Proposition 52K0756

Projet de loi relevant de caducité certains projets de loi réglant une matière visée à l'article 78 de la Constitution.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Open Vld Verhofstadt Ⅲ

Submission date

Jan. 31, 2008

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

dissolution of parliament legislative procedure government bill

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA LDD MR FN VB

Voted to reject

Vooruit

Party dissidents ¶

• Dalila Douifi (Vooruit) abstained from voting.
• Ludwig Vandenhove (Vooruit) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Feb. 28, 2008 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Where is the rapporteur?

It refers to its written report.

Mr. President, she does not do that. A colleague of her does it in her place.

A colleague of her does that.

Let’s stay a little serious. I want to hear her say it herself.

Is she here? I do not know.

She is not here. In that case, the caducity cannot be revoked.

Your colleague wants to say something.

Mr. Speaker, if you occasionally made a member of Vlaams Belang a rapporteur, you would never foresee that. We are always here.

I cannot do everything. Can I continue the general discussion? Does anyone ask for the word in the general discussion?

Mr Peeters, you have the word.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, we re-submitted four amendments, which we also submitted during the discussions in the committee, where they were rejected by the majority. I will use the general explanation to treat them at the same time, to make it easy for you.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just called for a substantive discussion during the current debate and to address the political choices made by the majority. I think the design on the caducity is a good opportunity for that. I would also like to use it. Such a draft determines the agenda of the Chamber for the coming weeks and months.

Design is not so important by what is in it, but especially by what is not capable of it. The draft clearly indicates which matters the new majority no longer considers important and which matters they want to evacuate from the agenda. These are drafts which our House said eight to nine months ago that they were agreed to, that they were important, that they were approved, and that they would be voted in one of the rooms of our House. However, the new majority says they are no longer important and that they should be evacuated from the agenda.

I have given the opportunity to return to those choices by submitting amendments on matters that you, either accidentally or not – in my opinion it is a conscious political choice – have forgotten to include in the draft.

What is no longer in the draft is the already partially approved draft law on sustainable development. It is a bill that was passed in our House nine months ago. Sustainable development is structurally anchored in all our regulatory work by incorporating a pre-examination of all decisions of parliaments and governments to see what the social and environmental effects as well as the sustainability effects of what we approve for future generations are.

That is no longer in it. The new government, the new majority, finds the anchoring of sustainable development in our work no longer important and takes it off the agenda.

Whatever it is unable to do is the partially approved draft reform of the Order of Physicians. That draft was drawn by colleague Van Krunkelsven in the Senate. For the S.P.A. it is not ⁇ the great revolutionary reform of the medical profession, but nevertheless a step forward towards a more democratic order of doctors, a less corporatist order of doctors, a order of doctors that also attaches more importance to patient complaints and patients’ rights and patients’ interests also puts more central in the medical profession. The new majority and government find that no longer important, find that no longer priority, find that step forward no longer necessary, evacuate that from the parliamentary agenda and do not include it in the draft.

What they can no longer do is the bill to introduce the Order of Kinesiotherapists. From the same philosophy as for the Order of Physicians, the medical profession of Chineseists is somewhat regulated, but in a democratic, structured, less corporatist way, too that finds the new government, the new majority, no longer important. Although it has already been partially approved by one of the chambers, it is being evacuated from the agenda.

Last but not least, what the majority no longer considers important is creating transparency and giving insight into the often very high bets, fees and salaries of CEOs, the top business in our country. The draft on this subject had already been approved in a previous legislature in a chamber and there even the liberals agreed. This is now removed from the Parliament’s agenda. It is no longer a priority, it is no longer important, it is no longer a matter that the people of our country, the shareholders, the customers of companies know how much the top management earns, what pressure the CEOs already put on the assets of the companies, the enterprises.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, we find it very striking that the new majority of the present four progressive draft, which have already made a whole journey through our House, which are on the verge of approval and which we want to keep on the parliamentary agenda in the coming months, has slammed and voted them out in the committee.

This is a very good illustration of a substantial debate, which the Prime Minister then requested. This disappoints us very much. We rely on the progressives in the government, on the PS, because these are all matters that their ministers must carry out, and on the ACW, which in the past has strongly advocated for these texts, so that they can still be included as an amendment in the draft and thus remain in discussion in the House.

We really can’t imagine that you don’t care about sustainable development, that you don’t want to fight against corporatism in the medical professions, and that you don’t care about the exorbitantly high wages of the top business in our country. If you do not have any interest in it, if you no longer have any interest in it, if we have nothing to say about it, you must support the draft, otherwise you should support our amendments.