Peter Van Loan

[The Budget, March 22nd, 2007]

On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, British Columbia has done very well under the budget. Obviously, the member from Vancouver has not looked at the aspect of our past budget that gives British Columbia a billion dollars to deal with the pine beetle.

In fact, we bring federal support to B.C. with $4.7 billion in 2007-08, including: over $3 billion in the Canadian health transfer for the health of ordinary British Columbians; $1.3 billion for the Canadian social transfer, funding for post-secondary education and child care to help families from British Columbia; and $242 million for infrastructure.

In fact, we have the encouragement of the president of the association of--

[Afghanistan, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we heard some words read from the code of duty for military forces, words like courage, honour, duty and excellence. These are all words that apply to our Minister of National Defence.

[Afghanistan, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we have made it absolutely clear that we take human rights seriously in Afghanistan and around the world. It is a cornerstone of our foreign policy in the way that it was not in the case of the previous government.

We are certainly ensuring that it is done in Afghanistan by entering into a new agreement. That was not done by the previous government who sent our troops to Afghanistan. This agreement is one that ensures the Afghan independent human rights commissioner has access to detainees and can ensure that there is no mistreatment.

[Afghanistan, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we would send the wrong signal if we said, like the Liberal Party, that we do not stand behind our troops. We will stand behind our troops. We will ensure that they have in place what they need to protect themselves and ensure that they are protecting Afghan detainees under the Geneva Convention.

That is why we are pleased that under this government an agreement was negotiated with the Afghan independent human rights commissioner in order to allow access to detainees and to report back on that to the Canadian government if there is any evidence of any mistreatment.

[Afghanistan, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the irony drips. This is from the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore who said that torture is justified when dealing with terrorists.

We have been seeing a pattern of behaviour from the Liberal Party. It does not respect the men and women in the military, suggesting they are a threat when they are allowed on the streets in Canada.

The Liberals spent the past month saying that police officers are not fit to participate in panels that review traditional appointments, something that the Liberal government entrusted to Liberal candidates and Liberal Party executives.

Why does the Liberal Party have a problem with the Canadians who put their lives on the line to protect us?

[Afghanistan, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the government corrected an agreement originally entered into by the Liberal government on this very issue in order to ensure Geneva Convention protections are provided.

Yesterday, the Liberal defence critic told the media: “The answer of the Prime Minister today is a disgrace. To ask us to make a choice between the Taliban detainees and our troops--”. On this side we do not find it hard to make a choice between our troops and the Taliban. We stand behind our troops.

[Afghanistan, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians see a pattern of behaviour from the Liberal Party. It neglected the military for 13 years. The Liberal defence critic calls the military names. He calls the Chief of the Defence Staff a prop.

The defence minister, a brigadier general with 32 years of distinguished service, is sneered at as the arms dealer. This is from the Liberal Party whose advertisements insulted the military by speaking of its horror at “soldiers in our streets”.

Those are the disrespectful deeds, words and ads of the Liberal Party and no, we are not making this up.

[Points of Order, March 21st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very short point to distinguish what the Bloc House leader has said. He is referring to amendments to the Standing Orders. He was not referring to legislation.

What we have before us is a question of dealing with legislation. In fact, the precedent referred to by the hon. member for Wascana indicated quite clearly that it would be open to an opposition member to move and to have the House adopt changes to the Standing Orders. That is entirely different than what we are talking about here. We are talking about legislating through an opposition day motion, something not contemplated by the Standing Orders.

[Points of Order, March 21st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to some of the issues raised by my friends.

First, the opposition leader referenced Marleau and Montpetit and in particular the Marleau and Montpetit suggestion that on an opposition day any matter can be proposed for debate, not to legislate, but to debate. That is the meaning of that section.

What we are facing with this motion is something very different. It is an effort to legislate through an opposition day motion, and that simply is not appropriate. That is not what is contemplated by saying that any matter within the jurisdiction of Parliament can be debated. Effectively, if this is permitted, there will be an amendment to the Standing Orders implicitly by ruling this in order that will allow an abbreviation of our legislative process and all the protections that it creates.

When I do go through those motions later, I believe you will find, Mr. Speaker, that there will not be unanimous consent for all of them. You will find unanimous consent for one of the four items of legislation, but not for the other three. The reason there will not be unanimous consent is that there is at least one party in each case that wishes to see the matter dealt with through the parliamentary process that is established in the Standing Orders.

Much as we would like that to move quickly, much as we would like to see those bills pass quickly, the fact remains the Standing Orders exist as their protection, that this Parliament will work in the fashion that it does. To allow it to move faster than that in the traditions of this Parliament has always required unanimous consent. That is the process by which we have worked.

Should this device be opened up, there would be a new process that has never before existed for eliminating and effectively treading over those rights of the minority parties in the House. That is something which the Speaker has to think about very carefully before making a ruling that represents such a precedent.

The House leader for the Bloc suggested there have been precedents in the sense of opposition motions having dealt with amendments to our Standing Orders. That is a very different matter. Our Standing Orders are adopted by a vote of the House only. Standing Orders do not go through three different readings in the House. They do not go through reference to a committee necessarily and report stage. That is not a requirement for Standing Orders. Absolutely, the committee on procedure and House affairs can study it if it wishes, but the process is not one of a statute. It is one of the rules of procedure in the House. They are Standing Orders. That is entirely different than legislation. I think that one can easily distinguish that precedent. That is something that is very different.

There is one precedent, however, I would refer to and that is a decision of Speaker Jerome on November 14, 1975. Again, this was in a time when motions were confidence motions, but there is a phrase here that I think is very important:

I feel it only fair to indicate that the closeness and similarity of the subject matter of this motion--

--this was an opposition motion--

--and the bill require a caveat from the Chair that under no circumstances could the consideration of this motion or the vote upon this motion...be taken in any way to prejudice the progress of Bill C-73.

There was a clear recognition there of a different world. Even if we are going to debate an opposition motion the subject matter that might be in a bill, it is different than the bill. We cannot legislate through an opposition motion. The Speaker made clear the sense that that is a very different matter.

We have differently set out our rules of procedure in our Standing Orders. We have government orders. That is the legislation the government brings forward. That is the tradition of responsible government. We have private members' bills. That is the opportunity available to other members, including opposition members, to legislate. Then we have supply day opposition motions. They are motions. They are not opportunities to legislate. I think that has always been very clear.

Should this motion be ruled in order in its present form, I believe, Mr. Speaker, you will have effectively amended the rules of order of the House, the Standing Orders; you will have effectively amended our practice and traditions; you will have amended the Constitution of this country. Mr. Speaker, you will have changed from an approach to responsible government that has served us well for many years to one that is dramatically different from that.

[Points of Order, March 21st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I believe I finished on the point of order and had moved on to the proposition. I believe we had dealt with Bill C-18. The proposal was to go through the four items of legislation that were identified in the motion of the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and use the process, which is the accepted practice in the House, and seek unanimous consent for their approval at all stages as appropriate, based on where they are right now.

This is the process that should be followed and I did want to put that to the House at this time.