CANADA House of Commons Debates VOLUME 138 Ï NUMBER 022 Ï 2nd SESSION Ï 37th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Tuesday, November 5, 2002 Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) All parliamentary publications are available on the ``Parliamentary Internet Parlementaire´´ at the following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca 1263 HOUSE OF COMMONS Tuesday, November 5, 2002 The House met at 10 a.m. necessarily mean that the item will actually be debated or that it will be debated any time soon. Prayers The Order Paper contains numerous items for which notice has been given but which have not yet been debated. The parliamentary secretary suggested that proceedings on supply days are different. Ï (1005) [English] While I agree that certain aspects of supply have a character distinct from other proceedings, it seems to me that unless the rules POINTS OF ORDER on supply are explicit, the usual practices should be followed. This is SUPPLY DAY MOTIONS—SPEAKER'S RULING the case with notice. The Speaker: On October 30, 2002, the hon. Minister of State [English] and government House leader raised a point of order concerning the When the House adopted the modernization report, it seems to me interpretation of Standing Order 81(14)(a), a provision adopted that we took a step away from the situation described by Mr. Speaker pursuant to the report of the Special Committee on Modernization. Fraser. There is now an expressed desire to have some certainty [Translation] about what is to be debated on an upcoming allotted day. But, while the House has taken one step in that direction, it has not actually Standing Order 81 (14) (a) reads as follows: decided to prohibit notice of more than one motion. This may be an (14)(a) Written notice of an opposition motion on an allotted day shall be filed area that requires a second look. with the Clerk of the House not later than one hour prior to the opening of the sitting on the day preceding the allotted day, and the Speaker shall read the text of the Therefore, for the present, the Chair will accept that the procedural motion at the opening of that sitting and shall indicate whether the motion is one that requirements of Standing Order 81(14)(a) have been met provided shall come to a vote pursuant to section (16) of this Standing Order. that the notice or notices of motion are duly filed with the Clerk so [English] the Speaker can properly inform the House of their filing on the day before the allotted day on which they will be debated. When Orders The hon. government House leader contested the fact that the of the Day are reached on the allotted day, if more than one motion Speaker had read two notices of motion filed with the Clerk on the remains on notice, then the Speaker will have to determine which day preceding the allotted day scheduled for October 31. Let me now motion will be called for debate. address those concerns. Finally, let me just say that I recognize and accept the wisdom of While it is unusual for more than one notice of motion to be filed my predecessors in this House in refusing to speculate on for debate on a supply day, the practice of submitting notice of more hypothetical situations. However, for those who fear that this than one motion is certainly not without precedent. uncertainty might be exploited to mischievous ends, may I say that, In adopting the modernization committee report, the House taken together, our practice and our Standing Orders seem clear appears to have opted for an orderliness and a certainty in its enough to permit the Chair to intervene without hesitation, in the proceedings by requiring the Speaker, on the day before the debate is highly unlikely event of an exaggerated number of notices being to take place, to inform the House of the text of the allotted day filed. motion to be debated. The hon. government House leader argues that Meanwhile, if members feel that this is not satisfactory or that this would, in effect, prevent the Speaker from announcing notice of they wish to create greater certainty, the Standing Committee on more than one motion. Procedure and House Affairs may wish to examine the matter The text of Standing Order 81(14)(a) refers to only one notice; further. however, our practice has never prevented consideration of more *** than one motion on an allotted day. I refer the House to the words of Mr. Speaker Fraser on December 7, 1989, in Hansard at page 6583- BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 4: The Speaker: Having given that ruling, it is my duty, pursuant to [Translation] Standing Order 81(14), to inform the House that the motion to be According to our rules and practice, the purpose of notice is to give warning to the considered tomorrow during consideration of the business of supply House of an item of business that might be raised for debate. The notice does not is as follows: 1264 COMMONS DEBATES November 5, 2002 Routine Proceedings That, in the opinion of this House, all Canadians are to be treated equally and in the petition, that rural route mail carriers frequently earn less than fairly, and since Prairie wheat and barley producers are discriminated against solely the minimum wage when their pay is calculated on an hourly basis. because of their location and occupation, this House call on the government to take immediate action to end this discrimination and give Prairie farmers the same marketing choices that are available in the rest of Canada. Ï (1015) Ï (1010) [Translation] RIGHTS OF THE UNBORN This motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Calgary Southeast is not votable. Copies of the motion are available at the Table. Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have a number of names on a petition that draw attention of the House to the fact that modern science has ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS unequivocally and irrefutably established that a human being begins at the moment of conception. They therefore request that the [English] government bring in legislation defining a human fetus or embryo GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS from the moment of conception, whether in the womb of the mother or not and whether conceived naturally or otherwise, as a human Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of being, and making any and all consequential amendments to all the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadian laws as required. pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 12 petitions. *** STEM CELL RESEARCH CRIMINAL CODE Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP) Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian moved for leave to introduce Bill C-297, an act to amend the Alliance): Mr. Speaker, my second petition is from those wanting to Criminal Code (sale of intoxicating products). draw attention of the House to the scientific fact that a human being exists from fertilization on and therefore it is unethical to harm or She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this bill which destroy some human beings to benefit others, in other words human would make it an offence under the Criminal Code to sell inhalants beings being destroyed in the process of taking their stem cells. and other sniff products for the purpose of intoxication. This proposal seeks to stop those in our society who deliberately prey on our young people in times of vulnerability. It is an attempt to The petitioners would want adult stem cells promoted in a great reverse a tragic increase in the number of young Canadians who way in the country with funding. They request that the Parliament of inhale, sniff or drink a range of poisonous substances that have Canada ban embryo research and direct the Canadian Institutes of lasting side effects and cause permanent damage. It is the result of Health Research to support and fund only promising ethical research many years of work by activists in the Winnipeg community, and in that does not involve the destruction of human life. particular members of the non-potable alcohol and inhalant abuse committee. Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, I would encourage all members to consider this legislation which Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand to represent is one measure we could take to promote and protect the health and 89 constituents who want to be recorded as calling upon Parliament well-being of Canadians. to focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research to find the (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) cures and therapies necessary to treat the illnesses and diseases of suffering Canadians. *** PETITIONS Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am CANADA POST presenting a petition signed by about 100 people in the St. John's area who are making the point that non-embryonic stem cells, which Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Mr. are also known as adult stem cells, have shown significant research Speaker, I am honoured today to introduce a petition on the subject progress without the immune rejection or ethical problems of the lack of collective bargaining rights for rural route mail associated with embryonic stem cells. carriers. The petition draws the attention of hon. members to the fact that rural route mail carriers are forbidden under subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act to bargain collectively.