Friday, April 18, 1997
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CANADA VOLUME 134 S NUMBER 159 S 2nd SESSION S 35th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Friday, April 18, 1997 Speaker: The Honourable Gilbert Parent CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) The House of Commons Debates are also available on the Parliamentary Internet Parlementaire at the following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca 9919 HOUSE OF COMMONS Friday, April 18, 1997 The House met at 10 a.m. substituted or to be placed on the Order Paper for today. I appreciate that the rules also say that a member will give 48 hours’ _______________ written notice. Prayers I want to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that is one test. However, there are other tests. Certainly the office had more than 24 hours to _______________ contact other people and to ensure that the orderly conduct of private member’s hour would continue. [English] Although 48 hours is one point, 24 hours is another point. The Speaker: Order. I have notice of a question of privilege Somewhere in that 24 hour interval there was opportunity. The from the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton and I propose to hear office did know I was looking for a substitution. Had I been offered that before we proceed with any other business. that place, it would have meant the rules requiring that 24 hours’ notice be given and would have been published yesterday at 6 p.m. * * * I would suggest that as a result of this that my rights and my PRIVILEGE privileges have been usurped. In fact it is within your authority, Mr. Speaker, to do one of two things. Either to cancel the continuation PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS of government business at 1.30 p.m. today, or to add a private Mr. Roger Gallaway (SarniaLambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I member’s hour following that one hour that has been apparently rise this morning on a question of privilege concerning the removed at this point. cancellation of private members’ hour today. I should point out that the bill to which I am referring has passed I learned yesterday afternoon that the member for Vancouver through the House, has passed through the Senate and only needs to North, whose motion appeared at position number one for today, come back on the Order Paper here. Notwithstanding the fact that had notified the office of Private Members’ Business that he would the 48 hour notice has not been complied with in the sense of not be appearing. I spoke with the hon. member this morning and in Standing Order 94(2)(a), that the orderly conduct of business could fact he had notified that office at the opening hour, 9 a.m. yesterday have continued. The 24 hour notice provision would have been morning. complied with. Prior to that I had a bill put on the order of precedence, as The 48 hour notice is not a precedent in the sense that a member published yesterday in the Order Paper at No. 28. It was submitted must give written notice. I am advised that often members will call to the private members’ office at 5.55 p.m. Wednesday evening. I from distant places and say: ‘‘By the way I am not going to be advised the clerk that if a substitution was to be made that I was there’’. Someone may call on a Monday from some remote place in looking for one. The next morning at 9 a.m. the clerk was advised. the world and say he or she is not going to be here and not be able to Standing Order 94(1) states that ‘‘the Speaker shall make all provide written notice to the clerk, who on many occasions has arrangements necessary to ensure the orderly conduct of Private acted. They have I understand also acted in terms of this window of Members’ Business, including ensuring that all members have not opportunity being the point between 24 and 48 hours. less than 24 hours’ notice of items to be considered during private It is on that basis that I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that my members’ hour’’. privileges have been usurped and I ask for this extension or D (1005 ) substitution of government business from 1.30 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. As of yesterday morning at 9 a.m., notice had been given. In fact Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I think on the evening prior, at approximately 5.55 p.m., notice had been the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton has raised a very important given of a bill on the Order Paper that was published yesterday. At point in his question of privilege. Private Members’ Business is a no time did I receive from that office an opportunity to be when we bring material to this House which we take very seriously. 9920 COMMONS DEBATES April 18, 1997 Government Orders The fact that I cancelled my appearance today on a private a request for unanimous consent that your bill be debated today, I member’s bill was actually done as a form of protest because my would be interested in receiving such a request. bill is non-votable. Mr. Gallaway: Mr. Speaker, I ask the House for unanimous consent to have a private members’ hour today from 1.30 p.m. to The member for Sarnia—Lambton has a votable piece of 2.30 p.m. material, and notwithstanding the Standing Orders and a ruling that you might make in connection with that, I would also like to The Speaker: Does the hon. member have the permission of the suggest that perhaps in the process that is going on here we may be House to put forth the motion? able to get unanimous consent of the House to do a substitution and Some hon. members: Agreed. to meet the needs of the hon. member. Some hon. members: No. The Speaker: I take it as part of my duties as your Speaker to The Speaker: There is no agreement. Therefore, we will not ensure that there is a reasonable continuation of business in the proceed with this point. House. _____________________________________________ D (1010 ) GOVERNMENT ORDERS The hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton has quoted the passages [English] in the rules which are germane to this point of privilege. The hon. member puts forward in his argument that he was not contacted INCOME TAX BUDGET AMENDMENTS ACT, 1996 24 hours prior to the period or surely he would have agreed to have his bill brought forward. I believe this is in Standing Order 94(1). If The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-92, an act to I am off on the number the clerks will correct me. amend the Income Tax Act, the Income Tax Application Rules and another act related to the Income Tax Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee. In Standing Order 94(2) of the rules of the House, which were established by us together in concert, it is quite clear that the Mr. Zed: Madam Speaker, I understand there is unanimous Speaker should have notice some 48 hours prior to making any agreement that the third reading stage of Bill C-92 may be move. The reason the Speaker is given the 48 hours is so that he considered as soon as the second reading stage is completed. will be able to contact the member at least in the next 24 hours to The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there unani- have this member bring forward his bill. mous consent? The hon. member argues that sometimes written notice is not Some hon. members: Agreed. given. In my short experience here and because of the faxes that we D (1015) now have, when a member calls to say he or she cannot bring forward a bill, we usually ask that a fax be sent and usually that is Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.) moved that the done. bill, as amended, be concurred in and read the second time. The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the plea- Be that as it may, the rules are quite explicit. They state that sure of the House to adopt the motion? notification should be given to the table officers, who will then Some hon. members: Agreed. inform the Speaker, so that there can be an orderly procedure in Private Members’ Business. Some hon. members: On division. (Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.) I would rule that the Speaker did not get the 48 hours’ notice and therefore I did not order the clerks to give the hon. member 24 The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): When shall the hours’ notice. bill be read the third time? By leave, now? Some hon. members: Agreed. The hon. member for North Vancouver is here. He also confirms Mr. Martin (LaSalle—Emard) moved that the bill be read the that he did not give the Chair 48 hours’ notice. third time and passed. Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of What I find interesting in this whole matter is that you and the Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to hon. member for North Vancouver are both here and you both seem debate Bill C-92, the Income Tax Budget Amendments Act, 1996. to agree that this would be acceptable to the two of you. The suggestion put by the hon. member for North Vancouver might be When I last addressed the House on Bill C-92 it was to the way to get around it.