VOLUME 133 NUMBER 245 1st SESSION 35th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Monday, October 23, 1995 Speaker: The Honourable Gilbert Parent HOUSE OF COMMONS Monday, October 23, 1995 The House met at 11 a.m. My concern is not really with the time of the vote. The point is we should be careful about following the rules. Our distin- _______________ guished table officer, Stanley Knowles, once said that the opposition has only the rules for its protection, hence the Prayers authorities on parliamentary procedure emphasize the great importance to the opposition of the only protection it has, the _______________ protection of the rules. [English] Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speak- POINTS OF ORDER er, the hon. member is quite right in his vigilance in seeing that BILL C–106 the rules are correctly applied and interpreted. I commend his efforts in this regard. Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speak- er, the Journals of Thursday, October 19 show the vote on Bill I note that he is not objecting to the fact that the vote is C–106 was deferred by the chief government whip to today at scheduled for 5.30 p.m. this afternoon. I submit that the decision 5.30 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 45. However, according to which the Speaker made at the time of the request last week was Standing Order 45(6)(a): correct. A division deferred on Thursday is not held on Friday, but is instead deferred I refer the hon. member to Standing Order 45(5)(a)(ii): to the next sitting day, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment. During the sounding of the bells, either the Chief Government Whip or the The next sitting day is today and the ordinary hour of daily Chief Opposition Whip may ask the Speaker to defer the division. The adjournment is 6.30 p.m., not 5.30 p.m. Speaker then defers it to a specific time, which must be no later than the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on the next sitting day that is not a Friday. The chief government whip cannot unilaterally defer a vote At that time, the bells sound for not more than fifteen minutes. from Thursday to Friday to Monday to any other time but the When the request was made on Thursday it was deferred in ordinary hour of daily adjournment, to wit 6.30 p.m. He could do accordance with this standing order to the next sitting day that it pursuant to Standing Order 45(7) but as as you know, Mr. was not a Friday, which was Monday, at a time not later than the Speaker, he would need consent from the three whips for that. ordinary hour of daily adjournment. In other words, the chief He did not ask me so that leaves him with only one option government whip, who I believe made the request last Thursday, which is unanimous consent. If it was done by unanimous made it in accordance with Standing Order 45(5)(a)(ii) in consent the records would indicate that. The records show the requesting that it be deferred until Monday at 5.30 p.m. I believe vote was deferred pursuant to Standing Order 45. he had that right under that standing order. Mr. Speaker, if you would also check Hansard and the video I know that Standing Order 45(6)(a) deals with Friday divi- for that day you would find that unanimous consent was not sions. It was intended as a rule to deal with divisions which sought. In fact the government whip was not in his seat to be in a might otherwise take place on Fridays, in saying that it went to position to ask for unanimous consent; he was in front of the the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on Monday. In respect of Speaker’s chair. As you know, Mr. Speaker, it is from there that Thursday votes, that was intended as an explanation. However, he asks that votes be deferred according to the authority granted the rule which allows the time to be fixed was set in Standing him under the standing order. The standing orders in this case do Order 45(5), not in Standing Order 45(6). not give him the authority to defer a vote from Thursday to 5.30 p.m. today. No doubt the hon. member makes a very neat point. However he has missed the other part of the rule, which in my submission It may not even be necessary for you to rule, Mr. Speaker. The applies in this case. That is the rule to allow the chief govern- problem can be solved if the House gives its consent to have the ment whip or the chief opposition whip to set a time earlier than vote at 5.30 p.m., which consent I and the Reform Party are the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on any day when a vote is prepared to give. deferred. 15671 COMMONS DEBATES October 23, 1995 Private Members’ Business It would be incongruous if the rule relating to Thursday It is an issue that is near and dear to my heart. It is an issue that divisions was different from that relating to divisions deferred has affected, over the years, tens of thousands of federal on any other day. If, for example, a division is demanded today, employees. And it is an issue, once again, that I believe should the chief government whip or the chief opposition whip may be brought to the attention of the people who are elected to defer the division to any time tomorrow not later than the represent these public servants. As members of Parliament we ordinary hour of daily adjournment. It would be incongruous if are supposed to be affirming in the House the equality of the rule were interpreted, as the hon. member has suggested, that employees, the equality of individuals, the equality of opportu- where a division is demanded on a Thursday it must go to 6.30 nity and the equity of people’s labour. p.m. on Monday and not to any intermediate time. It cannot go to Friday. That much the rule is clear on. I will talk a little about the regional rates of pay so that people understand exactly what they are. In years gone by, the federal I submit that Standing Order 45(5) allows for discretion in government through the collective bargaining process, came to asking for a vote any time during the day on Monday, assuming an agreement with its federal public employee unions that there that Monday is the next sitting day, no later than the ordinary should be regional rates of pay. hour of daily adjournment. That is the purpose of the rule, in accordance with the interpretation which has been placed on it This was done at a point in time when the economies were over many years. The decision which was made last Thursday to much different than they are today. It was done at a time when defer the vote until 5.30 p.m. today by the Chair on request was one could argue that there were vast differences in economic absolutely correct. conditions in various parts of the country, say in Winnipeg, in Halifax, in Sydney and St. John’s, Newfoundland. (1110 ) As total or global packages were negotiated it was agreed that Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, for today, as I have said, we are there should be regional rates of pay. It meant that employees of quite happy to accept 5.30 p.m. as the time for the vote. I submit the federal government who did a similar or identical job would it is your prerogative to examine the case put forward today get paid at a different rate based on where they lived. versus that of the government benches to see what the technical- ity is. As time went on, initially the rates grew in numbers. With the The Speaker: I thank both members for their intervention on development of our economy, with the genesis of the economy this matter. I have re–read the rules. What I would like to do at and the consolidation of transportation infrastructure across the this point with your consent is have a brief look at the tapes and country, it became increasingly apparent that to continue a to revisit Hansard. I will rule formally later this day. discriminatory wage practice based solely on a single factor of the employee living in a certain area was clearly discriminatory. _____________________________________________ Over the last 15 years through successive collective agree- ments each and every time there has been the global negotiation, the number of regional rates has collapsed. PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS They have gone from a high of 35 or 40 down to today where only 8 or 9 regional rates of pay are left. That is solid recognition [English] that individuals’ pay should be based on their qualifications and the job they do and not on where they live. Their fundamental REGIONAL RATES OF PAY wage package should not be based on where they live any more than it should be based on their language, colour, gender or Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth, Lib.) moved: culture. It is discriminatory. Today it still stands as a discrimina- That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider tory practice. What does this mean? It means quite a bit to the abolishing the Regional Rates of Pay, now in force for certain federal people who are affected by these discriminatory wage rates.