Ray Speaker

[Communications, March 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Canadian Heritage upheld the CRTC's direct to home satellite policy which is so anti-competitive that not even the Prime Minister's son-in-law could make it work.

[The Budget, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Reform Party, as a party we want to be fair. When a government makes progress in a certain direction we should applaud it.

The government member wants to deny the idea came from the Reform Party. I think he would have to admit that the Reform Party is the group that put pressure on the Minister of Finance in terms of balancing the budget.

During our first term here our leader asked time after time in question period when the government would balance the budget. I asked it as the finance critic. Across Canada the public and the business community asked the question of the finance minister. The financial houses which look at Canada's credit rating asked it of the finance minister. There was tremendous pressure from a lot of sources to be fiscally conservative and deal with the deficit.

In the last fiscal budget the finance minister responded and went much further. He said his Liberal caucus members took some two or three months to move over and finally thought they would take the risk on more deficit and expenditure reduction. What was the big result? The Minister of Finance set up a bank of telephones expecting Canadians to jump all over them and tromp them with their boots because they had reduced expenditures and tried to deal with the deficit. The telephones were dead. Nobody phoned because it was the right policy. It was what the Reform Party had been saying for months, even two or three years before we came here; cut expenditures, reduce the deficit and there will be all the results I mentioned in my speech.

Now with regard to the question of flat tax, the Reform Party wants a tax that is fair for all Canadians. I think we all want that. There are three or four models of flat tax. One model is the pure flat tax, the one model the hon. member was referencing, which deals with interest, charitable donations in a variety of ways. The Reform Party is taking those models to Canadians and asking: "Which option would work for you as a Canadian? Which one would help small and large businesses and the individual taxpayer in the best way?" That is how we are handling it, by taking it to the people of Canada.

[The Budget, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to participate in the budget debate.

In my 10 minutes I will make three points. First, I will talk about the impact Reform has had on the government's fiscal agenda. Second, I will illustrate the impact by comparing the taxpayers budget which is talked about in this House to the Liberal government's actions and what has happened. Third, I will look at what lies ahead.

The first thing to look at is the dramatic change in the direction of the Liberal government since coming to power in 1993 and the role of the Reform Party in influencing the direction of that government. Let me explain.

In the 1993 campaign the Reform Party warned that job creation would be weak until the deficit was eliminated and taxes were lowered. We argued that the country's poor economic performance was directly related to its poor economic fundamentals. Our prescription was very straightforward and quite logical: eliminate the deficit, pay down the debt and lower the taxes. On the other hand, the Liberals told Canadians that the deficit and interest rates were high because the economy was so weak. The economy was weak because the government was not creating enough jobs.

What does that translate into? The deficit was not the problem. The economic fundamentals were not the problem. Government cutbacks were the problem. All that was needed was for some good old-fashioned Liberal government to come along and prime the fiscal pump. The jobs would start flowing, the economy would start growing and the deficit would go away.

The Liberals followed through with that pump priming when they came to power. What did we have in February 1994? They spent $2 billion of borrowed money, asked the municipalities and asked the provinces to borrow another $4 billion, to build things like boccie courts in Toronto and canoe museums in Shawinigan. They raised a few taxes, trimmed a little spending and waited for the jobs to roll in. But the jobs did not roll in. In fact they slowed to a trickle. Interest rates did not come down, they went up. Bluntly the Liberals' plan did not work.

Being the pragmatists that they are, the Liberals looked around to see what other solutions were before them. The option there was the message being preached and talked about by the Reform Party in 1993, a message of spending reduction, deficit reduction and fiscal restraint. The about face which followed is unprecedented in the history of Canadian politics.

Starting with last year's budget the Liberals have transformed themselves from traditional Keynesian pump primers to orthodox fiscal conservatives which is quite a transition in Canada. In the wake of this conversion the new Liberal gospel which we heard from the lips of our Minister of Finance not too long ago reads as follows: First, governments no longer create jobs, the private sector does. What a realization. Second, spending no longer stimulates the economy, lower interest rates do. Third, deficits no longer keep the economy afloat, they sink it. Most important, it was said by the finance minister that job creation is dependent on low taxes, low deficits and low interest rates rather than the other way around. What a conversion.

If asked to comment on this transformation I would make two observations. First, it is good. The change is good. Second, the Reform Party of Canada impacted and got through to the government to change the circumstances, which is a bonus in itself.

Actions speak louder than words so let us look at the Liberals' budget to see how far they have come.

Last year my party estimated that to balance the budget by 1998 without increasing taxes, spending would have to be reduced by some $25 billion. How have the Liberals done? To date they have proposed spending reductions of $15 billion. In other words, they are 60 per cent of the way there. They have also raised taxes which has narrowed the gap somewhat. They have promised to continue their work which means we are conceivably on the track to a balanced budget sometime around the year 2001 which is also good.

To break it down further, the taxpayers budget recommended reducing departmental spending by $10 billion. The Liberals have now done that. They reduced it by $10 billion and are counting and it seems to increase.

The taxpayers budget recommended reducing transfers to provinces by 24 per cent. Despite increasing equalization payments spending under the Liberals has been reduced by more than 21 per cent. Health, education and welfare have been cut far deeper.

The taxpayers budget recommended downsizing the UI program by some $3.4 billion. With the latest UI proposals, the government will surpass that goal.

As we can see, progress has been made and for that I applaud the government. I also applaud my own colleagues, for these numbers make it clear that Reformers have had a significant impact on the direction of the Liberal government. However, much more can be done.

For example, Quebec is the fourth richest province in Canada yet it is the largest beneficiary of equalization dollars. By putting a priority on the poorest provinces we can save another $3 billion annually. Eliminating all subsidies to businesses would save at least another $2 billion a year. I could go on. The federal government today is closer to fiscal stability than at any other point in 15 years. I certainly applaud the government for that direction.

The major criticism I and my colleagues have is that in dealing with the deficit the Liberals have not moved quickly enough. This is not being picky. The Liberals' inaction carries a cost which comes in the form of interest payments on the debt. To illustrate, by 1997-98 with the latest Liberal budget we will be $42 billion further in debt than we would have been if the Liberals had followed the taxpayers budget. By my calculation the interest cost price tag associated with this additional debt is an accumulated $5.3 billion over the first three years alone.

Sadly, this has forced the Liberals to do the one thing they sought most to avoid: to make deeper cuts to the programs Canadians value most. Let us look at that. My hon. colleague commented on it a few moments ago.

The taxpayers budget called for health care reductions of just $800 million. The Liberal cuts so far are $3.4 billion and counting. Compare that. The taxpayers budget asked to reduce funding for education by only $200 million. The Liberals have now cut seven times that amount.

Third, going even further back to the 1993 election, we proposed to limit old age security payments to those earning less than $54,000. The Liberals now plan to place the threshold at $45,000. Who is slash and burn and who is really cutting? I think that has to be laid on the table so that people know about it.

These are the costs associated with what the finance minister likes to call a moderate deficit reduction pace, even faster than the Reform Party in some of the social areas.

However, as I stated earlier, the end is now within sight. While we may differ on the pace of our efforts, members of all parties realize the importance of building on what progress has been made.

What is the end result? What are the fruits of our efforts? They are many. Once our fiscal problems are behind us we can focus on new, more pleasant decisions. Instead of finding new areas to cut, we can debate the matter of lower taxes. We can decide how to pay down our debt. We can opt to bolster health care and pensions if that is what Canadians want to do. Balancing the budget will also result in more permanent lower interest rates. As the finance minister points out, rates have come down already but we expect that to continue.

This brings us the real rewards. Tax breaks mean Canadians will have more in their pockets at the end of the day. Lower interest rates mean more Canadians can afford a car. A healthy economy means more Canadians will have the confidence and ability to buy a home. In short, we will all see a real and perceptible rise in our standard of living. This will bring about the very thing the Liberals promised three years ago but could not deliver: a healthy economy, a positive growth climate and jobs, jobs, jobs.

[Privilege, March 14th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, in my remarks today I will make two basic points. I will look at the purpose of the motion before us and I will look at the implications of the motion in terms of the future.

The hon. member for Mercier said very clearly it is the intent of the Bloc Quebecois to do everything in its power to move toward separating Quebec from the rest of Canada. It wants to do it under what it calls the democratic process and open discussion. That sounds fine as it is.

However, we must look at the motion before us in that context, what we are doing specifically here today. We are leading as the Reform Party a debate on a question put clearly before the House by my hon. colleague, the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt. In his remarks he said: "The question to be answered is whether the member is guilty of offending Parliament and in the opinion of the House is the hon. member for Charlesbourg guilty of sedition".

We ask that question and place it before this assembly so that bridge can be crossed. We all know another referendum in Quebec is in the waiting. It is there being considered and planned. We are in the period of calm before the storm. When will the storm occur? Maybe in June, maybe in September or possibly in early 1997.

We also know that mixed in with that will most likely be a provincial election in Quebec. There will most likely be a federal election in Canada in the mix of that scenario.

I believe before we move into the storm of elections, of pronouncements, of adversaries and partisanship we have a period of calm when we can consider some questions that will be raised at that time. We are raising one very important basic point here, the question of whether a member of the House put himself in a situation which took away from the privilege of other members or was offensive in his actions. We in the Reform Party believe those actions were offensive.

The question of whether it is seditious should be considered by the committee on procedure and House affairs. If it is and the House rules and the law of the country do not deal with it appropriate, the committee of procedure and House affairs can make a recommendation on how to handle that specific situation in the future. Maybe related things will happen during a major discussion that will occur 6 to 12 months from now about the future of the boundaries of Canada.

There are other question which have already been raised. They were raised in discussions during and prior to October 23, 1995. The deputy premier, Bernard Landry, contacted foreign diplomats in a bid to win support for immediate recognition of Quebec's sovereignty in the case of a yes vote.

Premier Parizeau said the Quebec treasury and its pension fund would set aside billions of dollars in preparation to defend the currency of Quebec. The question is do they have a right to make those statements? Do they have a right to make those commitments within Canada? Are they acts of sedition? Other situations will occur in the same way with regard to boundaries, the use of currency, pensions and the debt of the country. There are many other situations that will be put on the table as we enter into this potential debate that lies ahead. We must consider those now.

What happened in the situation before us today? The hon. member for Charlesbourg, with the approval of the Bloc Quebecois caucus, directed a communiqué to the armed forces. It was not a knee-jerk reaction or something thought up in a few moments. The letter was well planned. It was part of the campaign and it was approved by a body recognized in Canada as the official opposition, a major part of this democratically elected Parliament of Canada. A major decision was made that they would send a communiqué to the armed forces urging them that if they wished to leave the Canadian army and defect to what would become a Quebec army, they could do so and they would be protected in doing that.

What right did the member have to do that? We do not believe the member had the right. We believe the act was seemingly seditious. It was an act to break up Canada saying that our Canadian army could be eroded by what in a sense could be an enemy of our nation as a whole.

What if some other country tried to do the very same thing? What if some country offshore of the North American continent said to our army personnel that they could leave and support another side of the argument. In case we were in a conflict, how would we view that kind of a situation? That would be totally unacceptable.

It is important that we cross the bridge and that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and dealt with in haste. It should not be left on the table for a long period of time. I hope that early in this session, by the end of April or early May, we can deal with the matter in Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Then the matter should come back to the House with a recommendation to clearly deal with this specific instance. Also I think that we should look at the broader questions that are implied by this specific matter. We will have to cross other roads and bridges as well in June of this year or September or possibly early into 1997.

The committee to which we are referring this matter has a heavy and major responsibility in determining the future of this country and how we deal with some of these matters.

The Reform Party of Canada has placed a discussion paper before Canadians. We talk of 20 terms and conditions that must be met. Then we are asking Canadians to add others that they think should be added to it.

It is time to look at this question. A part of our country is going to leave. In this instance Quebec says it wants to leave Canada. If that happens, if a democratic vote takes place, what are the terms and conditions by which that separation should occur?

The hon. member for Mercier said that Reform Party members are slowing up the process and are doing this for our own political gain with the discussion and setting out the 20 terms and conditions.

Nothing could be further from the truth. That is absolutely not true. We believe that the matter in dispute must be dealt with, and hopefully settled by very democratic means. The terms and conditions by which those negotiations take place should be set out. It is incumbent on the Liberal government to do that. At the present time little has been said about terms and conditions. That says this problem is going to go away.

The hon. member for Mercier in her comments a few moments ago said: "It will not go away. If the current Bloc Quebecois members disappear and are not elected again to this body, there will be a new group somewhere that will fight for the cause of the separation of Quebec". I am sure that is true. Some 30 per cent of the people in Quebec are very committed to separation no matter what the consequences are, economically, socially or politically. They want to push ahead to have their own boundaries and their protection for a culture that they feel will survive under those insulated conditions.

From my own perspective I am not sure that can happen in this new world of technology and communication, this new world of openness both economically and socially. That is one of the reasons I cannot agree with the concept of separation even beyond the great argument of keeping Canada together because of the great future it holds.

The other argument that has been placed before us with regard to the hon. member who signed the communiqué on behalf of the leader of the official opposition, now the premier of Quebec, Mr. Bouchard, is whether in the motion we placed before the House asking whether sedition has occurred is imposing on his right to freedom of speech. What are the limits to freedom of speech within Parliament or within a country? Have we the right to speak of breaking our country apart without penalty or consequence?

We elect people democratically. We argue issues. We agree on issues. I am sure this House would not agree if a vote were taken here for Quebec to leave. In that context, was the motivation of the hon. member proper? Could it be included in the definition of freedom of speech?

He has said to the armed forces: "If you want to leave, come with the Quebec army". Is that not eroding the integrity of our country? Is there no penalty for that kind of thing? That is the key question which has to be answered.

Every country must have rules to maintain its integrity. There are limits to what can be said and what actions can be taken. This was not only the spoken word of the hon. member; it was a request for action on the part of members of the armed forces to leave their employment to go to the Quebec army. It was a deliberate undermining of the integrity of our nation.

Can we accept that? I do not think so. If we want to have tolerance and understanding of one another with regard to culture, ethnic identity, religious attitudes, social beliefs and a variety of ideologies where we work together and let all prevail as forces within our society, that is fine. However, when it comes to the point

where a group of people or a single individual takes away from the integrity or to intentionally erode it, can we accept that? What would our country be if we allowed its most extreme enemies to do that?

Let us say, for example, that we were still in the cold war with Russia. Would we allow the Russians to come in and take over part of our army? Would we allow them to come over and take over part of our natural resources? Would we say: "Fine. Go ahead and do it. It is no problem?" What then would be the integrity of our country?

There must be some kind of rules to protect what we are doing. That is why we are referencing this matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. It can look at the issues and rule clearly on them. There must be rules for this kind of behaviour. If the current rules were violated by the hon. member, then the member, on behalf of his caucus, must pay the consequences. That is the responsibility that the hon. member for Charlesbourg will have to take. I believe it is incumbent upon him to accept it in those terms.

Where do we go from here? Parliament has the power to deal with the matter. It is clearly within the terms that are provided for us in Beauchesne. It is also provided in our House rules and orders.

We should look at all aspects of the issue, not just the narrow aspect of the communiqué itself and whether it was a good document or a bad document or whether the member should not have sent it out. We can examine this matter, not only in the narrow context of the communiqué itself. We can examine whether the hon. member's actions constituted sedition. We can look at whether the rules of Parliament and the laws of our country are adequate enough to deal with these kinds of situations. We can look at other acts by members of this assembly which are not only a contempt for Parliament but an act of sedition.

We can look at a broad range of those things in committee and come back with a comprehensive report that will do our country proud and maintain the integrity of this nation.

[Business Of The House, March 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, with reference to Beauchesne's, as I understand it a question of privilege takes precedence in the House over other matters on the Order Paper. We did allow question period to proceed because there was an understanding that it would proceed. However, in terms of proceeding with the other orders such as the ones we are dealing with now, it would be out of order in that the question of privilege does have precedence. I would appreciate your ruling on that, Mr. Speaker.

[Committees Of The House, March 4th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, welcome to the chair. We wish you the best in your new responsibilities.

The debate before us focuses on two very basic things. One is the question of parliamentary reform with respect to committees. The question must arise of whether the committees have the authority and the independence to choose their chairs, their vice-chairs and other such formats of the committees independently of external authority either from the Prime Minister's office or through the Liberal government whip.

The other question is what we observe as this unfortunate support the government gives to the separatist party for the positions in those committees, the vice-chair positions, chair positions with regard to the public accounts committee.

The member for Mississauga South earlier said that by tradition the vice-chairs went to members of the official opposition. I can understand why he said that. The Liberal whip continually gives the impression that is the way it is, that other opposition members, representatives of the Reform Party or from the NDP or the Conservative Party, are not part of the official opposition and cannot be one of the vice-chairs. That is the presentation the Liberal whip made to his own caucus and it is believed that is the way it is.

It is not that way. Some of my hon. colleagues have pointed out very clearly in the House that it is not tradition that the official opposition gets the chair or the vice-chair positions. I make that very clear. It is just one of the ways the Liberal whip is able to again have this love-in, as I call it, with the separatist party and provide it support in having a position of authority or power in the Parliament of Canada. I do not accept that in any way.

Speaking to these two points, parliamentary reform and more independence for the committees to choose who should be their chairs and vice-chairs, that is where the authority should lie. My hon. colleague from Macleod pointed that out very clearly.

In the 33rd Parliament the McGrath report was presented. Through that report a number of parliamentary reforms were brought into the House of Commons. I commend that report. I commend the 33rd Parliament for accepting a number of those recommendations.

One of those recommendations related to the independence of the committee. It also said the committee could establish its own agenda without interference by the government. Prior to the 33rd Parliament the government set the agenda for the committees. Any subject or matter referred from the House of Commons by the government to the committees was discussed. The committee had no latitude beyond that to make decisions, which was wrong.

In the 33rd Parliament the McGrath report changed that so that committees could set their own agenda, call the witnesses they wanted and at the same time elect their chairs and vice-chairs in an independent way. It was set up with that mind, but did it happen? It did not happen.

My time spent on the finance committee was a good experience. The chair was a good leader and allowed for flexibility within the committee work. We carried out a number of the recommendations of the McGrath report in a responsible way. Beyond that, what was happening?

I say to the people at home watching, they should be aware of how committee chairs are chosen by standing committees. The rules allow for an election, which is the way it should be. A member is nominated and then there is an open vote. If that motion is defeated another name is put forward until someone is elected chair.

Although our committee system has evolved with respect to what a committee can do, the Prime Minister in the instances here and during the current 35th Parliament, through his whip, still controls who shall become the chair. That person is told by the Prime Minister's office. The other Liberal members on the committee have to vote for the Prime Minister's choice. We in the committee do not operate independently or have the right to choose who that person is.

The backbenchers on the Liberal side do not have the opportunity to stand for chair if the Prime Minister has not chosen them. That is it. They have no choice. There is a vote but it is just going through the exercise. Certainly that is unacceptable.

We must well recognize that the Prime Minister has a lot of authority in appointing his cabinet, in appointing parliamentary secretaries, in appointing senators and in appointing a whole range of other political appointees. That is a lot of appointees.

Why does the Prime Minister interfere with the choice of chairs for House of Commons committees? That should be the responsibility of the committees, not the Prime Minister. The format is certainly there. Some of hon. members say that it is. However, we well know that before we sit down as a committee the Prime Minister's choice will be nominated by the Liberal whip, and if anybody gets out of line the Liberal whip will deal with them later.

All Liberals members are required by edict through the Prime Minister's office to vote for his choice. The Liberal whip sees to that in a very undemocratic way. That is the way it is and that is the concern we have here as members of the House of Commons.

In what sense can a committee be really impartial when we have such an external influence on our actions? There must be a change in attitude with regard to that matter. It is time to free up the backbenches of the Liberal Party so those members can choose who they want for chair, who they want as vice-chair. It does not happen.

If we really want parliamentary reform, if we want to again implement or reimplement the McGrath report, there must be a change in attitude and we must look at things differently in the House. The Prime Minister, the Liberal government, the Liberal backbenchers must look at this in a more open, democratic manner so that parliamentary reform can be meaningful at the committee level.

I talked about the appointment of chairs. It is the very same type of thinking for vice-chair positions. How much credibility does a committee chair or a vice-chair have if two people, the government whip and the whip for the Bloc Quebecois, get together and decide on who the vice-chair positions will be and what the committee positions will be?

Even a government backbencher should be offended by that kind of action. If I were a government backbencher and thought I would make a vice-chair, I would hope I would need only to seek the support of committee members and not have to rely on this sort of kowtowing to the government whip.

With a truly democratic process through which members would be free to vote for whomever they wanted, all choices would be acceptable because it would be done democratically. Even if a member did not support the one who got elected, it would be accepted because it was done properly.

Not all members of the House voted for the current Speaker, but all members give him the respect he deserves because it was done in a very democratic way. It was a secret ballot and not even the Prime Minister could influence members in that process when we first selected a Speaker for the 35th Parliament.

The other reform to our rules occurred in the last Parliament where for the first time there was a requirement to have one member from the opposition in either the vice-chair or the chair position. In the beginning of this new procedure and the only other time there was a set of elections outside this Liberal dominated Parliament, a vice-chair went to third party standing. In that Parliament, the third party had half the seats of the official opposition compared with the equality of seats in this Parliament.

For some reason the precedent of that Parliament is not in this Parliament. The Liberal whip and the Liberal members are convinced that the only person who can fill the vice-chair is a member of the separatist party.

There is precedent for something different. How can we continue to say in this Parliament that it should not be that way again? Since then, this Parliament has been operating on the notion brought forward by the chief government whip that electing official opposition members to all vice-chair positions was the tradition.

How is it a tradition when the only other time it was done it was not done that way? There is a tradition here, the support of this chief government whip on the other side of the House for the separatist Bloc Quebecois. That is the tradition that is really being set at this point.

We see it every day in committee and in the House. In any procedural argument the government runs to the defence of the Bloc. Even when Bloc members have little stomach for debate the government whip and his former sidekick, the member from Kingston and the Islands, come running to their aid. We saw that in an earlier debate.

They have the experience and the procedural know-how. They are absolutely happy to support Bloc members in their many efforts. Parliamentary reform was moving ahead, albeit slowly. Since the Liberals have taken over government, parliamentary reform has gone backward in time to the days of Mr. Trudeau who ruled his caucus with an iron fist.

That fist was beginning to loosen starting in the 33rd Parliament with the McGrath report and a little more in the 34th Parliament with other studies of the procedure and House affairs committee.

The Liberals do not know any means of governing except by way of past experience. No wonder this has happened. They dismissed and ignored not only all the parliamentary reform that was discussed on the floor of the House and in committee for years but also their own parliamentary reform ideas.

Let us not forget the recent reminder when the Prime Minister refused to appoint opposition members to junior chair positions as promised in the Liberal red book. This happened only a week ago.

It is time government backbenchers had a look at what is happening. There should be some consideration for back to parliamentary reform. We should also look at freedom in committees whereby committee members are free to choose chairs and vice-chairs. It is also time in the House to stop, and Canadians want it stopped, the bias between the government and the Bloc Quebecois in all that happens on the floor of the House and in committees.

[Government Business, March 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the current Minister of Health made these remarks while he was a member of the loyal official opposition. He said very clearly to the House at that time in words well spoken, as they usually are by our Minister of Health: "Third and finally, I contend that the motion is in principle unacceptable in that it seeks to circumvent, indeed to subvert, the normal legislative process of this House. In the past, this kind of thing has been done only by unanimous consent. Now the government is seeking to establish an omnibus precedent by attempting to force this procedure on the House. This is an offensive and dangerous departure from the practices of all parliamentary bodies and it is, I believe in accordance with Beauchesne's citation 123(1) and Standing Order 1, unprecedented violation of the checks and balances written into the rules governing the normal legislative process". That says it.

I could go on to quote other members of the House-

[Government Business, March 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on this government motion there are two issues that absolutely must be dealt with and addressed. First is the lack of integrity the government has demonstrated on this issue. My colleagues have said very clearly that when government members were in opposition they made a commitment not to do what they are doing today. That is issue number one, the lack of integrity the government has shown on this issue.

The second point I would like to make is with regard to the appropriateness of this motion relative to private members' business. Can private members' business be tied into this resolution as part of government business? The point I would like to

make is that private members' business is just that; it belongs to the private members.

Everything we do in this House, or in any legislative assembly should be to give the private member the opportunity to express his or her opinion on a special item, or an item relative to constituents, or an item relative to a special interest. In a free way, a private member should be able to express his or her thoughts without government control; without the government saying when something should be done or when it cannot be done; or the government taking away the agenda or giving the agenda to the private member.

That is exactly what is happening. The government has intervened in private members' business. Those are the two topics I will cover in my remarks in the few remaining moments.

First I will deal with the integrity of the government. As some of my colleagues have done, I will quote some of the remarks made by hon. members of the government when they were opposition members in 1991.

I quote the remarks of the current premier of Newfoundland, the former member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte, Mr. Brian Tobin, when he stood in this House. He spoke very clearly on a motion quite similar to the one we have here today. He said: "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". No truer words have been spoken from this side of the House. If they are good on this side, they should be just as good on the other side of the House.

Mr. Tobin went on to say that by such a motion as we are looking at here today, the parliamentary system is being systematically destroyed by government. He went on to say that Canadians watching this debate are wondering what the fuss is all about. It is about destroying the parliamentary system.

We can look at what other participants in that debate had to say about the matter. I refer now to a current minister, Mr. David Dingwall, the member for Cape Breton-East Richmond-

[Points Of Order, February 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the House leader of the New Democratic Party that I am prepared on behalf of the Reform caucus to have discussions with him. The hon. House leader has extended a letter to me. I intend to follow that up and look at possible ways we can facilitate his involvement in the House.

I would also like to say to the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party that my leader extended an invitation to him to discuss how he could participate in the House in a further way and he rejected that offer. That offer was rejected so why should I open the door today?

[Points Of Order, February 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, speaking to the point of order, the status in this House of any party was determined by rules when the Reform Party came here. The hon. members that have-