Lost his last election, in 2006, with 35% of the vote.
Reinstatement of Government Bills February 10th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand why opposition members are prepared to withdraw their amendment now when they proposed it in the first place.
Beauchesne's explains the rules and I think the rules should apply equally to all. However, by trying to use the rules to block debate on substance, they are using the rules to actually start debate on substance.
Reinstatement of Government Bills February 10th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, first, the closure we are evoking now is aimed at getting to the substance of the issues because procedure is not what Canadians are expecting us to spend time on.
Second, it took us six days to come to this stage, but it took only one day for the opposition to go back to the old traditional way of opposing for the sake of opposing. It is opposing work which would permit us to have an independent ethics commissioner, to help Africa, to deal with electoral matters, to deal with a number of issues. We took the initiative to have a take note debate, which already took place in the House, to deal with the BSE issue.
One thing is quite interesting. I would very much appreciate if my colleague across the way, instead of simply being physically present in the House, would also be intellectually present in the House, listen to the Speech from the Throne and see all the issues that were included and addressed in the Speech from the Throne.
Reinstatement of Government Bills February 10th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, allow me not to use the same kind of vocabulary as my colleague across the way because I do not think it is very valuable for the House.
My colleague said something which I found very interesting. She says that actions speak louder than words. In this case could I perhaps be enlightened about the contradiction I see in a document produced by that member's party called “Building Trust”.
That party has recommended a number of items which are in our action plan on democratic reform. When I tabled my plan, which included these recommendations, the opposition backed off. Who are actually putting their money where their mouths are and who are not? The document proposed some action that we are prepared to take, and the opposition has refused.
Finally, when we talk about free votes, opposition members do not have the right to talk about free votes because they have refused to implement it for themselves. They have no lessons to give to anyone.
Reinstatement of Government Bills February 10th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I take from the question of my colleague across the way that she is in support of the action plan and would like to see it implemented.
There is a difference between empowering MPs and preventing government from assuming its normal constitutional responsibility of management. Of course my colleague has used an expression which I find quite interesting. She said “shut down debate”. I want to shut down debate on procedures so we can open debate on substance. She should be interested in that.
Reinstatement of Government Bills February 10th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I would like something to be explained to me. Unless I no longer speak French, a dilatory motion or a dilatory strategy is aimed at extending and dragging out debate, whereas the motion we are now proposing, the initiative we are taking, is aimed at speeding up debate. There is a total contradiction in French.
The opposition should use the right terms, if we want to talk about the same things. What we are seeking to do is quite simple. We want to go through the procedural process quickly so that we can get to the substantive issues as soon as possible. When we talk particularly about issues such as the creation of an independent ethics commissioner, our role at the international level in helping Africa fight its pandemics, these are the substantive issues. This is what we want to do, and we are anxious to get to it.
Reinstatement of Government Bills February 10th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the quote that was given from the Prime Minister is quite accurate, and I will read it again. He said, “Parliament should be the centre of national debate on policy”.
My colleagues across the way have tried to waste very valuable time on debates on procedures, as they demonstrated on Friday, which has delayed the debate on substance. As soon as this motion is passed tonight on reinstatement, we will have a chance to actually debate the issues of interest to Canadians, and that is what we want to do.
The second is in terms of closure. It is quite interesting to note that it is the very first time in the history of our country that closure will be subjected to a free vote in the House, or maybe I should correct that. It will be a free vote on this side of the House because on the other side they do not believe in free votes.
Reinstatement of Government Bills February 10th, 2004
With respect to the consideration of the motion under government orders, Government Business No. 2, I move:
That the debate be not further adjourned.
Canada Elections Act February 10th, 2004
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-3, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Government Business No. 2 February 9th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I wish to give notice that, with respect to the consideration of Government Business No. 2, at the next sitting a minister of the crown shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that debate be not further adjourned.
Firearms Program February 9th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, as far as the firearms registry is concerned, there are two possible questions: one, the fundamental issue of its existence, and two, the way it is administered and what improvements could be made to it.
I have no problems whatsoever with improvements to the program. But let it be properly understood: the program is in place, and it is there to stay. The firearms registry must continue to exist.
How can they be calling for a free vote when they have absolutely no interest in applying the same principle within their own caucus?