GOVERNMENT ORDERS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Deputy Speaker: I believe the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley has 13 minutes left in her intervention from before question period.

Mr. Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, the member would have liked to finish her remarks but at this moment she cannot be in the House. She will be returning a bit later.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I was rising to speak. The representative of the third party has spoken.

The Deputy Speaker: The whip is quite correct. We rotate on matters. No member from the Liberal Party indicated they wished to speak. I should have recognized the hon. whip from the government.

[Translation]

Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part in today's debate on the motion put forward by the hon. Government House Leader.

The motion by the hon. Government House Leader is very innovative. True, it proposes a system that is rather new but not unprecedented.

First, I must indicate that a little earlier today one of our friends from the Bloc Quebecois mentioned that in 1991, some parliamentarians objected, and rightly so according to him, to an initiative by the last government to reinstate bills that had died on the Order Paper in a previous session of Parliament.

As we know, several hon. members then rose and accused the Conservative government of discrimination. The Conservative government wanted to reinstate only some of its legislation by means of a single motion and denied the same privilege to other members of the House.

As you well know, in spite of our grievances those of us who had protested lost their cause nonetheless on most of the issues raised. Although we believed our argument to be well-founded, we lost. The Speaker made a ruling and, naturally, the bills were reinstated although in a slightly different form than what the government expected. What are we trying to do today?

(1220)

We want to do something completely different. First of all, the motion before the House is not discriminatory. It allows all members of Parliament, ministers, secretaries of state, private members on the government side as well as those of the opposition to reintroduce their bills at the stage they where at the end of the last session.

Personally, I first heard about that innovative idea not from a government member or a minister, but from the hon. member from Lethbridge himself.

[English]

The hon. member for Lethbridge moved Motion M-476: ``That, in the opinion of this House, all private members' bills that have passed second reading in the first session of the 35th Parliament and which are presently at committee, report stage or third reading stage should stand for the second session of the 35th Parliament''.

The hon. member for Lethbridge is an experienced parliamentarian not only here but in another legislature, a person who has undoubtedly a lot of knowledge about things parliamentary. He proposed this motion. Given that the hon. member for Lethbridge is the House leader for his party, I am sure he was speaking on behalf of his party. He must have been. After all, he is the boss of that party, he is the House leader.

The boss of the Reform Party wanted to reinstate all private members' bills. Hold that thought for a minute. We on our side of the House, being non-partisan and congenial as we are, had one of our colleagues, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, approach on our behalf the hon. member for Lethbridge. We told him it is such a good idea to revive private members' bills from the opposition. Given that we are non-discriminatory and congenial, as I said, we said let us apply it to all bills in the House.

Mysteriously on the day the initiative was to have been debated the hon. member for Lethbridge did not debate the item in question. I cannot refer to presence or absence. That would be unparliamentary, but if I could I would. Shall I say he was unable to debate the issue in question.

An hon. member: It was withdrawn.

Mr. Boudria: How was it that he was not available to debate it or, as the member across said, deliberately withdraw it?. That is even worse after having proposed it, given that he was the boss of his party and speaking on behalf of his party.

I do not understand all of these things, but then again I do not have a Reform mindset and maybe that is why. I cannot think like a Reformer and hopefully I never will.

[Translation]

Now, the Reform members' boss wanted to reintroduce private members bills, those from opposition members as well as those from government members, even though, traditionally, private members bills are mainly an instrument used by the opposition to advocate certain measures. We liked the idea and we wanted to apply it to bills from opposition as well as government members using the very formula proposed by the hon. member from Lethbridge, that is that a bill that was merely introduced in the

House would not automatically be reactivated. Likewise, a bill that was before the Senate would not automatically be reinstated. But bills that were still before the House and had passed second reading could be, under this formula.

[English]

Let us remember the other point. This is enabling and it does not in itself cause the bill to be reactivated. In other words, if I had a private member's bill, which I do not as the whip, presently before a committee, if the government had already dealt with the issue and solved the problem, which the government so often does, and if I felt my private member's bill was now redundant, it would not be automatically reinstated. In other words, it simply enables a member who feels his or her private member's bill is still important enough to merely cause it to go back to the point it was at prior to prorogation.

(1225)

This is remarkable because it mirrors what the boss of the Reform Party, the hon. member for Lethbridge, was asking us to do.

An hon. member: He is not the boss.

Mr. Boudria: An hon. member across says his House leader is not his boss. That may be so. I will not tell the Reform Party House leader that one of his colleagues said the House leader was not his boss. I will keep it a secret among us. We shall not mention it to the hon. member for Lethbridge. We would not want to have the hon. member for Lethbridge all upset at some of his colleagues who have said in the House today that he is not the boss.

Mr. Epp: We do not believe in top down like you guys.

Mr. Boudria: I wonder if the member for Elk Island does not think the whip is the boss. Anyway, I will let Reform members discuss their caucus disagreements. It seems there is a lot of disagreement if they do not think anyone is running the show.

Let me go back to the motion proposed by the House leader for the government which I believe to be quite innovative. One of the important things about this motion is that it saves a lot of money to the taxpayers of Canada. I suppose if a bill had been terminated at second reading the economies are somewhat smaller, although they are there as well because there is sometimes quite a step to reach that level.

Nevertheless, for a bill or another initiative that has gone to committee and which has received the input of Canadians from all across the country testifying either here or elsewhere in Canada, for the people who have submitted briefs and so on, there are economies in not repeating the exercise a second time on an identical piece of legislation.

[Translation]

Groups who have already made representations, who have already submitted briefs to parliamentarians, would not have to repeat the whole process a second time for a bill that is identical to the one that was considered during the previous session.

To protect parliamentarians, the motion states clearly that the bill has to be identical to the one from the previous session, as verified by the office of the clerk of the House of Commons, otherwise this new condition would not be applicable.

You can see the validity and the objectivity of this whole exercise. I am sure members opposite could find it in their hearts to support such an initiative.

[English]

This has been the subject of consultation among political parties in the House. I cannot discuss the details of the consultation because that is not normally done when consultation is between House leaders. However, I can say that consultation between the House leadership teams, leaders, whips and so on, of each political party has taken place. People were contacted. The substance of what was there was described to the officials of political parties across the way. Therefore consultation had taken place previously.

For those who say or pretend this has been brought on at the last minute, it is not so. It does not reflect reality.

The Hill Times of February 26 had a long story on this. It has been known for days through that medium, through the consultation that we had and so on. Consultation has taken place. Only bills that are identical to those-

(1230)

Mr. Silye: Are you sure?

Mr. Boudria: Oh, yes, I am quite sure. I can even give the exact time.

Mr. Silye: Were members of all parties present?

Mr. Boudria: Yes. The hon. member from Calgary wants to verify that we contacted all parties to inform them of this motion. Indeed we had. I contacted someone from each party personally and revealed the contents of the motion. I can discuss privately the name of the MP that I consulted if the people opposite want to know.

Mr. Bellehumeur: We read about it in the Hill Times.

Mr. Boudria: The hon. member said they read about it in the Hill Times. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, the consultations between officials of parties were held long before that.

If the member from Calgary has been led to believe differently, that is not true. Consultations were held.

The first criteria is that only bills that are the same as those presented in the last Parliament qualify. Only bills that went beyond second reading qualify.

[Translation]

Moreover only bills from both sides of the House qualify for this fast tracking system that we have established.

Finally, what we are in fact proposing is an initiative that was first presented to the House by an opposition member, namely the boss of the Reform members, the member for Lethbridge.

So, as you can see, Mr. Speaker, our government is open to initiatives coming from the other side of the House since we are willing to accept and maybe improve on a suggestion made by someone on the other side. We are using this initiative that came originally from an opposition member, after making some improvements to it.

It is non discriminatory, it applies to everybody and it is not at all what the Conservative Party proposed. They wanted to reinstate all at once eight of their bills, I think, only government bills, only the ones they wanted, etc.

In this motion, it is optional. The motion offers a mechanism for reinstating bills, which have to be reinstated one by one.

[English]

Let us look at some of the bills that would qualify because they were not completed in the last session of Parliament. I do not know which minister, which backbench MP on the government side, which opposition member will wish to reactivate any of these bills. These are examples. For instance, there is Bill C-7, the controlled drug and substances act, an act to repeal the Narcotic Control Act and parts of the Food and Drugs Act.

It has been the subject of a lot of debate. Why would we want to repeat all of that? Why not save the taxpayers' money and pick up where we left off?

Bill C-101, the national transportation agency bill, was completed at the committee level. A lot of work was done there. Bill C-94 is an important bill with regard to interprovincial trade. Also I believe there is a bill with regard to the use of ethanol as a fuel additive. That is a very important issue. As a rural member representing an electoral district where ethanol is produced I want to see that bill proceeded with as soon as possible.

Let us look at some of the private members' bills. The opposition is telling us: ``Don't proceed with this accelerated mechanism''. Here is what they do not want us to do.

A Reform MP proposes that we amend the Elections Act with regard to political parties. Seemingly the Reform Party is going to vote against accelerating this bill and bringing it to committee. The member from Mississauga proposed Bill C-337 in the last session, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act. That was already in committee as well. What about the bill regarding intervener funding proposed by the member for Oxford?

[Translation]

The hon. member for Quebec has also introduced a very important bill dealing with genital mutilation of female persons, which is unfortunately practiced, in somes cases, in Canada. This is an important issue. The debate in this House was completed and the bill referred to a committee. Why would anyone wish to delay our work on such bills?

(1235)

[English]

A Reform MP from British Columbia who spoke earlier this morning against this innovation would be unable, if her party-it depends when we refer to her party because her boss some months ago wanted to do precisely this-by its statements today, would prevent us from proceeding with further consideration of her bill, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Releases Act and the Criminal Code.

Another member from the Reform Party has a bill regarding an amendment to the Divorce Act granting access and custody to grandparents. Why would they not want to proceed with that? Why would they not want to proceed with the bills that they initiated? That is all the motion of the government proposes. I have some difficulty in understanding why the Reform Party does not want us to go ahead with some of these.

[Translation]

The same thing applies to the members of the Bloc. I know that they will probably want to go on with the work Parliament has already started on several issues. I am sure those hon.é members will want that work to go ahead.

As the House knows, we will proceed. The Minister of Labour has proposed a motion today to allow us to proceed without further delay with this motion.

I invite all hon. members of this House to do what the government House leader and the House leader of the Reform Party asked us to do some time ago, although it seems the latter has had time to resonsider his position. Of course, this surprises us. Nevertheless the initiative proposed by the hon. member for Lethbridge was an excellent idea and it still is. This is why we intend, on this side of the House, to adopt this measure. We have improved it. We invite all members to vote in favor of the proposal made today in this House by the government House leader.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is rather strange to listen to what the member has to say

now that he is on the government side. All the same, his approach is a little better, in the sense that he uses new words.

He talks about innovation, discrimination, savings and backlogs. It is strange because in the speech he made in 1991-I was reading it as he was talking-he never spoke of innovation. He never spoke of discrimination. If discrimination was one of his primary arguments in 1991, he should have mentioned it then. But no, it is nowhere to be seen. The clincher he made at the time was that it went against tradition, that we never had proceeded this way, that it was unparliamentary. That is what he was saying then.

He raised all sorts of extremely important questions. Now that he is a member of the government, he no longer raises them. He has changed his tune. Such an about-face on such a fundamental question as prorogation is dreadful.

He talked about savings. If the government had negotiated with the official opposition, there would have been unanimous consent regarding some bills. We would have agreed to keep some bills on the Order Paper for consideration during this session. But we would not have agreed to keep bills like the one on unemployment insurance. We want a new bill. Canadians are protesting. This bill does not please them. But the government does not care, it is washing its hands of the whole mess, and everything is thrown in together and presented to Canadians. Hey, we are the government, we are in power.

That is why we are against this motion.

(1240)

It is impossible to proceed this way under the current system.

I conclude with a question that the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell asked the Conservative government in 1991, in identical circumstances. Perhaps he will say the circumstances were not the same. The difference is that the motion was brought in by a Conservative member at that time whereas now it is being put forward by the Liberals. But, basically, it is exactly the same thing.

I ask the member to answer the same question he asked the government in 1991, that is: ``If the motion is accepted in its present wording-I ask question rhetorically-if one can resuscitate five bills with this motion, or four bills, what stops one from resuscitating all legislation from the past?''

If the government can resuscitate all the bills from the previous session, what will prevent it from going further, if it wishes so, and reinstating bills which died on the Order Paper in previous Parliaments? What prevents it from deciding that today is the third reading for such and such a bill, and that this is so because it holds a majority of seats? What would stop the government from acting in that way?

In the end, does the motion they want to us to agree to today in the House of Commons not simply cancel any effect of prorogation, of Royal Assent and of the whole tradition of the House? I

would like to hear what the member has to say on these critical questions, to see just how far he is willing to go in making a fool of himself.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the questions of the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm. First, he asked about the bills. He says that they would have been willing to reinstate the bills they like, but not those we like.

This is faulty logic, as you will understand. I assume that, by extension, the member means that only the bills he introduced should be allowed to be reinstated.

Mr. Bellehumeur: No.

Mr. Boudria: By extension, that is what it means. Mr. Speaker, as you said yourself, this does not make sense.

Second, the member reminded me of what I said some time ago, in 1991, during a previous Parliament, when I sat on the other side-

Mr. Bellehumeur: In a previous life.

Mr. Boudria: Not in a previous life, but at a time when I am supposed to have said: ``If one can resuscitate several bills with one motion, what stops the governement from resuscitating others?''

In fact, this question is rather important, since in itself the motion we introduced does not reinstate bills. It provides a means for reinstating bills from both sides of the House at the stages they were at in the same Parliament.

The difference is, of course, that the other proposal, the previous government's, applied exclusively to certain government bills, not to all the bills, not even all the government bills, and further provided that consideration of the bills would be resumed at the stage they were at. These are three significant differences.

Third, I would remind you that, in spite of what I said in 1991, I lost the argument.

[English]

Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell made a statement that I want to clarify and put on the record because it is very serious.

The government House leader did not contact our House leader or the assistant to our House leader, the member for Lethbridge, on this issue. We saw it for the first time on the Order Paper. I just want to let the member know that is why we are quite upset about the timing.

In addition, the usual custom is that when the House is prorogued, as a courtesy, the government consults with opposition

parties about the deputy speakers. That was not done either. There are a lot of things this government is just trying to bully through.

The member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell was concerned and tried to sell the motion that a private member's bill is the same as a government bill. That is not the case. He wants to know why we support reinstating private members' bills but not government bills. They are trying to use the motion of the hon. member for Lethbridge as a bargaining chip. They are trying to use Private Members' Business as a trade off, a quid pro quo. We cannot accept such a deal, especially when all the members opposite when in opposition so vehemently argued against what the Conservatives were doing, which is the same thing this government is doing.

(1245)

The hon. member asked what was the difference between Private Members' Business and reinstating government business and I would like to answer that and then he can comment after that. Private members cannot set the agenda. They have no control over the business of the House. They are at the mercy of the process which takes a great deal of time and makes it extremely difficult to see their bills past.

In the last session 165 members' bills were introduced and only two were past into law. They need a helping hand. On government business the government controls the legislative agenda. It can summon bills for debate for whatever reason, whenever and however it wants. If the government wants to pass a bill it can do so. There is nothing we can do about it. It can place it on the Order Paper day after day. It can invoke time allocation or closure. It can steamroll it through a committee. If a bill has not passed it is because the government chose not to pass it, and it chose not to pass a whole bunch of bills in the last session.

Bill C-7 was on the Order Paper for over two years. Rather than call it for debate the government held take note debates and adjourned early. Now it wants the opposition to bail it out and reinstate it.

The government has the control over government bills. Private members do not have that control. That is the difference. There are some good private members' bills that were pulled and which should be reinstated, but those are private members' bills, not government bills.

What is the purpose of prorogation? The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands said it best when in opposition. He pointed out what is happening today is unprecedented in that the government is moving a motion under Government Orders for debate to reinstate bills in this session. He searched precedents back to 1938 and did not find one where a motion of this kind was moved for debate. It was always agreed to by unanimous consent.

Never before has the government moved to suspend the rules in effect and put bills back into their position at the time of prorogation of a session. If royal prerogative is to mean anything, the prorogation ended those government bills. They have to be reinstated in the usual course but they ought to have been introduced and dealt with as new bills in this session. This is the proper procedure in the absence of unanimous consent.

Now why are these two members, the member for Kingston and the Islands and the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, both of whom know the standing orders and the rules and so vehemently opposed what they are now proposing when they are in opposition, contradicting themselves and why do they not see the difference between private members' bills and government bills? Why are they persisting in playing this game instead of getting on with the business of the new legislation, of the new throne speech and of the new vision for Canada that this party is supposed to have?

Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I would make mincemeat like that out of the proposal given to us by the hon. member for Lethbridge, the boss of the hon. member who has just spoken. After all, I thought the suggestion by the hon. member for Lethbridge was quite reasonable.

I contacted the hon. member for Mercier and the hon. member for Lethbridge personally. I could later today rise on a point of order if the House so desires and indicate the precise date and time, which I have logged in my office, that the conversations took place.

The hon. member across says it was okay to reactivate the private members' bills but not the government bills because some of the private members' bills were good. This is his argument. Some of the government, I would even say all government bills, and all private members' bills on this side of the House are good, not just some of them like the members across the way say.

After all, as the people of Canada's newest province sometimes say, what is good in Goose Bay is good in Gander.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government motion we are debating now is very special. This week, the government focused largely on the throne speech, saying that it signalled a new beginning for this government, which would now adopt a new approach based on jobs in various sectors.

At the same time, the government presents a motion which will guarantee business as usual and allow the reinstating of old bills. The government is acting like those who make resolutions on New Year's day and break them the day after. We have a hard time understanding that, especially since it goes against parliamentary tradition.

(1250)

It is a well-known principle, and I feel it is important to mention this for Canadians who are listening, that prorogation of the House is a political decision which means we start all over, and that all bills die on the Order Paper. In this way, we make sure that all new government positions are different from past ones. For the sake of efficiency, we can exceptionally reinstate bills, normally those that have been favourably received in the House.

In this case, the government is upsetting the rules. It is establishing the principle that anything can be brought back, at any time, and that, whether there is a throne speech or not, the situation we had in the previous session can being carried over into the new one.

I would like to draw the attention of citizens and hon. members to the fact that, by proposing this motion, by using this approach, the government is really telling us: ``When we bring back Bill C-111 on unemployment insurance, it will be business as usual''. Yet, during the previous session, the government was told in all the Liberal ridings in the Maritimes, in all the ridings in Eastern Quebec, that the unemployment insurance reform, as introduced, was not acceptable.

If the government has the right to reinstate Bill C-111 without any changes, arguing that it is for the sake of continuity, why did it prorogue? Why did we decide to put an end to current business? Was it to let the Governor General have a good party where those who so desired could go? Was it only for the sake of decorum? It is rather puzzling.

Moreover, it is the wrong message to send to the people, because it seems to indicate that we did not listen to them. In my own riding I had meetings with groups of employees and citizens, sometime 50, 75 or 150, on the question of unemployment insurance. Whether in Saint-Pascal, Pohénégamook, La Pocatière, Saint-André de Kamouraska, Rivière-du-Loup or elsewhere, people told us: ``The government has to go back to the drawing board''. The motion that the government tabled would allow it to ignore this message from the people, and this is unacceptable.

I could give you another example: Bill C-96, which establishes the Department of Human Resources. It has given rise to a major dispute between Quebec and Canada. This bill would allow the Government of Canada to interfere in all the areas concerning manpower training. It flies in the face of the whole debate on decentralization of manpower training.

Why does the government insist on saying that it wants to bring back a bill like this one, with a simple majority, and that the minister, anytime he sees fit in his political strategy, could bring this bill back? I think that this is contrary to parliamentary rules, to the very nature of the speech from the throne, and to the obligation the government has to introduce new policy thrusts.

If the government can come back with bills of a similar nature, it should have the courage to start the debate all over again and to steer the legislation through all the stages.

All the more so because, in the case of the unemployment insurance bill, in December, the government avoided the debate on second reading and referred the bill to the committee immediately, under the pretence that there was an urgent need. The government's strategy is very clear: it wants to try to bring back the bill in committee without a debate on second reading, because I am sure that several Liberal members from the Maritimes would have a lot to say about this bill if it were reinstated in second reading as it stood last fall.

In fact, the government is trying to avoid taking into account what its own members want, which is something I find unacceptable.

It is often said that the opposition opposes measures for the sake of it, because of the nature of its responsibilities. I would like to mention two bills that the opposition could have agreed to reinstate. They are Bill C-66 on grain transportation and Bill C-78 on witness protection, that were dealt with in the last session.

(1255)

Why was there no consultation between the government and the opposition parties, as is traditional in Parliament, to find a common ground on bills that could be reinstated? For instance, we certainly would have been in favour of reinstating the bill to prevent excision, which was introduced by the hon. member for Quebec. We are certainly in favour of that and I think we could find that there is unanimous consent in the House on that subject.

There are the two bills that I just mentioned, Bill C-66 on grain transportation and Bill C-78 on witness protection. We could have done the same thing with these two bills and, at the same time, the government could have brought in the bills that had been received favourably in the House. It was very clear from the outset that there was no way we would accept to reinstate a bill such as the one on unemployment insurance reform, but perhaps some agreements could have been reached.

I am thinking, in particular, of Bill C-68 on the reform of electoral boundaries, about which the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine and Bloc Quebecois members from eastern Quebec ridings were in agreement and made representations at all stages to be able to protect the five existing ridings in eastern Quebec. That is a bill that perhaps we would have been able to agree on, with the consent of the Senate, so that it could be brought back here and we could deal with it without ending up where we are now.

Unfortunately, there was no such consultation. The government prefers to hide behind the fact that it would have the advantage of bringing the bill back at any time, at the minister's request. I think the government has made a very bad choice.

Now, let us turn to the amendment the Bloc Quebecois has moved. This amendment would let members respect the privilege of every other member in this House by giving notice of their refusal to allow a bill to be reinstated when the minister asks for leave to introduce his bill. In this way we would be sure that there would be a minimum of respect for members' responsibilities. It would be a mark of a very great respect for democracy and it would conform to the true meaning of prorogation of a session.

The new throne speech having set out a different vision on most things, it is imperative that members ascertain that the new legislation reflects this throne speech and that this throne speech is not only old formulas under a new guise, which very clearly seems to be the case, given the government motion.

The government should have more courage and say to us: ``Yes, among bills we have brought forward in the past, there are four or five that we absolutely want to have passed, so we will bring back them to this House''. We could even debate the motions. It would be more democratic than the present approach, whereby the government to reinstate by the back door bills that had not been received favourably by the House.

Once more I come back to the unemployment insurance bill. You know, we listened to what Canadians and Quebecers said last fall, during the holiday season and in January, and we could take the opportunity offered by the fact that we have a new Minister of Human Resources Development to take note of certain things, to notice that the government measure has one very important element missing, that is an active policy on employment. The previous bill singled out seasonal workers, and prevented young Canadians from being eligible for unemployment insurance in order to save about $2 billion per year in an unemployment insurance program funded entirely by employees and employers. That was what Bill C-111 did.

If the government gets its way and manages to bring back this bill directly at committee stage, without any debate in the House, it will be an admission that it has no intention of correcting it. The government will be admitting that it did not listen to what Canadians had to say, and that it is still going to try to push all its cuts through and to continue in the same direction that was condemned everywhere across the country and even more so in the Maritimes.

Let me give you another example, Bill C-96. In this case, the government is really saying: ``Business as usual''.

(1300)

While the federal government is trying for instance to negotiate an agreement on manpower training with the Quebec government, although Bill C-96 was denounced in the past as not respecting areas of jurisdiction, the Minister of Human Resources Development, in his negotiations with Quebec, would certainly have a much stronger negotiation tool if he would say: ``Yes, we realize that our Bill C-96 did not really respect current areas of jurisdiction and what we want for the future in Canada: that the federal government be responsible for some things and that it be made clear; that provincial governments be responsible for other things and that be made clear, and that in the future we not have spheres of activity where the two governments get involved and try to have the biggest poster or the biggest Canada flag on advertisements''.

When we see statements like the ones made by the Minister of Human Resources Development, who says that every time the Government of Canada will be spending money, we must ensure that there will be a federal government identification to make sure people will know where the money is coming from, it is very clear that there is no logic between Bill C-96, the new image that the federal government wants to project of its willingness to negotiate in good faith with the governments, and these statements saying that the federal government will make sure that its investment is visible everywhere.

There is a major contradiction there and, instead of trying to sneak bills by us, the government should have the courage to make a list, to table it and to tell us: ``These bills will come back because we think they are essential and the House will decide if the proposition is relevant''.

The present debate is also a major precedent in the evolution of the parliamentary process. In that regard, I think we would better go back to the basic principle of British parliamentary government.

Earlier, my hon. colleague quoted excepts from Beauchesne that clearly show how important the basis for proroguing sessions is, because this has always been a rather basic decision for a government to make. This means that the government's intention when proroguing a session to start a new one is to change its agenda, change its outlook on things, introduce new bills. This sends a message to the public about the government's new approach, as well as that of the opposition, and serve as a basis to assess the relevance of its actions.

Now, this clarity would be lost. By allowing any bill from the previous session to be brought back at any time, we are not giving the people the chance to pass judgement on the government's actions. I think this will have a major impact in the years to come, on future Parliaments and on the kind of relationship the people will have with their representatives.

It is complicating matters, providing information that is not as clear as the information provided in the past. This certainly is not the way to go to ensure the well-being of Quebecers and Canadians.

To conclude my presentation on this subject, I would like to say that the government seems to want to enjoy all the benefits of prorogation without the drawbacks. They have changed the wrapping. They have packaged differently what they are trying to sell, but the product itself has not changed. The same old toys have been tossed into the box; only the wrapping has changed. And the person opening this box is expected to shout: ``Oh, this is great, all new, really different''.

But that is not the message being conveyed, not at all. The message people are receiving is that old bills, bills that came under much criticism, that did not go through quickly in the House, that never made it past consideration in committee because of some snag, will be given a second life totally artificially.

Under the motion, as moved, any outstanding bill could be brought back before this House. This seems unacceptable to me, and definitely not in keeping with what is expected from a Parliament like the one in which we are sitting.

(1305)

The government must review its actions in several respects. It must make proposals that are in line with the throne speech. It must tell us what ``social union'' means and what the impact of its new policies will be. Above all, its bills must be consistent with that because, according to what we have heard so far, the Canada social transfer will be a general fund that the provinces will be free to manage at they see fit.

The throne speech shows a different approach. It refers to a guaranteed minimum level of financing for each province. These elements directly contradict legislation such as Bill C-96. We would then be debating old bills in accordance with the government's new approach. The first thing we as opposition must say is that we should no longer be debating these bills since they are not in line with the government's proposed policy.

We feel this is unacceptable and hope that the government will agree to our proposed amendment, which would allow a minister to bring back any bill, but members of the House would have an opportunity to explain why they object to it. This would make Parliament more effective, which is something that people everywhere are asking us. I hope Parliament will follow our suggestion.

Mr. Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I had a question, but I will let the hon. member for-

The Deputy Speaker: Everybody knows that if an hon. member from a political party objecting to the speech wishes to ask a question or make a comment, generally, the Chair recognizes that other party. Does the hon. member wish to put a question?

Mrs. Brushett: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member has the floor.

[English]

Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup has made a very interesting point on this motion. He would like to be selective in what he brings back to the House. This motion does not have selectivity in the sense that we can bring in one and leave out the other. It is all inclusive.

The opportunity lies in the motion that every government bill, if the minister so chooses, and every private members' bill can come before the House.

I believe we were all elected in 1993, including the member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, to bring forward efficient, progressive legislation.

I would like the member for elaborate a little further on why he would consider selectivity of government business in the motion not to be part of the process of moving forward for a more efficient government.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for a question that will enable me to elaborate on how we see things.

Usually, when Parliament prorogues, all the bills die on the Order Paper and the government must come up with a new legislative agenda. That is the very reason for proroguing.

We accept that view, but we propose that only as an exception should a number of bills, over which the government and the opposition parties would agree, be maintained. The government should do some consulting, rather than trying to forcefully bring back all the bills. Let us look at a list of bills from the last session. Which ones does the government want to bring back? Which ones does the official opposition want to bring back? Which ones does the third party want to bring back? Let us make a list of all the bills for which there is a consensus.

(1310)

If the government absolutely wants to bring back a piece of legislation for which there is no consensus, it should come before the House and say: ``We are asking the House to take this bill back under consideration''. Then a debate would take place. The UI bill is an excellent example. If we agreed that Bill C-111 should be brought back before the House, it would be much more democratic, much more elegant for the government to table a proposal to the effect that it wishes that Bill C-111 be maintained, even if this may involve a few amendments. Then the House would debate the relevance of such a proposal. In this way, Quebecers and Canadians

would see very clearly who, between the government and the opposition, takes into account the opinions expressed through consultations, as well as the mood prevailing across the country.

We are not asking that the opposition be the one to decide. However, there has to be some kind of an agreement on that issue. Right now, the government is acting like someone who wants to buy a new car, while also wanting to keep the best things from the old one. This is not logical. There is no continuity in the government's action. The government should take into account the logic in these arguments. It should at least accept the amendment tabled by the Bloc, or the idea of some agreement or negotiation between the parties regarding a list of bills from the previous session. It should not adopt the view that all the bills should be brought back. That would defeat the purpose of proroguing, while also significantly reducing the importance of the speech from the throne. And if the speech from the throne becomes meaningless because all the bills from the previous session can simply be brought back, the government itself will have drastically reduced the impact of its new agenda.

[English]

Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of debate that I think causes the public to scratch their heads and wonder a little about what we do here.

I am interested in the remarks of the member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup because for the last two years he and I worked together on the unemployment bill. We travelled across the country. We heard from hundreds and thousands of people through the mails, through surveys sent out and through personal representations on that bill.

We spent hundreds of hours looking at each clause and debating the provisions of that bill. We spent millions of dollars. If I understand what he is saying it is that we should be allowed, because of a technicality, to throw out all that work and start over.

How does he justify passing off all that expense and all that time?

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is indeed using a very good example. Let us look, for instance, at the Unemployment Insurance Act. People asked us to vote against the bill as tabled. Thousands of people sent postcards to the Leader of the Opposition. Probably over 20,000, 25,000 or even 30,000 asked us to vote down the bill. Today's debate is not useless as far as my fellow citizens are concerned, because they have asked me to do everything I could to see to it that this bill dies on the Order Paper and that the government takes its responsibilities and introduces another bill more in line with the real needs of Quebecers and Canadians.

This is why I do not have any qualms about turning a debate on what seems like a procedural issue, which it is not, into a debate on a substantive issue.

In the speech from the throne, the government said that the unemployment insurance reform would be based on the same fiscal parameters which applied before. In other words, it stated that it would stick to its philosophy on this issue. This is what we heard from people from all over Canada, people from eastern Quebec and Atlantic Canada. Talk to the people in the maritimes. I am sure that the Liberal caucus has talked about this. At least, I hope so, because if they have not done so, they are not doing their jobs. I am sure that they are doing a very good job and that they are trying to make the government take action on this issue. The best way for hon. members to play a positive role is by debating these issues here in the House as much as possible.

(1315)

The work of the parliamentary committees is to put the finishing touch to bills, to try to improve them, by coming up with amendments that would ensure that we have, in the end, the best possible bills.

However, we are not yet at that stage with the unemployment insurance bill; we are not working out the details, we are still considering substantive matters. As long as we do not have a reform proposal which includes an active policy on employment, it would be pointless to approve anything. We will keep doing the best we can. We will put forward all the amendments needed to improve the bill, but, in this instance, what Quebecers and Canadians are asking for is a debate on the substance of the bill. If we let the government reinstate the bill in its previous form whenever it feels like it, we are not doing Quebecers and Canadians any favour.

[English]

Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the point I want to make enlarges upon the question I asked the member from Rivière-du-Loup. In his response he has admitted that what he is attempting to do, and assuming he is representing his party, what his party is attempting to do is to use any device possible to delay further work on the bill.

If one stops to think about that for a moment, it contravenes one of the principles upon which the last election was fought. All parties and all politicians were told very clearly by the public that they wanted to see a change in how this House conducted itself. The public wanted to see reforms to the rules of this Chamber. They wanted to see politicians focusing more on issues than on technicalities. They wanted to see us focusing on the things that affected the lives of people and not simply playing the many games

that we can play within an arcane set of rules to disrupt the proceedings of the Chamber.

What has occurred here? The government came into office, laid a plan before the people and began to enact legislation that reflected that plan. After two years, which is the normal midpoint in the life of a government, it wanted to once more put before the people its plan for the next two years. This is quite common and is looked forward to. It is an opportunity for the government to reflect on what it has done and to come forward and state what it has learned, what it feels has worked and where it wants to go from here.

However, at any time when we reach that point, because of the processes that we use and the extensive consultations that we have undertaken, there are bills that are not complete. They may also not be unanimous, which is a fact of life in this Chamber, but at some point we come to a decision. We cannot simply say that because we had not come to that point on a particular piece of legislation that we should throw it on the rubbish heap and start over again particularly in light of the enormous cost. No bill represents that better than the unemployment insurance bill.

The hon. member opposite who spoke just before me was on challenged air, that old plane we flew in across the country. He sat in on the hundreds and hundreds of hours of consultation as people from every community across the country, including Rivière-du-Loup, came and spoke to us. Are we simply to say that all that work was for naught or are we to pick up where we were in the debate and continue to debate, continue to fight and continue to ask the government to move?

The member will have to admit that the government has moved a long way. The bill that is before a committee is very different from the initial thinking of the government. In fact, it is a bill that demonstrates very clearly this government's willingness to consult, to listen and to act on the wishes of people. It is because of the interventions from the member opposite as well as interventions from thousands of people across this country that there have been very significant changes. I would ask the member to remember that process.

(1320)

The government put a green paper in front of the people of Canada and asked them to respond to it. The government in that green paper set out a number of proposals that represented its thinking about the reforms to UI.

We consulted broadly. The people gave us their responses and we put recommendations in our report that contradicted what was said in the green paper because we respected the consultations we held and we valued the input we received. It went on from there for further work by the minister. He worked very hard and struggled very diligently over the summer to work through each one of those issues and to present even further changes before he introduced the bill.

The bill he introduced was vastly different from the green paper because of the hundreds and thousands of hours of work by Canadians and by members of this House. Now we are in committee on that bill consulting on the details, looking at some final reforms. Even now we hear the new minister talking about further changes, further amendments, further refinements. That is the process of evolution of a very complicated piece of legislation. It is a good process and one that has stood us well.

What we should not do and I think people would not accept is to simply because of a technical game that is played within the House, throw out all of that work, go back to the drawing board and hold the unemployed in this country in limbo for another one or two years. Is that fair to the unemployed? Is that fair to seasonal workers? Is that fair to employers?

It is time to get on. Yes, I respect the hon. member very much. I have valued his input on the bill. I think he has a lot to say in the area of social services and I want to hear him say it. I want him to debate the bill strenuously and I want to benefit from his input. But what I do not want is to spend a lot of time on a procedural debate. I do not want to spend a lot of time arguing how the rules of the House run so that we can disrupt the order of business, or we can throw the government off track by what, one day?

We just saw an example of that with the Reform Party. Reform members refused to allow the tabling of the list of committee members. What nonsense. What has that accomplished? My gosh, it has disrupted the agenda of the government for a day. Is this the kind of message members are going to put in their householder and run home and say: ``Look what we did. We disrupted the business of the government for a day. Aren't we heroes''.

That is not what people came here to do. People came here to debate, to represent their constituencies, to see that the wishes of Alberta, Manitoba, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes were placed before the House. They came here to question the government, to ask ministers why they are doing what they are doing, and to hold them to account. They came here to vote, to represent their constituents.

That is why we are here. It is not to play silly games, not to spend our time, our energies, our talent and our creativity looking for little ways to put a stick into the spokes of government momentarily. Does that enhance any of us in this House?

If members want to debate the unemployment insurance bill, let us debate the unemployment insurance bill. If they want to debate

Bill C-7, if they want to debate changes to health legislation, let us debate changes to health legislation. If they want to oppose it, oppose it. Let us have a vigorous, hard fought debate. Let us hold the government to account and let us vote. But let us stop the procedural nonsense. Let us get on with the work of this House.

Let us do what the Reform Party campaigned on, what we campaigned on, what the Bloc, the Conservatives and the New Democrats campaigned on. Let us bring some order here. Let us show people that we are spending their money wisely. Let us show people that we take the business of this country seriously. Let us get on with the debates on the issues people want us to debate and stop the procedural bickering.

(1325 )

Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with some intent and some interest to the member opposite. He raised some good points about putting up procedural roadblocks for the sake of procedural roadblocks. We have not done that as a rule. I agree in that I do not think the Canadian people want to see this being done. However, the principle at stake here is whether or not we should simply acquiesce to whatever the government decides it is going to do and whether we should in our role as opposition stand up for what we think is right.

In this case the situation is that since the 35th Parliament started the government has supported the view that the nomination and election of vice-chairs for all committees should go to the Bloc, period. It has not been an open and free election. It has been a set up job from the very beginning. It is a sham of an election. Our intent is to bring this to the attention of Canadian citizens everywhere.

We would have no problem with the Bloc being elected to both vice-chairs or the vice-chair or the second vice-chair if it were a free and open election, if it were a secret election within the committee, but it is not. At every single committee I have attended, the chief government whip has sat in the committee room, watched, presided over, pointed fingers and said: ``This is what you are going to do in this vote''. This is a mockery of democracy.

Our point is not to be obstructive but to point out to the government and to Canadians that the government cannot be hypocritical. The Prime Minister cannot when he is in western Canada go on a radio or television program and say that it makes him sick when he looks across and sees the official opposition is a separatist party that will break up the country. Then when he gets back to Quebec he says exactly the opposite and at every possible opportunity he mollycoddles and appeases the Bloc and is so afraid to offend them. We are not afraid to offend them and if that offends the Liberal government, it should be offended.

Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his point. I listened and considered carefully what he said until his last couple of sentences. If he will permit me I will start there.

The Prime Minister of this country and this government does not go into western Canada and say one thing then go into eastern Canada, Quebec or any other place and say something else. That is a fact. The Prime Minister has not been afraid to take any battle anywhere in this country at any time in the some 30 years he has been in this House. I have seen him do it over and over and over again. I very strenuously reject what the member has suggested.

The fact is there are laws and there are rules and there are ways of procedure in this House that we respect. The member is simply not going to gerrymander his way out of that. The fact is whether I like it or not, the Bloc is the official opposition. We heard a very lengthy ruling by the Speaker who considered that question very carefully. That is a fact.

Having established that, let us get on with the business of the House. The tabling of a list of committee members is a trivial point. How does preventing the tabling of the list of committee members by one day further his cause or make him look any more intelligent or make his debate seem any more fulsome? If he wants to make the point about vice-chairs, make it. He should stand up in this House every time. On the many, many occasions he has to debate substantive issues he should stand up in the House and make that point. He should stand up in question period and ask those questions. He should make his case.

I am sure every member knows, particularly every western member, and I am sure all the members sitting there right now know the difficulty of finding a life within the travel and the time we have to spend here. So let us spend the time here to its maximum value. Let us not waste it.

I do not want to take an extra day away from my family and my children because somebody has played around with a procedural motion, but I will do it. I will come into this House to debate any issue I possibly can, but let us not play those games. Members of the Reform Party came into this House so full of the lofty principles of government and were so prepared to defend the rights of the people and honour what the people wanted to hear. I am appalled to see you playing those kind of silly, trivial games.

(1330)

The Deputy Speaker: I ask all members to not refer to other members as ``you''. Third person singular or third person plural, please.

Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to my hon. colleague's comment about not wasting our time.

If he were really serious about this, which I think he is, at least he certainly looks sincere, the important thing is to get procedural motions like this off the table. They are on the table and we are now obligated to get involved in the debate. However, there is a very big issue at stake here.

The point I want to register was made very effectively by the hon. Pat Nowlan when he was in the House. He did it on the occasion of the 1991 debate. I refer rather extensively to some things he said. At that time he said to me: ``In the years that I have been here it would boggle the mind in terms of the effective working of Parliament to do what is being projected here''. It is exactly the same thing the previous government did in the House in 1991.

He said:

What really disturbs me, having spent a good many years on the opposition side, is that we know, and my former friends across the way know from when they were on the opposition, that the prorogation date is sometimes used as the negotiating lever to get bills to move along. Under the tradition and history of the British parliamentary system come prorogation everything on the Order Paper died. It was then incumbent on the government and the responsibility of the government in the new session to reintroduce the bills and/or try to work matter matters out by consent, as they so often did.

I have a good memory also. There were many times in this Chamber in which a deal was made before prorogation. Sometimes by unanimous consent bills which were on the Order Paper, certain ones being difficult to agree with perhaps, were nevertheless put together as a package so they could get through and could be reintroduced later.

The question is why would a government, including this one or any other, that will use this kind of lever really worry about the concerns of the opposition? It does not care about what the opposition thinks. It knows that come prorogation the debate will be cut off and since it has the majority in the new Parliament the government knows it will not lose anything.

What in the world is this all about if we do what is proposed here? I cannot help but refer to the hon. Don Boudria. I am pleased he is here to hear himself quoted again.

The Deputy Speaker: Members, we are all rusty. Present sitting members of the House have to be referred to by their riding and ministers by their portfolio.

Mr. Schmidt: I apologize. I stand corrected. I was referring to the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. I believe other members have mentioned this today. I refer to a second paragraph which I do not think has been read. The hon. member will hear himself quoted again, from May 28, 1991.

(1335)

An hon. member: That was then.

Mr. Schmidt: Yes, that was then and he has learned extremely well. He has learned to debate cleverly on both sides of the issue. If it were not so serious, it would be a nice game. To become a skilful debater one must be able to debate both sides of an issue.

He said: ``What we are doing is amending completely the rules of the House by adopting this motion. Were we to do so or were this motion to be ruled in order, the implications of the ruling of this motion in order would be such that I fear we could render this House of Commons totally irrelevant and redundant''.

He went on to say: ``We would simply deem everything and anything to have been passed, to have been at third reading or to have been at any stage or for any reason the government did not want to proceed with other stages of the bill''.

Is that not exactly what the hon. member told us 20 minutes ago? It is most interesting what happens when one walks from this side of the House to that side of the House. When they have all the numbers on their side, they begin to think anything they do has to be right.

At that time the government won the debate. Of course it did, had the numbers, exactly as Pat Nowlan put it so clearly. It reminds me very much of what Gordon Gibson said in the Globe and Mail on Tuesday of this week: ``Our system effectively provides for a four year elected dictatorship with an astonishing concentration of power in the Prime Minister's office and the cabinet. Not unnaturally, those enjoying this power think it is a pretty good system''.

That is the seriousness of the issue before us. We really should be reflecting the wishes of the people. Sometimes procedural motions are brought to the floor of the House to give advantage to levering certain bills to move things faster or slower, the suggestion being that somehow the opposition side has a say in these things.

As my hon. colleague from Calgary Centre said so clearly, we do not have a say. It is in the hands of the government. Gordon Gibson said very clearly that in the final analysis the Prime Minister can decide whatever he wants.

Now I refer to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. Let him hear what he had to say on May 28, 1991. This is excellent. The hon. member will have his memory refreshed. He could probably say the very same thing today. He should. If he were on this side of the House I am sure he would. This is really interesting. The hon. member said: ``A new definition of democracy has been introduced. That is what this government is trying to introduce to

Canada. Frankly, it is time we exposed the-''-do you remember what you said?

Mr. Milliken: Fraud.

Mr. Schmidt: Fraud. He called it a fraud but today it is good stuff. He goes on. It gets better: ``I want to deal with the propriety of the motion the government introduced. I suggest it is contrary to all the practices of this House for the last 124 years. It is a breach of the proprieties of this place. While the Speaker has ruled that the motion is in order and I respect that ruling, I suggest that it is still morally wicked''.

(1340 )

What a statement. That is what he said when he was on this side but now that he is part of the government he says that is okay. It is as morally wicked today as it was then. The morals have changed. It is amazing. One walks across the House and the morals become different. Is it not interesting? What has happened in this place?

Then he drew his conclusion: ``I suggest that this is wrong and it is wickedly wrong. It is a gross violation of the constitutional principles on which the House has operated since Confederation''. Listen to the loftiness of these phrases. ``Indeed it is contrary to the whole practice of British parliamentary tradition for 900 years and nothing like this has ever been tried before. I suggest it is wrong. The government knows it is wrong''.

It is very interesting that at that time the hon. member was joined by the now premier of Newfoundland who said: ``The government party of the day regrettably for the country, a country in desperate need of leadership on the constitutional front and on the economic front, does not have the confidence of the people''. Even as a member of the opposition, one wanting to replace the governing party, he made those kinds of comments. What does the government do? Yesterday the Prime Minister indicated to the House that the back of the deficit had been broken. That is an interesting conclusion when the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the speech from the throne said very clearly that the deficit shall be at least or not more than 2 per cent of the gross domestic product.

That does not suggest the deficit's back has been broken. It has not made any indication either of how seriously the fiscal situation of the country has been damaged and continues to be damaged.

An hon. member: That is a lot more progress than your Tory friends made.

Mr. Schmidt: This is interesting. The hon. member says that is more progress than the Tories made. I draw to the member's attention that since he and his colleagues came into the House they have added to the debt $76 billion plus. That is their contribution to the fiscal health of the country. It is on the backs of the people that the deficit and the debt ride, and they are getting heavier and heavier. I suggest to the Prime Minister and to my colleagues opposite that the back that is being broken is the back of the taxpayer, not of the deficit.

There comes a time when one almost has to say that what we have here is a tyranny of the majority. It is not the interests of the people that are being addressed in this motion but the convenience of a particular group of people who not want to live by the procedures that we have all agreed to. They want to change them.

It would be one thing to say this will simply bring back the bills the government wants back on the table. Then it ties that with this sort of noble condescending attitude, almost patronizing, saying it will also allow private members' bills to come forward. That does not change the principle one iota. It seems the government wants to get some kind of prestige, or to drain some credibility from the fact that yes, private members' bills will also be able to come to the table. If it was morally wicked before, if it was a fraud before, it is no less wicked and no less a fraud today than it was then.

(1345)

I suggest that the sooner we get on with the business of the country and deal with things like the deficit, justice issues and keeping criminals off the streets, we will be far better off than wrangling here on whether we should bring back all that stuff that was really supposed to have been stopped by prorogation at the whim and fancy of the government whenever it wishes to do so.

Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if my hon. colleague would want to share his views on the cost issues. I am not talking about financial costs. I am talking about the human costs of the various committees that participated throughout the previous session. I know that many of our constituents throughout the country have invested a great deal of time and effort in coming forward to share their views on various matters before committees at various stages.

I was curious about what are the hon. member's views or his party's views on the subject of costs and whether it is something that should be given consideration.

Mr. Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, I am so happy that my colleague across the way asked that question. It really gives me a chance to say something about the speed with which legislation is introduced to the House and the substance of the legislation that is introduced. It is almost like having a car that is trying to go uphill but the ice on the highway is so slick that the car cannot move at all. It is spinning like crazy but it is not going anywhere. That is what is happening here.

If the hon. member is really concerned about the costs that were incurred, then the legislation should have been pushed through the House on a regular basis, instead of trying to force it all through at the end.

Let us take as an example the internal trade agreement. The agreement was signed on July 1 the year before. A whole year later the bill finally came to the House. We would told we should pass it into law so that it can be put into operation. What was the delay? Certainly the opposition did not delay it. The standing committee did not delay it. Somebody else delayed it. I wonder if it is not the same group that has the opportunity to bring bills back to the House if this motion is passed.

The concern I have is this. How much time has the government wasted by not moving faster than it did? If the government wanted to bring all these bills forward, why did it not just keep on going? We lost a whole month.

Mr. Silye: Why did you prorogue?

Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate, as I often do, the views of my learned colleague. The only difficulty I have is this. What about the human investment in time, energy and the quality of the debate that was advanced prior to prorogation?

I would like to ask my hon. colleague if he would comment on that one specific issue. Is it not a valid comment that there were significant investments made in bringing people to Ottawa or having our committees travel throughout the country? Would it not be a pity to lose all of the very good work that was done by all members on all sides of the House and particularly at the committee level? I ask my hon. colleague to comment on that aspect.

(1350 )

Mr. Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to comment on the human investment. The sad part is that so much of the human effort has been completely ignored by the government.

All kinds of witnesses come before committees, not only the industry committee but a number of other committees, and what effect has it had on legislation? What effect has it had in bringing about any amendments? The hon. member should recognize that that kind of thing is much more debilitating than for the government to take the position that if it prorogues it can bring that stuff back because some of that investment of time and energy is significant and should not be lost.

It is not lost. We have heard all those things. If the government is really serious it will bring forward that legislation very quickly and very clearly. It will not have to go through all of that debate again. We know that and I believe the hon. member knows that.

If there were ever a time when we should be sensitive to the human element it is now. We should recognize the terrible position that people are put in when they are not sure about what is going to happen to the criminal who is incarcerated for committing a violent crime, who has raped their daughters and is now out on the street again without any restriction whatsoever. That is the concern. That has a far greater human cost than the debate that has happened, that has not been forgotten and does not have to be repeated even if the bill is presented at first reading. That is the human cost.

Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to hear the laughter and the jesting going on this afternoon, looking back at the history of what has been said and leaving a very distorted picture of what this motion is all about today.

When the government House leader brought this motion in this morning it was clear and simple. It serves all members of this House. It gives an opportunity of bringing any legislation of the government and any legislation of any private member back to the floor of this House as long as it is identical to the way it was presented prior to prorogation and as long as it has passed second reading. That is very simple and very appropriate for the public who are listening today to understand what this motion does.

The opposition has been misleading the public this afternoon. They talked about anything and everything. They talked about the deficit and about changing policies. This legislation was brought forward where you have the opportunity if you have a voice, Reform members and Bloc members, you have an opportunity in debate-

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I am sorry to be such a bore, colleagues. I know it is early in the session but please just delete the word you and say they or he.

Mrs. Brushett: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have been a little distracted with some of the history on this debate. I have no history in this place except as a 1993 member so it is interesting to be reminded of what has gone on in the past, however boring I think it was.

The point of this legislation is to give us the opportunity to proceed efficiently in the business of government. Each and every member of this place was elected in 1993 to pass legislation that works effectively and efficiently for our society. Legislation that was in progress, for want of a better word, that was left on the Order Paper before prorogation, is to come back for debate. There will be opportunities to add amendments and make changes. It does not mean that any hon. member in this House must remain silent.

We have talked about many things here today. Some bills, such as C-111, the employment insurance act, has been debated and the public has talked about it for several months. However, that is what legislation is all about. It is to seek consensus not only from members in this House but from the public as well. The hon. member for Okanagan Centre talked about the debt. He said that we have added to the debt. This is misleading. This government has reduced the deficit. As the Minister of Finance brings in the budget

next Wednesday afternoon at 4.30 p.m., the public will see how we have reduced the deficit.

(1355)

In terms of the debt, it is out there; it exists. However, this will be part of our longer term legislation and the debt will be taken care of once we have dealt with the deficit. I must remind the hon. members of the opposition of first things first and keep our priorities straight.

When we talk about the Unemployment Insurance Act, about Bill C-111, the public has advised us of what it would like to see in that bill. We have listened to the public. As it goes into committee for more discussion those amendments, those considerations will be listened to. We have the interest of the Minister of Human Resources Development as well as his expression of opportunity to hear those recommendations and see if they can be fitted into this legislation. The opportunity lies in the meetings in committee to present those views.

I would suggest this misleading of the public here today is a distortion of what this House is about. It is a distortion because we came here promising the public we would act more responsibly, more maturely and not spend our time on issues of procedure.

We bring many motions to the floor on House procedure, but was that not also a promise to the public, that we did not have to look back to 100 years ago, that it is time we updated some of the legislation, some of the standing orders, some of the House procedures. The House procedures committee is a committee of all parties in this House.

There is the opportunity and I would challenge any member. If an hon. member believes they do not have that opportunity, it lies there for each and every one of us, whether we are backbenchers on the government side or whether we are in opposition.

The motion presented this morning by the government House leader is very clear. I believe the public, in the interest of efficiency, in the interest of money that has been spent in hearing public views, in holding public hearings across this nation, would be in support of progressive motions that see legislation move forward.

If the hon. member believes this is not the wish of the public, that it is not the wish of the Canadian taxpayer, then I believe the opportunity lies that those views, those statistics, those numbers of convincing, of otherwise, could be brought forward in committee.

The opportunity to carry legislation forward is a reality and it is part of a credible government's mandate. Some of the bills will come forward if the members so choose, but this is all inclusive. Any member has the opportunity to bring a bill forward as long as it is identical and has passed second reading; that is private members' bills as well as government bills.

There is not selectivity, as some members have suggested. It is an opportunity for all bills. As we sat here last year there was a bill from the Reform member on grandparents' rights and of grandparents' accessibility to their grandchildren. As their offspring go through divorce or separation there can be problems of keeping the children at a distance from grandparents.

The gallery was full of grandparents that day as I spoke on that bill on behalf of the Reform member. That bill has excellent content that serves the children of this country, that serves them in a way such that they will have that support morally, lovingly, with nurturing and financially from grandparents who are a little more distanced from the situation. That was a private member's bill from the Reform Party. I would suggest this is an opportunity for every member in the House to support this motion today to see that it does pass which would bring these bills back for debate and for passage.

(1400)

There is an opportunity as well when we talk about deficits, debts and the cost that we forget that and think of what we have been through. I am convinced the public does not want us to delay in time and cost in not passing this motion which was brought forward today and not bringing those bills back here to debate but they want us to continue on to get them off the slate.

We have a responsibility and we have taken that. Every member in the House has an opportunity through the standing committees which are broad committees representing all parties in this House. I think it is misleading when we tell the public before the cameras today in the Parliament of Canada that we are doing anything but practising good government.

[Translation]

Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the comments of my colleague, and I have a question for her. I am not very familiar with House procedure, but I do know that according to the statutes prorogation means all bills die on the Order Paper.

The government knows it. This has always been the case since there is a government. The government is free to prorogue or not, but it knows very well that when it does, all bills automatically die on the Order Paper. This very government, when it was sitting on the opposition benches, was very critical of the Conservative government because it did not abide by the rules of this House.

How can the government take such a position now? Is the hon. member trying to tell us that the government is free to ignore our

procedures for the sake of convenience? That is the fundamental question. Do we have procedures or do we not? My colleague is telling me procedures can be changed-and I agree with her-but let the government change them, then. But as long as they stand as they are, it should not ignore them just because it is more convenient. That is the fundamental question.

[English]

Mrs. Brushett: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to address that very interesting question. I find it interesting that the hon. member for Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies whose purpose here is to separate the country refers to the origins of the Queen, the King and the reign of British rule, that it is so great and this House has no opportunity to change those historic perspectives as they were.

I assure the hon. member that as part of the Liberal promise, as part of the 1993 election platform, this government took the responsibility and the obligation to the Canadian people to manage the Parliament of Canada more efficiently. Also, in the name of the Canadian taxpayer we would introduce procedures that seemed fitting of 1996 and the progress we should be making as we move toward the 21st century.

I have the greatest respect, as all hon. members do in the House, for the historic value and the traditions, but I believe it is not the absolute rule that we live within the monarchy. We know the views of the separatist members and their purpose and intent here.

This House does have the responsibility to serve the Canadian people and to bring forward legislation that is progressive and efficient. In the name of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs governing this place, in which all members, even separatist members are a part of that committee, then we do have that responsibility. I believe we are only serving the Parliament in a wise, efficient manner using House procedures.

(1405 )

Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for the hon. member. Could she tell me the specific reason the Liberal government prorogued the House? Could I have a simple answer?

Mrs. Brushett: Mr. Speaker, it is part of this government's platform, part of its promise to the Canadian people to deliver good government. Part of it was to restructure the Unemployment Insurance Act, part of it was to restructure the standing committees and all procedures in this House, and it was to make the House deliver legislation more efficiently and economically.

I am sure the hon. member knows the red book promise. He probably knows the red book as well as any other member in the House.

Mr. Harris: Probably better.

Mrs. Brushett: Yes, perhaps the hon. member does know it better than some.

The legislation was introduced according to what the Canadian people requested. Canadians have requested additional commitments from the Government of Canada, that we would respect the five principles of the Canada Health Act; to ensure health accessibility at no charge except through the public purse for all Canadians; to ensure that we would provide the kind of compassionate, caring society; to ensure that we would maintain the Old Age Security Act and the guaranteed income supplement; to ensure to the Canadian people that we would do the things that our government promised.

That is part of why we had a red book. It is part of why we had a throne speech and it is part of why we have the numbers to run the Government of Canada today.

Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question for the member is probably the same question my colleague just asked which she did not answer, the purpose of prorogation.

To get on to that issue, is it not to wipe off the slate and start over with the throne speech to set the new direction for the government with its new vision, with its new hope, with its new ideas for growth and opportunity? Is it not to go forward instead of going backward in the first piece of legislation the government introduces?

The first motion the government has introduced is to bring back all those old government bills it does not want to leave behind. Those bills are supposed to die on the order paper.

Prorogation is the cause of this motion and the cause of the undemocratic use of this Chamber. What is the purpose and why, in her opinion, did her government prorogue?

Mrs. Brushett: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has suggested that we are bringing back all the old government bills, to use his words. The hon. member forgets that we are bringing back Reform private members' bills and private members' bills from the Bloc, the NDP and the Conservatives. We are bringing back all bills that were in session prior to the break.

The hon. member recognizes that this legislation is excellent legislation which must be carried through. This legislation needs to be completed. Canadians want this legislation back on the Order Paper and they want it passed.

(1410)

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, before getting to the main part of my speech, perhaps I should answer the question asked by two Reform members. What these two members and many other people are wondering is why prorogue the session if the government wants to reinstate everything that was being considered during last session.

Probably all that has happened in the last few months, particularly in connection with the Quebec referendum, is one of the reasons why the government wants to start afresh, to show Canadians that it has regained control of the situation. But I want to get back to the main point, because I am not speaking in reply to the speech from the throne, but rather on Motion No. 1.

This is a motion to reinstate bills that were at various stages when the session was prorogued. That would appear logical, up to a point, but tradition has it that when a session ends and another one begins, we make a fresh start. Otherwise, we should have continued in the same parliamentary session without having a new speech from the throne and a new beginning.

This behaviour annoys me for two reasons: it shows a lack of respect for parliamentary tradition and practice, and-this annoys me even more, as it does many other people who are interested in politics-it proves that very often one says something when on one side of the House and something else when on the other side. I will get back to this in a while, since many members who now sit over there criticized the then Conservative government when it put forward a motion very similar to the one we are debating this afternoon. Just wait and see what their positions were then. It is rather difficult to understand how they can support this motion today after all they said against it then.

Let us go back to the first point, which is the lack of respect for tradition and practice. I agree that some things must be changed, improved, in the parliamentary system. The problem is that each and every time changes are made, the opposition parties or the backbenchers lose some of their powers so that the government, the executive, can have more power and be able to break or alter a rule as it pleases to go ahead undisturbed with its agenda.

This is rather disappointing, since all 295 of us here were elected to represent the people. Our constituents do not want to see our rights and responsibilities as members of Parliament trampled on; they want us to play an even bigger role and have an even greater influence on the parliamentary system.

Of course, my Liberal colleagues will say: ``Motion No. 1 also enables members to reinstate private members' bills and to carry on with their consideration in the current session''. But one has to be aware of one thing: how many private members' bills, and we can go back as far as we want, actually became law? How many private members' bills actually went through the whole legislative process? Very, very few of them.

If the government is proposing this motion authorizing the reinstatement of measures at the stage they were before in Parliament, it is to pursue its agenda on bills which it sets great store by; it is not to please members whose private bills had completed a stage in the process. This rarely happens.

So, the purpose of motion No. 1 is to deal with government business, basically everything that comes from cabinet and the executive branch. Thus, it is not a major argument for the government. Of course, it sweetens the pill.

If these bills are so important for the government and if they are so good for Quebecers and Canadians, why did it not introduce them earlier during the last session? Since it was elected two and a half years ago, why did it not hurry to introduce these legislative measures so vital to the operations of the Government of Canada and to the federal administration?

(1415)

We wonder why. And when we search for answers, we find some clues. We notice that there has been an atmosphere of panic in the last few months. That was obvious in the speech from the throne. The government does not have clear directions for the second half of its mandate and it is even alluding to the possibility of an early election to avoid the constitutional agenda of 1997.

I will talk about the second part. I would like to quote some Liberal members who were in the opposition not so long ago. Maybe they will go back to the opposition seats. Not all of those who are here now, but some of them. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, now in the Senate, speaking to the Conservative motion, declared this: ``I cannot understand why this government, these government bullies now want to impose their will on the House of Commons''.

He was talking about government bullies imposing their will. I would be curious to know if the same bullies now work for the Liberal Party and if the hon. senator still thinks the same way. He was not alone to speak. There were several of them. There is one I just saw. He is the Liberal member for Kingston and the Islands. He declared: ``They have to be reinstated in the usual course, but they ought to have been introduced and dealt with as new bills in this session''. That means that a bill must be moved as a new bill and go through the normal legislative process. He quoted from Beauchesne, saying that any irregularity of any portion of a motion renders the whole motion irregular. He fought hard and even contested the legality of that motion. He presented many arguments to that effect.

One of his colleagues, the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, who is still with us, was a lot harsher. He said: ``The implications of ruling this motion in order would be such that I fear we could render-if a government wanted to-this House of Commons totally irrelevant and redundant''.

To render the House of Commons totally irrelevant and redundant. That is what the member said. He is not a sovereignist, a separatist, but a member who sits on the other side of the House and who occupies a very important position within the government. Why has he changed his mind now that he is in a position of authority? How can that be explained? People become very cynical about politics when they see individuals change their mind so drastically in a relatively short time span.

How can a politician who says that he is working for the well-being of Canadians and wants to improve their social and economic standards of living have credibility when he contradicts himself constantly. People do not know when we are telling the truth. They do not know who among us is telling the truth. It is very serious. It is a lack of respect for the office we hold, for the institution for which we work, which, ultimately, is there to serve the people.

It is surprising to see those people, who claimed to champion the cause of integrity and transparency in their red book-which, by the way, they threw away as soon as the took office-suddenly adopting the agenda of the previous government in many areas.

Look at what is happening with the reform of social programs and think of the lack of respect for the institution. They are not even able to take a position that would be seen as their own, to promote the role of members of Parliament and to respect the institution.

If we really wanted to make the institution more efficient, as my Liberal colleague said, we could evaluate how really efficient committees are and examine the way they operate. There are many issues to examine.

The government tries to control everything: House committees, procedure and all the rest and this is why we have now almost reached the point where we have a sham of democracy. Some were complaining about the monarchy earlier, but it is simply disguised. The real power of individuals in this House is relatively small when we face actions like those of the government.

(1420)

The Bloc Quebecois wants to be constructive. If I remember rightly, my colleague for Laurier-Sainte-Marie or my colleague for Berthier-Montcalm introduced an amendment whereby a bill could be returned to the stage it was at. Under certain circumstances, a prorogation can be very useful.

If a minister or a member introduces business from the previous session requesting the unanimous consent of the House to continue, he will have it, if the measure is in everyone's interest.

This would avoid having the government simply bringing back its own agenda, but also all the measures that are, to all intents and purposes, uncontested, approved by all the members and must be approved by all Quebecers and Canadians, given that we are from very different parties. In this regard, the amendment would therefore be constructive.

In the few minutes I have left before question period, I would like to mention that the member preceding me referred to the fact that we were sovereignists or separatists, whatever your preference, and that she was surprised at our interest in following parliamentary rules, because this is the British parliamentary system.

Since our arrival here, we have shown respect, probably even more than the government, for parliamentary institutions and rules. We are fighting democratically. We are seeking major change, major change in the future of Quebecers and of Canadians, because we want to build a relationship between peoples.

That does not prevent us from respecting institutions and from waging a democratic struggle. Thus this sort of remark reveals a considerable lack of understanding of our action and role here. I am pleased to be able to tell her that we are not attacking institutions. We are not attacking individuals, we are not attacking Canadians. We are leading a battle for Quebecers, because we think it is the best road for the future for the people of Quebec and the people of Canada.

When we are told that, in the end, it is in our interest to block the process-I remember that, when we first came into the House of Commons, everybody said that the Bloc would be doing anything to block the conduct of business of the House. People had fun making puns. It did not happen that way. We allowed for an improvement of the conduct of business. We co-operated a lot. There was much co-operation between House leaders of all parties to ensure that the House may conduct its business in the most efficient manner, to avoid using procedural technicalities to prolong debates late into the night and achieve nothing. We allowed for an improvement in the conduct of business of our institution. That is how we want things to be.

Motion No. 1 does not improve the functioning of the institution and, I am convinced, will not go down in history as a measure having furthered the British parliamentary system in the best interest of Canadians. On the contrary, it gives more power to the

executive, to cabinet which is really in charge of the government and controls MPs, who, when they protest in caucus-as is now the case-are threatened with a general election to keep them in line.

In that sense, it is a threat. I find it interesting when they threaten to send certain MPs from their own party to the slaughter house. Personally, I am not against the fact that you could call an election. The only danger is that you may lose your Prime Minister in the battle, but we shall see. When the time comes, voters in Saint-Maurice will be the judge.

I am quite sure that there are Liberal members in this House who are thinking, in their hearts of hearts: ``This is true; this is another thing we are doing which does not make any sense.'' Let them keep it up.

If they cannot publicly side with us to defend the rules and the role of members, at least, when they meet in the privacy of their caucus, let them raise the issue with the cabinet members, who control this Parliament, and with all those behind the scene, who yield some power, and tell them: ``Listen, there are limits to how far you can lead us; when you decide to make a new speech from the throne and start a new session, it is to make a fresh start in several areas and the same should apply to the bills introduced during the last session.''

To conclude, I would like to point out that the unemployment insurance reform is among these bills, and nobody will convince me that it is not controversial and cannot be improved. Why not take advantage of a new session to put this unemployment insurance reform on a more solid footing? This way, at least, everybody's interests would be served.

Let have some self-respect and not change one's mind when changing side in the House; let us not make an about-face as did the member for Kingston and the Islands who has completely changed his minds on this motion. Furthermore, let us follow parliamentary procedure and try to make the role of member of Parliament as efficient as possible.

[English]

Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that the purpose of prorogation of the government was strictly to introduce a new throne speech.

Between now and Christmas there probably will not be any new substantive pieces of legislation introduced by the government. That is why it wants to reintroduce through Motion M-1 all of the previous bills without any notification to the opposition members. We will not know what bills it wants to bring back. It will be able to put them back at whatever stage it wants. This is a contravention of the democratic process in the House.

The current Minister of Health, the member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, had this to say about this type of action taken by the previous government: ``I contend that the motion is in principle unacceptable and that it seeks to circumvent, indeed to subvert, the normal legislative process of this House. In the past this kind of thing has only been done by unanimous consent. Now the government is seeking to establish an ominous precedent by attempting to force this procedure on the House. This is an offensive and dangerous departure from the practices of all parliamentary bodies''.

The current premier of Newfoundland, the former minister of fisheries in the government, had this to say about this type of activity which the government is now doing: ``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 of government''.

Another Liberal member of the House from Halifax had this to say about the Conservative government on this same issue: ``I can only say that the government should hang its head in shame. One wonders today why the government prorogued the House of Commons last time''.

I agree wholeheartedly with the words of the member for Kingston and the Islands. When in opposition he had this to say about this very action taken now by his government which he criticized. I could not say it better. I will have to use his words and I express my support for his conviction, his integrity, his intelligence on this issue: ``If the royal prerogative is to mean anything, the prorogation ended those bills. They have to be reinstated in the usual course but they ought to have been introduced and dealt with as new bills in this session. That is the proper procedure in the absence of unanimous consent, not this fiasco that we are wasting taxpayers' money on and doing now. What the government is doing by this, and let us make it perfectly clear what is happening here, is short circuiting the legislative process''.

[Translation]

Mr. Brien: Mr. Speaker, the member for Calgary Centre found some very interesting points in the position of the member for Kingston and the Islands. I also found some very eloquent comments of his. He said: ``A new definition of democracy-That is what this government is trying to introduce to Canada-I suggest it is perhaps one of the worst outrages that has been perpetrated in this House in many years-it is still morally wicked of the government to proceed with this motion''. We could go on and on with quotations like that. There are many.

He is not alone. The current finance minister, the member for LaSalle-Émard, once declared: ``We find ourselves in the situation we are now in. The bill died on the Order Paper. In its supreme arrogance and lack of understanding, this government comes to us and says: `we would like to reinstate it'''.

These are the same people who today are tabling this motion. Nothing further needs to be said, to know that such actions contribute largely to the results of polls showing a 7, 8 or 10 per cent credibility rating for politicians. Some opinion polls even give figures as low as 2 per cent. I believe these people should feel responsible for that situation and should stop changing direction constantly.

They still have an opportunity to retain their credibility if they change their position and withdraw their motion so that the situation can go back to normal. They only have to return all those bills they want passed to the first reading stage. This is all I had to say.

The Deputy Speaker: It being 2.30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m.

(The House adjourned at 2.31 p.m.)