The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to adopt the Senate amendment on Bill C-20, an act respecting the commercialization of civil air aviation.
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Ringma
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Shepherd
Sheridan
Solberg
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Whelan
Young-131
(1510 )
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Amendments read the second time and concurred in.)
The Speaker: Colleagues, may I have your attention for one minute. I do not want to quote Yogi Berra in the House, it is not over until it is over, but if today is the last day that we are going to be sitting in this part of the session, as is the custom, I, as your Speaker, will be hosting a very small reception to just say so long for the summer.
I want to thank you very much for this part of the session. I wish you all a very pleasant and a safe summer. I look forward to welcoming all of you back on 16 septembre à l'automne.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
The Speaker: I have a point of order which I will get to, but I have a point of privilege which takes precedence over the point of order.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: In the name of my fellow Speakers, I accept all accolades.
Mr. Speaker, my point of order pertains to comments made in this Chamber on Tuesday, June 18, 1996. The comments were recorded in Hansard on page 4031. The House leader for the separatist Bloc Quebecois, the member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie, then said:
-for having misled the House by making false accusations that called into question the honesty and integrity of the member for Charlesbourg.(1515 )
The member then went on to demand an apology from me for having brought forth my point of privilege.
It is my understanding that it is unparliamentary language for a member to suggest that another member has misled the House. This morning Mr. Speaker ruled out of order another such accusation from the separatist Bloc Quebecois.
The member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie has impugned my motives and this is reflected in the official record of the proceedings of the Chamber.
I was not present in the House when these unparliamentary words were uttered. This is the first opportunity I have had to respond to bring the matter to your attention.
I refuse to apologize for defending the interests of the country against the people whose sole purpose for being in Ottawa is to desecrate and destroy what Canadians hold so dearly.
For his unparliamentary language, I believe the member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie should be required to withdraw his remarks and apologize for his accusations.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I used the word ``intentionally'' in reference to my hon. colleague. Intentionally means consciously. Listening to him in the past few days, I recognize that this was a bad choice of words. I should not have used a word meaning consciously to refer to him. I withdraw the word. I have to admit that he is not conscious.
[English]
The Speaker: I think that would close the matter. There has been a withdrawal. That is it.
I thank the hon. member for Lethbridge, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and the hon. member for Fraser Valley East for their participation in the discussion.
For the benefit of all hon. members, I remind the House the motion in question contains a number of charges against the hon.
member for Lethbridge relating to actions in which he participated at the beginning of this year.
Having rendered my ruling on Tuesday on the procedural acceptability of this motion's being dealt with under Private Members' Business, I will now address the matter of what the hon. member contends is a breach of his rights.
The member submitted that having this motion standing unresolved on the Order Paper has and will continue to seriously affect his reputation and his ability to function as a member. Further, the member argued that given my earlier ruling and that he felt he could seek no other remedy for the situation, he had no option but to bring this matter before the House as a question of privilege.
[Translation]
It has been repeatedly acknowledged by my predecessors that parliamentary privilege is narrowly defined as being limited to matters which affect members in the discharge of their parliamentary duties.
For a breach of privilege to occur, a member must sufficiently demonstrate that something has obstructed or interfered with his or her ability to discharge duties as a member of the House.
In ruling on a question of privilege, I, as Speaker, have to decide whether or not at first glance there has been a breach of privilege.
In this instance, I must determine whether or not the motion sitting on the Order Paper violates the member's privileges by, in some way, impeding him from carrying out his duties.
[English]
In the past motions regarding the conduct of members have been placed on the Order Paper under Private Members' Business and have been allowed to remain there, in some cases for the remainder of a session, without ever being brought to a decision by the House.
(1520 )
I refer members to Motion No. 132, placed on notice on May 5, 1986, Motion No. 459, placed on notice on May 24, 1989, and Motion No. 167, placed on notice on February 28, 1996. This last motion died on the Order Paper in the first session of this Parliament but, having been resubmitted under Private Members' Business in this session, was subsequently drawn and debated as a non-votable item of Private Members' Business on March 22, 1996. It was then dropped from the Order Paper without a decision of the House.
The motion now in question, Motion No. 1, was placed on notice on February 27, 1996. The hon. member for Lethbridge acknowledged he hesitated to bring this matter before the House until it had at least reached the point of debate.
While I recognize the hon. member's concern that in the near future he will not be able to respond to the charges made against him, I do not find the member has demonstrated his abilities to function as a member have in any way been affected or impeded over the course of the months that this motion has been sitting on the Order Paper. As such, I cannot find that there has been a prima facie breach of privilege.
[Translation]
The hon. member for Lethbridge sought guidance on how he might be able to address his grievance were I to find this matter not to be a prima facie breach of privilege. In the case before us, while the House will not have to take a decision on the motion in question, the hon. member will have the opportunity to respond to the motion when it is brought up for debate in the House.
In addition, let me reiterate what I said Tuesday: the rules of the House now in place allow for the proceedings on this motion to go forward. Should the House choose to re-examine these rules, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is empowered to undertake such an examination on its own initiative.
Might I therefore suggest that the hon. member consider pursuing this matter with the committee.
[English]
Again, I thank all hon. members for their contributions to this discussion.
Mr. Boudria: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. earlier today I did seek the unanimous consent of the House to debate at all stages Bill C-45. I thought I would seek this one last opportunity before we close to ask if the House would give unanimous consent to deal with all stages of Bill C-45 this afternoon.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: There is not unanimous consent.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would probably find unanimous consent to now move to private members' hour.
Some hon. members: Agreed.