There we have it. The Conservative member across the floor has just said yes. The opposition wants to bring all these bills back, give the same speeches delivered by members at each stage of debate, the very same witnesses being called to make exactly the same presentations and hammer away on the same points they raised a few months ago.
For a party that suggests in its platform--and I assume it will be the same in its new platform--that it would like to cut government expenditures and save money, to support this dramatic waste of money, with the expenditure of everyone giving the same speeches, is absolutely an astonishing hypocrisy. It is on the record here in the House of Commons.
It will be really hard for them to stand up tomorrow and say that they would like to cut expenses after suggesting that we expend more for no reason at all. Is there anyone here who thinks that repeating all this again will benefit Canadians?
The member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam has said that he would like to waste the money. I did not want to put this all on his party. He said that he particularly would like to have all these speeches again, all the witnesses again, all this waste of taxpayers' money when there are very important things waiting for the country, important things that were talked about in the throne speech, such as improving defence, dealing with poverty, the disabled people, moving aboriginal people forward and improving social conditions.
All these things the members would like to hold up so that they can, as they said, repeat their speeches and have the same witnesses give the same speeches again.
When it has been done, as I said a minute ago, six or seven times in history, it shows why there is no respect for the opposition and its incomprehensible position.
The mechanics of the motion, which should not be new to anyone because it was done in the past, would allow a minister to seek the reinstatement of a government bill within 30 days after the start of the session and after a motion is adopted if the bill is in the same form it was in the previous session. With the permission of the Speaker, it could then be brought back at the same stage at which it stood prior to prorogation,which means that work could start on these bills where they left off, including study by committees. People could still have their say on these bills but we would not be going back and repeating what we have already done in the House.
I repeat that this is not new. The opposition members are acting as if this is a first time new process, so that is why they should oppose it. However in 1970, 1972, 1974 and 1986 the House gave unanimous consent to a motion reinstating bills. The House adopted a similar motion under a previous government in 1991.
If all the parties in the House during each of those times gave unanimous consent, what credibility does a party have today to oppose it?
In 1977 and 1982 the House adopted amendments to the standing orders to carry over legislation to the next session. In the more recent past, March 1996, the House adopted a similar motion. In October 1999 the House adopted a similar motion to the one before us today to allow it to carry on its work from the previous session.
Finally, the proposed motion is similar to standing orders that allow private members' bills to be reinstated following prorogation.
All of this suggests that the motion is far from revolutionary with ample precedents in place to show that its features are consistent with the past practices of the House.
However, for these proposed procedures to successfully free up members from the needless drudgery of having to repeat work done in the last session of Parliament we first need to pass the motion. Only then will we have the tools we need to clear away old business and start working and tackling other urgent issues facing our great nation.
It is for this reason that I urge all of my colleagues in the House, from all parties, representing all regions and points of view, to join with the government in passing and implementing the motion before us today.
I want to respond to one of the comments made by a member across the way who said that it was not a new government. It would be inconceivable for anyone to think that when there is a break in the Parliament of Canada, whether it is the old government in office or whether it is a new government, that there would not be some legislation with some benefit left on the books at that time. Is the member suggesting that because a different person is bringing forward legislation to help children or provide public safety he thinks it is less worthy than it was before? Is it any less worthy than if the same prime minister had brought it forward? That argument would be hard to bring forward.
It is interesting to hear the opposition members talk about the democratic deficit. It will be interesting to see how open the opposition is and how they will vote on this particular motion. It will be interesting to see how democratic they will be when they vote on this motion.
There is another point that other parties have made in the debate so far today which does not stand up at all and is totally contradictory. It is their statement that the bills should have been finished in November instead of the House being prorogued. So the bills were good enough to finish then, but now they are saying not to bring them back, not to finish them. Really, I have not heard one good argument yet from anyone that the legislation that was unfortunately stopped at the break should not be brought back for the good of Canadians and brought back quickly, without repeating all the same speeches and having the same witnesses appear before committees, wasting Canadians' time. Then we can get on to the important priorities that were outlined in the throne speech.
I gather from the limited questions on the throne speech in question period that it must have been fairly acceptable to all the other parties, because they are off on other tangents and not questioning it and not criticizing it and its many positive items.
