Jim Silye

[Government Business, March 4th, 1996]

For a photo op. I never thought of that one.

We were happily working along in the 35th Parliament. We were happily going about our business trying to make the government be held accountable. We were working along trying to ensure that the bills that were being passed were as good as possible and trying to give our constructive criticisms.

What happened? The Prime Minister said: "Whoa, let's clean the slate. Let's just take three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine weeks", how many weeks did we take off? He said: "Let's just take that time off. We will prorogue and we will come back with a new slate. We will come back here with a new throne speech, a new direction, a new vision and new ideas for Canada". What do we get? Motion M-1: "Let's bring back all the old bills whenever we want. We will not tell the opposition when; we will just sneak them in there when we can and at the same stage".

That is anti-democratic and very autocratic. The use of closure which we just voted on is a violation of the freedom of speech within the House. It is a violation of the freedom to openly express our thoughts and our points of view. By limiting the debate, by limiting the time in which we can debate this, we are forcing members of Parliament to be quiet. We are allowing this freely, democratically elected Prime Minister to be a dictator and he is dictating to us by his very action.

Why is the government acting just like the previous government, but only worse? When the Liberal members were on this side of the House they accused the Tories of using closure and time allocation and the hue and cry went out. I can remember watching them on television saying it was anti-democratic and asking why debate was being limited. All the arguments they were using I am using now, except they are over on the other side and they are laughing. Already the Liberals have used time allocation and closure in the 35th Parliament more times than the Conservative government did during its mandate of four years.

The Prime Minister when he was opposition leader sat here criticizing former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney asking: "Why are you travelling outside the country? Why are you going all over the world when the problems are here in Canada? We have to solve our problems with Quebec; we have to solve our problems with Alberta, B.C., Ontario and the Atlantic provinces? Why are you travelling all over the world?"

Now that he is Prime Minister, the current Prime Minister has already travelled more outside this country. He is very close to being outside this country more, while we have to run this government, than he has been in the country. This Prime Minister has travelled more than the previous Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.

Why is he doing this exactly in contradiction? I have already mentioned prorogation. When the Conservatives prorogued the House and they came back in, all they wanted to do was bring back five bills. That is all the Conservatives wanted to do, bring back five bills. When the Liberals were on this side in opposition the hue and cry that went out about those five bills, about how it was anti-democratic, how it was short circuiting the system, how it was changing the parliamentary rules. They said: "We would never do that if we were over there because we are better than you guys. We would be different".

What did they do now that they are over there? Exactly the same thing as the Conservative Party did, only worse. They sat over here

and watched the Tory GST come in. They said: "That is not the way to do it. We should look at tax reform. We should look at other ways of replacing this manufacturers' sales tax. We would get rid of it. We hate it. We would kill it". What have they done in two and a half years? They have not got rid of it. They have not killed it.

On Senate appointments, how they used to sit here in opposition and criticize those Senate appointments and they are doing it the very same way. They are doing it for the very same purposes, the very same reasons as the Conservatives.

What has changed? All that has been done is change the faces of the people in government. The system has not been changed. In fact, it is worse. What about the latest appointment to the Senate? I am sure the gentleman is a fine, outstanding Canadian citizen but he is eight months away from having to retire after he is appointed to the job. Does it not take six to eight months to learn the job of a senator? It takes at least a year to learn the job as a member of Parliament. By the time this gentleman learns the job he is out and is replaced by someone else. Why not put someone in the Senate who has some time to learn and contribute something?

[Government Business, March 4th, 1996]

No plan at all. That is probably what he has.

The point is, why did the Prime Minister prorogue if only to introduce this motion to bring back any of the legislation, anytime the government wants at any stage at which the legislation was if it is similar to the current bill? Why did we prorogue?

[Government Business, March 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this motion calls for the reinstatement of any government bills at the same stage under the same legislative procedure and process at which they stood at the time of prorogation.

Why is this necessary? Why not introduce legislation from the session before we prorogued which is new and improved? All those bills that are at various stages and which all members know can be improved upon, why not bring them back in their new forms?

Why did the Prime Minister prorogue? To give a confusing throne speech? He talks about a national referendum in the throne speech or is there not a national referendum? He talked about creating jobs and not creating jobs. He said that maybe it is not the government which should create jobs, it should be the business community. He talked about national unity: Is it plan A, plan B or no plan at all?

[Business Of The House, March 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that the purpose of prorogation of the government was strictly to introduce a new throne speech.

Between now and Christmas there probably will not be any new substantive pieces of legislation introduced by the government. That is why it wants to reintroduce through Motion M-1 all of the previous bills without any notification to the opposition members. We will not know what bills it wants to bring back. It will be able to put them back at whatever stage it wants. This is a contravention of the democratic process in the House.

The current Minister of Health, the member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, had this to say about this type of action taken by the previous government: "I contend that the motion is in principle unacceptable and that it seeks to circumvent, indeed to subvert, the normal legislative process of this House. In the past this kind of thing has only been done by unanimous consent. Now the government is seeking to establish an ominous precedent by attempting to force this procedure on the House. This is an offensive and dangerous departure from the practices of all parliamentary bodies".

The current premier of Newfoundland, the former minister of fisheries in the government, had this to say about this type of activity which the government is now doing: "We see the decision by the government today to put this motion before the House as a confirmation of the destruction-and that is what it is-of our parliamentary system of government".

Another Liberal member of the House from Halifax had this to say about the Conservative government on this same issue: "I can only say that the government should hang its head in shame. One wonders today why the government prorogued the House of Commons last time".

I agree wholeheartedly with the words of the member for Kingston and the Islands. When in opposition he had this to say about this very action taken now by his government which he criticized. I could not say it better. I will have to use his words and I express my support for his conviction, his integrity, his intelligence on this issue: "If the royal prerogative is to mean anything, the prorogation ended those bills. They have to be reinstated in the usual course but they ought to have been introduced and dealt with as new bills in this session. That is the proper procedure in the absence of unanimous consent, not this fiasco that we are wasting taxpayers' money on and doing now. What the government is doing by this, and let us make it perfectly clear what is happening here, is short circuiting the legislative process".

[Business Of The House, March 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the member is probably the same question my colleague just asked which she did not answer, the purpose of prorogation.

To get on to that issue, is it not to wipe off the slate and start over with the throne speech to set the new direction for the government with its new vision, with its new hope, with its new ideas for growth and opportunity? Is it not to go forward instead of going backward in the first piece of legislation the government introduces?

The first motion the government has introduced is to bring back all those old government bills it does not want to leave behind. Those bills are supposed to die on the order paper.

Prorogation is the cause of this motion and the cause of the undemocratic use of this Chamber. What is the purpose and why, in her opinion, did her government prorogue?

[Business Of The House, March 1st, 1996]

Why did you prorogue?

[Business Of The House, March 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell made a statement that I want to clarify and put on the record because it is very serious.

The government House leader did not contact our House leader or the assistant to our House leader, the member for Lethbridge, on this issue. We saw it for the first time on the Order Paper. I just want to let the member know that is why we are quite upset about the timing.

In addition, the usual custom is that when the House is prorogued, as a courtesy, the government consults with opposition

parties about the deputy speakers. That was not done either. There are a lot of things this government is just trying to bully through.

The member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell was concerned and tried to sell the motion that a private member's bill is the same as a government bill. That is not the case. He wants to know why we support reinstating private members' bills but not government bills. They are trying to use the motion of the hon. member for Lethbridge as a bargaining chip. They are trying to use Private Members' Business as a trade off, a quid pro quo. We cannot accept such a deal, especially when all the members opposite when in opposition so vehemently argued against what the Conservatives were doing, which is the same thing this government is doing.

The hon. member asked what was the difference between Private Members' Business and reinstating government business and I would like to answer that and then he can comment after that. Private members cannot set the agenda. They have no control over the business of the House. They are at the mercy of the process which takes a great deal of time and makes it extremely difficult to see their bills past.

In the last session 165 members' bills were introduced and only two were past into law. They need a helping hand. On government business the government controls the legislative agenda. It can summon bills for debate for whatever reason, whenever and however it wants. If the government wants to pass a bill it can do so. There is nothing we can do about it. It can place it on the Order Paper day after day. It can invoke time allocation or closure. It can steamroll it through a committee. If a bill has not passed it is because the government chose not to pass it, and it chose not to pass a whole bunch of bills in the last session.

Bill C-7 was on the Order Paper for over two years. Rather than call it for debate the government held take note debates and adjourned early. Now it wants the opposition to bail it out and reinstate it.

The government has the control over government bills. Private members do not have that control. That is the difference. There are some good private members' bills that were pulled and which should be reinstated, but those are private members' bills, not government bills.

What is the purpose of prorogation? The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands said it best when in opposition. He pointed out what is happening today is unprecedented in that the government is moving a motion under Government Orders for debate to reinstate bills in this session. He searched precedents back to 1938 and did not find one where a motion of this kind was moved for debate. It was always agreed to by unanimous consent.

Never before has the government moved to suspend the rules in effect and put bills back into their position at the time of prorogation of a session. If royal prerogative is to mean anything, the prorogation ended those government bills. They have to be reinstated in the usual course but they ought to have been introduced and dealt with as new bills in this session. This is the proper procedure in the absence of unanimous consent.

Now why are these two members, the member for Kingston and the Islands and the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, both of whom know the standing orders and the rules and so vehemently opposed what they are now proposing when they are in opposition, contradicting themselves and why do they not see the difference between private members' bills and government bills? Why are they persisting in playing this game instead of getting on with the business of the new legislation, of the new throne speech and of the new vision for Canada that this party is supposed to have?

[Business Of The House, March 1st, 1996]

Were members of all parties present?

[Business Of The House, March 1st, 1996]

Are you sure?

[Employment, March 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this is getting scary. This is the second person who agrees with Reformers. I kind of like this.

The government promised to create jobs, not the business community. The government talks about security and chances for youth.

My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. If her government wants business to perform and create jobs, will she commit to have the finance minister promise no new taxes, or tax increases of any kind in the next budget which would be the best inducement for job creation, as all members know.