Rob Nicholson

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, May 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Prince George—Peace River was on his feet and would like to address the House.

I move:

That the member for Prince George—Peace River be now heard.

[Committees of the House, May 12th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, what is relevant is what is happening in the House today. You are right, I was only 60 seconds into my comments and I know that you are very strict on that. I was indicating just what was going on in the House with respect to this concurrence motion brought forward by the Liberal Government of Canada. I pointed out that this morning I asked for unanimous consent to deal with the two government budget bills, but the Liberals made a different decision. They wanted to discuss the concurrence motion. We know what the game is here. They want to filibuster their own agenda and they would prefer not to discuss the budget bills, so at this point, I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

[Committees of the House, May 12th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, this is one interesting debate. It is a motion to concur in a committee report. As important as this subject is, and we have had some interesting discussion about the importance of Canadian citizenship, this is not the message the government has been conveying to the Canadian public.

The Liberals have been telling Canadians consistently just how important their two budget bills are, the Liberal budget and the NDP budget. That is what they have been telling Canadians, yet when we came here this morning we found that even though the two budget bills were on the list to be discussed, they decided they wanted to change the subject. They alone, members of the Liberal Party of Canada, decided that they would rather discuss a committee report this morning. They are filibustering their own agenda.

I know as soon as they leave here they will run out and tell Canadians how important their two budget bills are. The evidence right here this morning defies that and contradicts everything they have been saying, because they and nobody else chose not to discuss those budget bills.

The proof is that earlier during routine proceedings, I asked for the unanimous consent of this House to actually deal with those two bills--

[Canada Grain Act, May 12th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have had unanimous consent given for a couple of bills and I am hoping for a third.

I seek the unanimous consent of the House for the following: I move that the proceedings on the motion for second reading and referral to the Standing Committee on Finance of Bill C-43 conclude at 1:57 p.m. this afternoon, that all questions necessary to dispose of second reading of this bill be deemed put, that a recorded division be deemed requested and deferred until 5:30 p.m. today; that the proceedings on the motion for second reading and referral to the Standing Committee on Finance of Bill C-48 conclude at 5:29 p.m. this afternoon, that all questions necessary to dispose of second reading of this bill be deemed put, and that a recorded division be deemed requested and deferred until 5:30 p.m. today.

[House of Commons, May 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, that group had 12 years to help veterans and they did not bother to do it until yesterday.

The Victoria Times Columnist this morning said:

It's plain that this government can't function without the confidence of the Commons. It would be wise to bring in its own motion to secure it instead of dancing on the razor's edge.

If the Prime Minister cannot live with yesterday's results, let us have another motion in the House this afternoon; or better yet, why not respect the will of the House and just resign? Either way, let him figure out that the jig is up.

[House of Commons, May 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday's confidence motion was the clearest expression of the will of the 38th Parliament. One thing that is clear is that the NDP is getting duped. The other thing that is clear is that this House has lost confidence in the Prime Minister and the government.

Which part of the message does the Prime Minister not get? If he cannot figure out the will of the House why does he not introduce another motion this afternoon and then maybe he will be able to figure out what the House is trying to say?

[Committees of the House, May 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My request to defer this vote must stand because the Standing Orders regarding the deferral of votes are very clear. They state that during the ringing of a 30 minute bell, either the government whip or the chief opposition whip may ask the Speaker to defer the division, which must be no later than the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on the next day.

The fact that the government whip wants to defer the vote to a later time today demonstrates that the vote on this particular motion can be deferred. The real question is, which deferral takes precedence?

I would argue that the latter deferral takes precedence because the authority of the chief government whip and the chief opposition whip in determining when this vote takes place is equal. I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that I was the concluding speaker and so, presumably, I have the right to leave my chair at the conclusion of the debate.

In determining when this vote takes place, and I think you can, the right of the chief opposition whip and the government whip to defer is equal. The government and opposition members are given the maximum time to prepare for a vote. On that basis, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that you take the latter deferral, which would be until tomorrow.

[Committees of the House, May 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we have done our best to make this Parliament work, but we never bought into any kind of a deal between the Liberals and the NDP. Nobody voted for that. The amount of corruption that is uncovered every single day before the Gomery commission in sworn testimony and one group of Liberals pointing the finger at another group of Liberals is a disgrace. The time has come for judgment to pass down on this group over there.

[Committees of the House, May 9th, 2005]

That is right. Get an arsonist to put out the fire. That is not what we are all about here.

A new government of this country will get to the bottom of this. Justice Gomery can continue to do the good work that he is doing. I hope Canadians will give my party the opportunity to get to the bottom of this issue.

That being said, the business of this House is to decide whether we continue to have confidence in the government. I hope that very soon we will have the opportunity to pass judgment on the government. If there has ever been a government in history that so badly needs to have judgment placed upon it, it is the government we are facing across the aisle. There is no question about it.

I say to the government that our democratic rights are not some sort of gift from the Liberal Party. The Liberals do not have the right to decide that. It is the Parliament of Canada. This House of Commons has the right to bring forward the motions that will test the confidence in the government. That is most certainly what we are doing. Despite all the procedural arguments, this is what the motion is all about. I commend my colleague, the member for Prince George—Peace River, for bringing this motion before the House so that members of the House of Commons will have that opportunity.

Canadians have recognized that the government has just about run out of time. That is the decision we will be asking Canadians to make in the very near future.

[Committees of the House, May 9th, 2005]

That is right.

There will not be any suggestion of a tax cut. We could check that when we assemble all the details. Canadians do not have to worry about getting any money back because it is all going to be spent. Why would it not have been fair to consider the fact that Canadians are overtaxed? This is why the government keeps stumbling over billions of dollars somewhere in the lobby. Every couple of days the Liberals find a new bucket full of money that they find a way to spend, when they could be spending on some of the things that I think would be very helpful. Obviously, there is Canada's armed forces. They are all back-end loaded. We always have to wait for that.

On some of the tax cuts that would give us a break, why would they not look at the federal excise tax in the wine and beer industries? I could appreciate that the wine industry is not everywhere in Canada, but it is important nonetheless. I bet a lot of hon. members have breweries in their ridings. Why would they not look at that excise tax, bring it into line with what the Americans have? Why they did not do it I have no idea. It would have been a great idea. How would it be so bad for the NDP? I am not suggesting that they reduce all taxes because I realize that is against their philosophy, but to reduce this one tax, do they not think it would make such a difference to both those industries? I am surprised that did not make the cut.

They talked about reducing airport rents. What about Pearson International Airport? How could they have talk about airport rents and then have forgotten one of the largest airports in the world? What a difference that would make to the travelling public in this country.

We are treated to the spectacle of a government that has been caught. They can deny all the want but the proof, among other things, that the Liberals have made up their minds about this evidence is that they have launched a lawsuit against a number of the companies and groups to try and get the money back. I think it is a fair assumption to make that they must be pretty convinced by the evidence because they have started a lawsuit to try and recover money from them.

It is too bad the Liberal Party could not be added as a co-defendant to get some of the money back from them. Why is it that the evidence that all these other groups have got the money is all right, but all the evidence that the Liberal Party got the money we cannot touch that one because it has not been proven yet? This is sworn testimony and guess what. All those people appearing before the Gomery commission are members of the Liberal Party. They are all officials of the Liberal Party. They are the people who ran the operation. They are the ones with whom other members of the Liberal Party are not agreeing.

This motion is a necessary one. I indicated to the House that the government through the House leader's office has reorganized the schedule and is not giving us the opposition days that are our due, that we have a right to expect. The opposition parties have been entitled to them for decades, for centuries. It is our right to bring this motion forward.

This motion is being brought forward calling on the Government of Canada to resign. The government should resign before it promises this country into bankruptcy. It should resign so we can get to the bottom of the corruption that has become a hallmark of the Liberal government.

I do not think that Canadians will buy the suggestion that only Liberals can get to the bottom of a Liberal scandal, that only Liberals can recognize other Liberals who are crooks. I do not buy that.