Subscribe to our Newsletter

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Laurie in Debate

Motion 36

Motion 36: Be it resolved that when further consideration of Government Motion 35 regarding evening sittings on December 3, December 4, and December 5, 2007, is resumed, not more that one hour shall be allotted to any further consideration to the motion at which time every question necessary for the disposal of the motion shall be put forthwith.

Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for that reminder and for recognizing me. Well, on behalf of the Official Opposition we are not in favour of Motion 36. As I tried to think of how to respond to this, a number of sports metaphors came to mind. Having just heard the hon. House leader speak, I’m really starting to see this particular closure motion as a warm-up pitch for an entire game of closure motions to come, particularly on Bill 46 because we’ve already had the oral notice from the government that a closure motion will be brought in on second reading of Bill 46 on Tuesday night. I’m expecting that the government will probably try and do closure on every single stage of reading on Bill 46.

In some ways I’ve been trying to research how many of the many recommendations that were made at the 2004 Roundtable on Family Violence and Bullying had actually been implemented. I’m finding not very many of them. The community has certainly done some work, and there’s been some grant money, but the number of recommendations certainly haven’t fulfilled the expectations from that round-table.

In considering why, I thought, well, I guess that’s no surprise because I’m finding increasingly that this government is acting as a bully itself. In this case I find that the government is using the power that is granted to it by parliamentary process to tromp on, stomp on, smash, ransack democracy. They can call it anything else they want, but the point is that this House is here to debate ideas and bring forward the voices of Albertans. What I’m seeing is that like a schoolyard bully who breaks the baseball bat or punctures the soccer ball when they don’t get their way or when they don’t win the game, this government does the same thing for a process which should allow full debate on motions and bills.

Yes, today we’re talking about a closure motion on a procedural motion to give us night sittings, but as we already know, it’s the first of many motions. In my 11 years in this Assembly I’ve seen this government go from allowing dozens of hours of debate before bringing in closure to – this time what did we actually manage? – 20 minutes, 25 minutes before they brought in closure on it. There were three speakers. Interestingly, a number of the other speakers that appeared on the list were in fact government speakers, private members who wanted to get up and speak and are not being allowed to. I have to wonder, you know, that there has to be a great deal of fear about what might get said in this place to work so hard to shut it down even on a procedural motion, Mr. Speaker.

The government is given a great deal of power in the parliamentary rules, but with that comes a responsibility to not abuse it. That set-up happens again and again and again. It’s outlined again and again and again in the parliamentary books that I spend time trying to read, like Beauchesne and Marleau and Montpetit and Erskine May. They say we have freedom of speech. Yes, that’s very special. Don’t abuse it. Don’t unnecessarily shout at people or call them names. That freedom of speech is not to protect you getting up and abusing someone. Well, I would argue the same thing comes into play here. The ability that is given to government to process business through should not be turned into an abuse of that process. I would argue that that is what we are seeing now with this motion and with the other closure motions that have been indicated to us already.

We know that it’s only the first of many closures the government is bringing in. We’ve got three government sitting days and three nights now that we’re expecting, and my spidey sense is telling me that closure will be used a number of times. I just think that’s an aberration of what the parliamentary process is supposed to be about. I think it’s wrong, frankly, and I think it’s an abuse of that parliamentary power that the government side is given. The rules are weighted towards the government so they can get things done, but that power should not be abused.

Frankly, 25 minutes of speech: that’s got to be shut down? Four hours of debate on Bill 46, and it’s got to be shut down so they can move something through? Why? That is an abuse. I don’t see how this Premier is more open or more democratic or having more participation from all the parties. You know, if closure is used to ram through Bill 46, even the government backbenchers won’t get a chance to get on the record so their constituents can see what they did. How do the rural MLAs prove they fought for their constituents? This is wrong.