close attention. What I understood that you ruled on was actually the wording of the amendment. What I was commenting on was the actual process that was followed. The report itself had come out of committee. It was not going into committee. It was concurred in.

In fact, I would also suggest that King resigned not because of a motion in this House; he resigned because the Governor General in fact did not take his advice. He wanted to dissolve Parliament. The Governor General said no. They are two completely different examples. I want to point that out--

[Justice, May 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I understand there has been some discussion among the justice critics and, frankly, it is an opportunity to demonstrate that this Parliament works. It worked for the veterans earlier today. It can certainly work for a number of things.

I would say to hon. members along the way that when we cooperate and focus on the interests and priorities of Canadians, Parliament can in fact work.

I would ask the two parties opposite, the Conservatives and the Bloc, that if they want to be in this Parliament and be in this Parliament for the interest of Canadians, then let us work together to ensure we can pass this DNA bill and other bills.

[Government of Canada, May 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I can only hope that you will ignore some of the hysteria coming from the hon. member across the way.

The obligation we as a government have is to provide opposition days and in fact those are provided. There are a couple of bills in the House that are in fact confidence issues. They are budget bills. When they collapse, there will be a confidence vote. Those are legitimate measures of confidence. I would encourage the House to get on with debating the budget bill.

I indicated earlier on that there will be opposition days by the end of May, when the opposition members can in fact hold the government to account with a confidence motion if they so choose.

[Government of Canada, May 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said previously, this motion is not a matter of confidence. The vote this evening is not a matter of confidence. It is a procedural motion to refer a report back to the committee. We certainly will not prejudge what the committee might do. The committee could choose to defeat that amendment. It could choose to change that amendment.

With respect to the example provided from 1926, I would suggest that my hon. colleague reread it, because it in fact proves the point that we are making. In 1926 it was a report coming out of committee, not a report going into committee--