Peter MacKay

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to take part in this debate which focuses on the expenses and the priorities of the government. Particularly in this portion of the debate we are looking at the Department of Justice and the priorities that have been set by the minister and this government as they relate to justice.

Since the Minister of Justice appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and did so only for a couple of hours, it is important that we have an opportunity now for a more open and transparent debate where we can exchange ideas and perhaps explain or at least go to some lengths to let the taxpayers know where their money is going as it relates to this very important department and perhaps even give some useful suggestions as to how we in opposition, and the Progressive Conservative Party in particular, would suggest that some of this money should be spent.

One of the very important initiatives that we have seen is the presentation of a DNA databank. This is without a doubt perhaps one of the most important crime fighting tools that we will ever see in the life of this parliament, if not in the life of many previous parliaments.

What it is aimed at specifically is using technology to combat crime. What we are talking about here is very violent crime, crimes of a sexual nature, crimes of violence that involve the most heinous invasion of a person's well-being.

If we are truly to take advantage of this particular piece of legislation, one would hope that the police would be given the opportunity to optimize the use of DNA; that is, that they would be able to take the DNA from a suspect at an appropriate time when a certain criteria has been met, namely, that enough evidence exists within the police officers' investigation to lay a charge, and when that does happen, when that particular bar has been crossed, the police will then be given the opportunity to take a DNA sample and use it in an investigation, use it perhaps to compare it to samples from crime scenes that had been taken previously. If a match occurs, then a very important link has been made to an accused individual and a crime. Due process, of course, will allow for the presumption of innocence, if it exists, to prevail.

This is an important piece of legislation that in its present form has come before the House and is flawed. There was an attempt made by members of the opposition on the justice committee to remedy that. We moved what I considered to be useful amendments. Unfortunately, and to the detriment of this legislation, the government chose to vote those amendments down.

I would suggest that this can be changed. This could be fixed quite simply by the initiative of the House.

There are other areas which are quite similar to this where the government could invest money, such as improving the Canadian police investigative computer system, the CPIC system, which police officers routinely use to track or to update themselves on the criminal involvement of suspects and those involved in committing offences against Canadians.

The violent crime linkage analysis system is another very useful system that, with the proper use of the police, could go to great lengths to help fight crime.

The government, however, has chosen not to touch that. It has chosen not to invest or to put the necessary resources and funding into these areas. Again, I really question the wisdom of that. The government, by doing so, is showing that it has no interest in optimizing this cutting edge technology that would, and I suggest could, prevent and, equally important, solve existing crimes.

I only use this example to emphasize this point. There are over 600 unsolved murders in the province of British Columbia alone. The statistics across the country would be even more disturbing and more staggering.

This is one area where the government could emphasize the necessity of putting resources into a specific area of technology and helping the police with this important crime fighting tool.

Another general area that I would refer to the House is the fact that the provinces themselves should receive greater funding, greater assistance in the administration of our federal laws. The Young Offenders Act is a prime example.

The federal government traditionally has been called upon and is legislated to supply or pay 50% of the cost of administering this federal act called the Young Offenders Act. In truth what is happening here is it is paying only on average 30% of the administrative costs of the Young Offenders Act.

There has been downloading of the majority of the cost to the provinces since 1994, and since 1994 we have seen a slashing of over $6 billion from transfer payments. Those cuts have hurt not only justice but certainly in a broad sweeping fashion health care. The hon. member from the Reform Party spoke of the cuts to education. It cut the absolute basic necessities of Canadians.

This downloading on to the provinces and subsequently on to the municipalities can only serve to further undermine the justice system, the health care system, the education system and take away the provinces' ability to administer necessities to Canadians.

Is the federal government prepared to put its money where its mouth is? We have heard numerous announcements and those announcements, most traditionally in the area of justice, come outside of this Chamber. They are either leaked to the media or the government chooses to have a press conference as opposed to a ministerial statement of policy in the House. I certainly question the wisdom of that.

Is the minister really prepared to pony up and pay the provinces and ensure that the provinces have these resources to administer changes that she has initiated, changes she spoke of in her youth policy initiative? She has indicated she wishes to scrap the Young Offenders Act entirely, to throw it out, the baby with the bathwater approach. One questions the wisdom of that.

There is absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind that the Young Offenders Act requires changes. It requires significant changes such as lowering the age of accountability, bringing the parents into the system so that they too will be accountable and will be asked the hard questions as to what their role has been in supervising their child when that individual might be out committing an offence, or changing the Young Offenders Act where the emphasis is placed on prevention.

I know the Minister of Justice has contemplated these changes. She has spoken of them at length. She has given great master's thesis presentations on what she would like to see happening within the justice system, but what we see lacking throughout these entire machinations and the process that we see when the minister makes these announcements are any of the hard figures, any of the concrete amounts, the dollar amounts that would be required to bring about this change.

The Young Offenders Act is just one of many changes that the government has spoken of, has taken the initiative to raise the consciousness of Canadians about and yet we are waiting and the clock is ticking. We see it time and time again where the government says it is going to do something and then when pressed on the issue or asked when we will see some legislation tabled in the House, the response has become a patented response. It has become the rallying cry of this government, in a timely fashion it will happen. There is a process that we must go through.

I certainly can respect that there is a process but as with health, as with education, when the time is rolling by, when the necessary changes that could have a positive impact are delayed, the result can be catastrophic. It is tantamount to not giving treatment in health care. One only has to look at some of the terrible examples of individuals suffering from afflictions like hepatitis, like cancer, and if the treatment is not administered the results can be death and injury.

That is equally true within our justice system. If there are preventive steps that can be taken, if there are measures that can be implemented that will improve the system, help prevent crime and help solve crimes that continue to be outstanding on the police record, if we can do something about it, why shouldn't we? Put aside partisan politics and move as quickly as possible to see that those legislative initiatives are taken.

On this side of the House, and I can only speak for the Progressive Conservative Party, if we saw that happening, if we saw positive changes like the DNA bill in its perfect form coming through this House, we would jump to our feet to support that. There would be no hesitation on our part to see those things happening.

Although the minister's policies look good on paper and certainly make for good press, we question their timeliness.

Another suggestion we have with respect to the Young Offenders Act would be to provide judges with more powers to provide or impose mandatory treatment or therapy when a youth embarks on a troubled career or the wrong path, and have that early intervention.

Further, the concept of restorative justice has become very prevalent in the discussions around young persons and actually more broadly within the justice system itself. Once more there has been a great deal of talk about what the government would like to do in this area but we have not seen anything concrete develop. We have not seen it materialize as yet. Restorative justice is something that certainly would be a positive initiative. It would be something I believe the government would receive a great many accolades over if it were to actually invoke that type of legislation.

I will mention one other area I spoke of previously, further parental responsibility, involving the parents in the justice system where they would more fully appreciate the consequences of their children's actions. They, for lack of better words, would be called to task as to why their children were permitted to be out after a certain hour of the night, perhaps breaking into somebody's house or behaving violently, perhaps because they are emulating something they have seen in their own homes.

These are not new initiatives. I will not say this discussion is redundant but it is certainly information that is available. It has been discussed at justice committee. It has been discussed by the government's own experts. Recommendations were made for things like lowering the age of accountability and the government has chosen to ignore that. We in the Conservative Party question the wisdom of the minister in ignoring that advice.

Where is the money being spent? Where do this government's priorities lie? It is incredible, and it has become almost a ruse in this country, the staggering amounts of money being put into the ill conceived and not thought out long gun registry. The howls from the government benches when anyone mentions this are quite incredible. There are indignant cries of “you are against gun control, against safe handling of guns”. That simply is not true.

I think the record will show quite convincingly that it was a Conservative justice minister who brought in Bill C-17 which was the most comprehensive legislation aimed at safe handling of firearms. The legislation spoke of safe storage. It spoke of safety courses that were to be implemented. It talked of trigger guards and keeping of ammunition separate from weapons.

The Conservative Party has always been consistent in its approach that it does favour safe handling of weapons. Simply putting a stamp with a serial number on a rifle and having that databank, a computer system that records who owns certain guns, is not in any significant way going to help combat the criminal use of firearms. We are targeting innocent Canadians who take part in sport shooting, recreational hunting, who go to firearms ranges. Why on earth would the government choose to spend the amount of money that this ill fated system will cost?

The cost has absolutely ballooned. The original figures said $85 million. We know that with the start-up date of this legislation fast approaching the cost has already gone far beyond that original figure. We are talking about a figure that will be tripled or perhaps quadrupled by the time this legislation comes into place, half a billion dollars at the worst estimate.

The government has chosen again to put the money into an area that will not have a significant effect when it could put money into something such as the suggestion yesterday of having an advocate or ombudsman for victims within our system. It costs only $1 million to have an advocate, the commissioner for correctional investigations. It would cost $1 million to have an advocate for victims and the government chooses not to do that. That is a conscious priority decision that the government has made. One has to question why the government would decide to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on this gun registry.

I will refer to another very questionable decision and a priority choice by the government, the now nefarious and subversive investigation into the entire Airbus affair.

There is an investigation into a Canadian citizen and a former prime minister. This brings the entire office of the prime minister into disrepute when this type of scandalous investigation is embarked on.

The truth is that the former prime minister under investigation has been harassed and defamed by the current government's administration. That again was a choice that the government made.

It certainly is not just about cost when a person's reputation is attacked and resources are put into it for perhaps some politically motivated reason. We know there was an out of court settlement of $2 million. The cost of having government lawyers pursue that through the various court levels and appeals certainly expanded or doubled that cost. All this at the end of the day resulted in a very jaded apology and yet this investigation continues. It has expanded in its scope. There are more officers working on this file than before and to what end? Canadians need to know this is a choice the government has decided to make and pursue in the area of justice. It is certainly anything but justice that this is allowed to occur. It is a farce and Canadians should know that it is a farce.

What can we do about it? We can talk in the House endlessly and talk until the cows come home. We can make suggestions but it is the government ultimately that bears the responsibility and has the ability to act on these initiatives.

Many improvements could be brought to the system without spending a great deal of money by refocusing the choice as to where the money was spent and by taking the money out of the gun registry system. It is sad because the money is being spent and has been spent to a great extent. We know it is going to cost more. Police officers question whether it is going to improve the current justice system. The officers and those who are working directly on the front lines in our justice system are the ones who are best charged with the knowledge of whether this is going to work, and they say no.

Another example of a potential change in our justice system that would not cost the government a great deal of money would be the change to the Criminal Code with respect to impaired driving. It would be easy for the government to take an initiative to make changes to our Criminal Code as it pertains to impaired driving. On a number of occasions I asked the minister when that was going to happen. It has been before the standing committee. It has come back before the House and yet regretfully we are not in a position to bring about those changes.

I put these statistics on the record only to demonstrate how important it is that we deal the Criminal Code changes soon. Once again it demonstrates that as time goes by there is a very heavy price to pay in the area of human lives. Impaired drivers kill 4.5 people in Canada every 24 hours, every day of the week. In 1995, 1,519 people were killed in Canada by impaired driving. Impaired drivers killed 17,630 and injured 1.1 million in Canada from the years 1983 to 1991. Shocking statistics. The havoc wreaked on the highways of this country as we speak in the House should be cause for concern for all.

It is very clear that alcohol has significantly increased the risk of motor vehicle accidents and yet we have not dealt with that in a substantive way in the House. We have not rushed to try to remedy the situation. That is another example of a change that could be made.

Another example is section 745 in the Criminal Code, bringing about truth in sentencing. Individuals who are serving life sentences for committing the most heinous of crimes are still given the opportunity in this section to apply for parole. It truly is a shame.

I make these suggestions in good faith and with the hope that the government will react in a positive way. I will be very interested to hear what the government has to say.

Before I sit down I want to amend the motion that is before the House. I move:

That Motion No. 1 be amended by adding after “$1,930,805” the following:

“, less $49,000, an amount equivalent to the Minister's statutory salary and motor car allowance”.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. member.

He spoke of his government's accomplishments. He spoke of the fact that the budget has now been balanced. He mentioned that the unemployment rate is now coming down. These are all positive things and Canadians should be pleased with them.

However, I wonder if the hon. member will acknowledge and recognize that it was the previous Conservative government that implemented many of the very important economic policies, like the free trade agreement and the much hated and maligned GST, and for those brave initiatives there was a great electoral price to pay.

Will the hon. member not acknowledge that it was those policies, which were adopted and expanded by his government, that really share much of the credit for what he would have us believe is his government's initiative?

[Questions On The Order Paper, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to rise quickly and pose the question that I have posed on numerous occasions here in the House with respect to Question No. 21 that languishes further on the Order Paper, eight months and counting. We are very anxious to have this question answered.

It is a very straightforward question but we have been told time and time again that it involves a great deal of investigatory work on behalf of the government. There are 30 departments and we want to know where ministers were at a certain set period of time. Perhaps we could get an indication from the parliamentary secretary when an answer will be coming.

[Petitions, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, similar to the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona, I also have a petition that touches on the subject of the MAI and the manner in which the Canadian government has negotiated or attempted to negotiate this agreement behind closed doors.

This petition calls upon the government to have more open participatory discussions in the public forum that are transparent. They urge the government to do so forthwith.

I am very honoured to table this petition on behalf of the constituents of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and do so pursuant to Standing Order 36.

[Business Of The House, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the remarks. Facts do matter. There is one important thing that should be put on the record which is that the Conservative Party has but one member on each committee. When we have one member there, we have 100% of our membership on that committee present. That is a very important fact which should be on the record.

I guess a lot of the members on the government side have chosen not to be in the House to hear the vitriolic, adrenalin driven remarks of the hon. member. I am recalling a phrase my grandfather used to use. To mix metaphors with a big stick here, he used to say that occasionally one could find a good stick of wood in a pile of manure.

One point that was made was that members should do their duty in committee, but they should also do their duty in the House. On balance, I would like to know from the hon. member for Bourassa if he is saying that a member should be at committee when there is important debate going on in the House. We have been in that position a few times when ministers were in committee and important debate was happening here.

[Business Of The House, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that question. As always he brings a great deal of history and a great deal of knowledge to the debate, even though he is a relatively new member to this Chamber. He is not as new as I am, but I always respect and enjoy hearing the hon. member speak.

He has a great depth of knowledge of the history of the Conservative Party of Canada, which leads me to believe that there may come a time when he will be back in the party. I am very encouraged to hear the hon. member speak in such glowing terms of some of the past glories of the Diefenbaker years and the Conservative Party itself.

To turn to the question, he asks specifically about some of the changes that I or the Progressive Conservative Party might like to invoke or to see take place within the standing orders themselves. I have not turned my mind to that, except at this very moment.

One suggestion might be, in terms of the use of this card that has been played, this heavy-handed card of closure or time allocation, that the government within a certain term of parliament would only be allowed to use that card a specified number of times. It could be limited. Perhaps that would address the problem that has been referred to by the hon. member, that it would appear this government uses this measure, this shotgun approach to a mosquito, basically with no discretion. They simply, at a whim, decide that debate has become irrelevant, or a nuisance or a bother and they shut it down.

That might be one suggestion.

But I think, generally, the rules of procedure, obviously, like the law itself, are like a living tree. They have changed over time. They have evolved. The rules of procedure are not necessarily the problem, just as it is with the law. It is their application. It is the tool in the hand of the person that is using it, the old expression being that a poor carpenter blames his tools. The government has, in my opinion, displayed an attitude of arrogance and irreverence toward the opposition. It has misused the rules or the tools of this place.

If there was a change in attitude, a shift in the focus of the government as to its role as juxtaposed to the opposition, and if it had a little more respect for the opposition, I think that would go a long way to improving the way in which this place operates.

[Business Of The House, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is with some regret that we find ourselves debating this issue but it is obviously a very important one. I am honoured to be following the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona who has a long and storied history in this place. He spoke very eloquently about the changes he has seen during his years in parliament.

I think of former parliamentarians who are watching what is taking place in this place, members like Robert Howie from Fredericton, New Brunswick who have served in this House and all members across the country who look back and occasionally follow the parliamentary channel. They must wonder what is taking place. There is obviously a digression. There is something afoot that seems to be undermining the relevance of parliament.

I strongly suggest that occurrence is a result of a change in attitude, an attitude on behalf of a government that has now been sitting in the government benches for five years and some months. It has decided in its arrogance that it is going to do what it wants to do. That was displayed in the House this morning. After a motion was properly moved and tabled by the opposition, the government decided in its wisdom to come forward and to try to rescind it, simply rescind it without any debate or consultation. It was simply going to run roughshod over the opposition as it has done, as has been its wont in the past months.

The opposition on this side of the House has shown a non-partisan unison by banding together and saying no, we are not going to let that happen. The time has come to draw a line in the sand and say it is not proper that the government is going to do this.

So here we are. Standing Order 56 has been debated. It has been used on a number of occasions in this parliament. It was used in the last parliament as well to stifle the opposition on occasion. I was glad to hear the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona acknowledge that there is a time and a place when closure can be used, much like the rules of procedure themselves where there is a time for their application. But this was not the time or place for the government to exercise that discretion. It did so in such a way that it displayed an attitude such that the opposition parties felt that was enough.

We are debating this issue when we could perhaps be debating other more important issues.

However, the issues that will arise in this debate are the issues that do govern the House, set the rules of engagement and set how the rules of procedure will be applied. Therefore it is an important debate and I am hoping there will be some lessons learned and some exchange of information and ideas that will perhaps improve the way we choose to apply these rules for the months and years ahead that will bind us in the House.

I think it is high time that the government realized that MPs in the House, whether its own backbenchers or opposition members, are not irrelevant and are not here to be taken for granted by the government.

It was a bit of irony to see the reaction of the government House leader when this occurred, a complete overreaction I would suggest, an attitude of disbelief that the opposition would have the audacity to stand up and oppose what was about to happen.

We have seen occasions where the government had no hesitation whatsoever to applying the whip to its own members. It happened in a very poignant way during the debate on hepatitis C. It was not at all afraid to fill all of the benches on the government side to ensure that every single member was present in the House when it suited its purpose.

However, time and time again opposition parties bring forward issues they feel are of relevance and importance to their constituents, be it in the east, the west, Ontario or Quebec. They want to debate relevant issues to put their voice and the voices of their constituents on the record in parliament and to be heard by the government. There are far too few members on that side of the House. That does not lead to a healthy discourse or to the exchange that should take place in parliament.

As has been referenced by the previous speaker from the New Democratic Party, parliament is supposed to be about speech and about the exchange of ideas, thought and thought provoking debate. The debates that occur in this place should be of interest and importance. I hope Canadians around the country, abroad and those serving overseas who hear about what is taking place in their own Canada should have no more focus than on parliament and on what we say and do in this place.

As well, what we have seen are a lot of shifting priorities on the part of this government. One of the things I viewed with great regret was the use of press conferences on the part of the government as a means to announce shifts in policy and to broadcast the direction in which the government had chosen to go rather than making ministerial statements here in the House, allowing members of parliament to be given the first opportunity to review what the government had chosen to do and allowing members of parliament to perhaps ask relevant questions and discuss the decision the government had made to move in a certain direction.

The Minister of Justice has done that on two occasions within the last number of months. Rather than bring forward new legislation on the Young Offenders Act and talk about the priorities of her department, she chose to hold a press conference and leaked that information to the press before members of the House were given an opportunity to speak on it.

We had a very relevant and lively debate yesterday about the status of parliament as it compares to the judiciary and how some members of the opposition are feeling that perhaps parliament is losing is relevance when it comes to the making of laws. Again that is a sad reflection on this place when some members in the House actually feel we are becoming that irrelevant, that we are not the supreme court of the land when it comes to the making and passing of legislation.

We must be a House of democracy and a place that is most reflective of the fact that Canadians have entrusted us and have put their faith in us as members of parliament to come to Ottawa, leave behind our homes and the places I am sure each of us would prefer to be, and bring forward their ideas and deal with the problems that do exist out there. There are many problems out there when one looks at the high rates of unemployment, the declining quality of our health care and the problems within our justice system, to name a few.

If Canadians as well as parliamentarians, are feeling that this place is losing its relevance, this is a sad day. One would only hope that we can learn from this debate.

As a result of discussions today and as a result of circumspection and looking back on what has occurred, perhaps the government will not be quite so quick to react in the manner in which it did to inform us that we are now going to be speaking and called on to debate issues until 4 a.m.

As the Leader of the Opposition said, so be it. If that is the way it has to go, we will be here. I know members of the Progressive Conservative Party will be here as they always have been.

We are prepared to be in this House if called on until 4 a.m., until the wee small hours of the morning. We will be here. I give that assurance.

To send a message to the government, I am very pleased that the official opposition has taken this initiative. I think we will see there is a non-partisan tone to what has taken place here.

The purpose of this was to send a message that the opposition matters. I am sure that many members in this House have been questioned, those in opposition. What can one really do as a member of parliament in opposition?

If for no other reason, the message that comes out of today's debate is that there are occasions when we can hold the government accountable. We can say no, that is not the way it should go, it will not run roughshod over the entire opposition with its motions.

That is not a bad message to come from this debate. We certainly know this is a busy place and that people do work. I do not think there is any suggestion that government members as well as opposition members do not have a very busy schedule on the Hill, the amount of work that goes on in committees, the amount of work required in striking that delicate balance between the obligations of serving one's constituents and the obligations brought on either by a ministry or a critic's portfolio. Those are very important roles and it takes a great deal of time and effort to do the job we are charged with.

There also has to be a shift in attitude. There has to be a conscious change in attitude on behalf of the government when it comes to its arrogance toward the opposition. That has been reflected time and time again in the manner in which the rules of this House have been applied.

We cannot simply acquiesce. In opposition we cannot simply say we are powerless, we accept that we are the opposition and the government has the majority and it can do whatever it pleases. That only goes so far and finally the opposition, as we come to the end of this session, says enough is enough.

I hope the government in its wisdom will review this situation and realize there was an overreaction here that did not have to happen. The role of the opposition here is to hold this government accountable. I am sure that all members on the opposition side take that task very seriously.

If we can somehow improve the influence and perhaps improve the relations we have with this government, again I that is going to be a positive outcome from today's developments. We are also charged with protecting the public interest.

There are some times that government initiates policy that is not perhaps in the best interest of the Canadian people. We certainly should have the opportunity to question it when that occurs.

This has been a healthy debate. This has been an opportunity to perhaps raise the level of intellect, the discourse that should be taking place properly in the House of Commons. Perhaps now we will see the government a little more anxious to call to arms its own members when there is debate occurring in the House, not only for its own purposes but for the purpose of improving generally the way matters proceed in the House of Commons.

We certainly hope the trend spoken of by the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona and other members, the downward spiral of disinterest and the perception of unimportance that might exist out there, will change. We can put a stop to that by showing more mutual respect between government and opposition.

I would certainly hope that we are not going to see a continued trend of righteous indignation on behalf of government members when opposition members decide to stand and question what it is they are doing here in this place.

If that message gets through and if we are not forced to use a tool such as the tool which was used this morning to try to block, outmanoeuvre and outflank the government, perhaps we will not be forced to digress into this type of debate again. Perhaps then and only then will we be able to get on with the discussion of the important issues and the important tasks that we have been given as parliamentarians.

It is a matter of respect and attitude. If we can learn from this, if we can hopefully get past this interlude and move on to the issues that matter most to Canadians and do away with this contentious, non-important attitude that seems to exist on behalf of the government toward opposition members, then I am sure we will all be better off and the level of debate and the type of importance and emphasis that is placed on this parliament will improve.

[Business Of The House, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, like my hon. friend from the western Reform Party I commend the member who previously spoke. The House leader of the NDP obviously has a great history in this place.

He spoke very eloquently to this issue. He spoke to the fact that closure was first brought to the House of Commons by the Conservative Party. Like the NDP, the Conservative Party has been around a long time, a claim that the Reform Party cannot make.

Does the hon. member feel there are times that closure might be a useful tool for parliament, if exercised with discretion, if used by the government, tempered at times, and if used on occasion when the opposition may be misusing or taking up parliamentary time?

I am not suggesting that is what happened in this instance, but I am suggesting there are rules that have to be respected by all members of the House and procedures that have to apply to everybody. If used with fairness and equity those rules can be adhered to and the rule of closure can be used on occasion and used properly.

[Business Of The House, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am very new to this place and I do not profess to be an expert in this, but my understanding is that what happened yesterday was that a substantive motion was passed on the floor of the House and that cannot simply be overturned by a routine motion from the government. There is a procedure that has to be in place. There is notice that has to be given. My understanding is that this cannot happen in the way that the government House leader is trying to put it before the House.

[Depository Bills And Notes Act, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. member, my friend from the Reform Party.

I cannot disagree substantially with what the member says about the flaccid, weak, thin soup legislative agenda of the government.c I take from his remarks that what he is telling the House and what he is encouraging is that the Senate take a more active role in the parliamentary process and that if we saw more substantive bills coming out the Senate the Reform might perhaps soften its position when it comes to the Senate and its general participation in the process.

We know that on occasion—and we have even seen it in this session—we have substantial bills coming out of the Senate, bills that have been passed and have received the approval of the House, as is often the case and as the process properly works.

I would therefore ask the hon. member if he would encourage the Senate to partake more actively in substantive bills by injecting viagra into the agenda of the other house to work toward bringing more legislation to the floor of this House? If that is the agenda the Reform would like to see take place I suggest that is quite a shift in position for that party.