[English]
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move later this day concurrence in the 42nd report.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I plan to refer this bill to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development before the second reading.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
That, no later than the conclusion of Routine Proceedings on the 10th sitting day after the adoption of this motion, Bill C-234, an act to amend the Criminal Code, shall be deemed reported back to the House without amendment.Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a very brief point of order concerning the admissibility of this motion at this stage of our proceedings.
It appears this motion has been set down under Routine Proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 67(1)(p) as a motion:
-made upon Routine Proceedings, as may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the appointment or conduct of its officers, the management of its business-I would refer the Chair to the annotated standing orders, page 213, which state very clearly:
With reference to subsection (p), the Chair has consistently ruled that all motions referring to the business of the House should be introduced by the Government House Leader.Speaker's rulings to this effect can be found in Journals from May 30, 1928, May 11, 1944 and May 2, 1961. Madam Speaker Sauvé ruled very clearly against such a motion's being proposed by a private member on April 21, 1982, as seen at pages 16701-2 of Debates for that date.
On July 13, 1988 Mr. Speaker Fraser gave a more adventurous opinion, saying with regard to such motions: ``It is not the exclusive purview of the government despite the government's unquestioned prerogative to determine the agenda of business before the House''.
On September 23 our present Speaker went one step further when he said: ``Under our current practices the Chair may well accept after due notice such a motion on the condition that it is very strictly limited to the terms of the committal of a bill to a committee and that it is not an attempt to interfere with the committee's proceedings thereon''.
(1510)
The Speaker has said that such a motion may be in order but that if the motion sought to interfere with the committee's work on the bill other than to oblige the committee to complete its work by a
specified time, it would not be possible to admit such a motion under Routine Proceedings.
If one reads the motion in question, one sees that the motion would not only order the committee to complete its study of the bill by a certain time, but it would also propose to instruct the committee that it cannot make any amendments to the proposed bill. This clearly and explicitly violates the conditions set down by Mr. Speaker on September 23 last.
The motion is clearly an attempt to interfere improperly with the committee's proceedings on the bill in question and I submit that even if the motion were otherwise acceptable the inclusion of the words ``without amendment'' violates the conditions set down by the Speaker and makes this motion inadmissible under the rubric Routine Proceedings to propose a motion of this nature under Routine Proceedings.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, while this motion is in no way, shape or form intended to restrict the committee in doing its work, it only asks that the committee report back here and if it has not done so, that it be deemed to have done so by a certain date.
Reform raised this point of privilege some weeks ago when the House reconvened. On September 23, 1996 you ruled, Mr. Speaker, that the matter was not a matter of privilege:
Since hon. members and the House have a remedy to their grievance I cannot find that the decision taken by the committee has prevented members from expressing their opinions or attending to their parliamentary functions.Instead, Mr. Speaker, you viewed this as a substantial grievance and you pointed to a mechanism to resolve this matter:
However, should the House be of the opinion that the bill has remained with the committee too long it can look into the matter.With respect to the committal of the bill a motion can be placed under the rubric motions. That is your ruling, Mr. Speaker.
This is precisely what the hon. member for Crowfoot has done. He did so because private members need to resolve this particular matter. This matter is important to the private member because it represents the larger question of whether a private member can present an alternative when faced with the disapproval of the government leadership.
If this motion is not pursued at this time and, for example, is transferred to Government Orders, the answer to the above question would therefore be no.
If it is to become a government order then only a cabinet minister will be able to continue the debate on this matter of a private member's business, and that would be a dangerous precedent. We, as private members, sent Bill C-234 to committee. We, as private members, should be able to cause a vote to take place on this motion.
A thorough majority of the private members of this House have had no real input into the discussion. This does not necessarily mean that the majority wants the motion to be taken away and buried. We, as private members, may want to continue the debate on another day. If this issue is transferred, for example, to Government Orders, we allow the government to hide behind a technicality as raised by the chief government whip, which is how we got into this mess in the first place, and the government has now become involved in Private Members' business and impeded the process through a procedural trick. We cannot allow that to happen in this House.
Mr. Speaker, I refer you to Standing Order No. 1:
In all cases not provided for hereinafter, or by other Order of the House, procedural questions shall be decided by the Speaker or Chairman-I would also refer you to Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 1002 and 1006. These citations explain how it is the responsibility of the Speaker to carry out and arrange for scheduling as well as to determine priorities for Private Members' Business.
This is the first time that we have had such a motion in this House with regard to this issue. Mr. Speaker, not only is it within your power to set a practice but it is your responsibility to ensure that a matter of Private Members' Business remains a matter of Private Members' Business.
(1515 )
This motion must be allowed to remain before the House under motions so that a private member can resume that we can continue the debate. Another option is to consider transferring the motion to Private Members' Business as a votable item. In any event, we voted freely to have Bill C-234 referred to committee and we should vote freely to have Bill C-234 reported to the House.
As private members and particularly as private members in a minority situation, we must be protected by the rules and we must be protected from government domination.
The responsibility of deciding this issue rests with you, Mr. Speaker. I urge you to rule once again on the side of the private member.
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure you that the motion I have placed before the House will in no way impede the work of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. The committee has completely dealt with the bill. It decided by way of motion not to move the bill forward. The only alternative that I have to bring the bill back before the House to be dealt with by members
of the House is to bring forward this motion as you indicated, Mr. Speaker, in your decision on the earlier motion.
I wish to assure you that this motion does not interfere at all with the workings of the committee regarding the bill because the work of the committee has been absolutely finalized and completed. I place my remarks on the record for your purpose.
The Speaker: My colleagues, I do take a great interest in this motion and I am fully aware of the decision which I rendered on September 23.
I have of course listened to the advice of the chief government whip. He raises one or two points that I wish to consider.
I would like to take some time to once again go over the decision in light of the circumstances which have been brought forth and I will return to the House with a decision. In the meantime, this motion will remain on the Order Paper under Motions under Routine Business until I do render my decision. That will be as soon as I can get to it.
(Motion agreed to.)
They point out that the safety of consumers and senior citizens in particular is at risk because brand name drug manufacturers are attempting to force generic drug manufacturers to market their equivalent products in a size, shape and colour different from the brand name medication.
Any action that affects the look of generic drugs could endanger the safety of patients through improper use of medicines. Therefore, the petitioners request that Parliament regulate the longstanding Canadian practice of marketing generic drugs in a size, shape and colour which is similar to that of brand name equivalents.
They urge that all levels of government demonstrate support of education and literacy by eliminating sales tax on reading materials. They ask Parliament to zero rate books, magazines and newspapers under GST and that the provinces, including Ontario, consider harmonizing their sales taxes. Reading materials must be zero rated under provincial sales taxes as well as GST.
(1520 )
I am delighted that the government has moved on some of the areas which have been addressed by the petitioners.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to honour and recognize their Canadian peacekeepers in the form of a Canadian peacekeeping medal.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to refrain from transferring the housing co-operative portfolio to the provincial governments and to preserve it for the citizens of Canada. They are further calling upon Parliament to review its reports regarding the cost effectiveness of our self-sufficient housing co-operatives managed by volunteers and to renew the commitment to support co-operative housing across the country.
The petitioners are asking Parliament to support Bill C-205 which would prohibit profits from crime.
In the first petition the petitioners request the House of Commons to enact legislation or amend existing legislation to define marriage as a voluntary union for life of one woman and one man to each other to the exclusion of all others.
The petitioners state that applying the 7 per cent GST to reading materials is unfair and wrong. As supporters of literacy the petitioners believe that literacy and reading are critical to Canada's future and that removing the GST from reading materials will help to promote literacy in Canada.
The petitioners urge Parliament to remove the GST from books, magazines and newspapers. They urge the federal and provincial governments to ensure that reading materials are not taxed under the proposed harmonized sales tax. They ask the Prime Minister to carry out his party's repeated promise to remove federal sales tax from books, magazines and newspapers.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to enact two strikes legislation requiring anyone who has been convicted a second time of one or more sexual offences against a minor person as defined by the Criminal Code of Canada to be sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole or early release. Also, for anyone awaiting trial on any such offences mentioned in the petition the petitioners pray that such a person be held in lawful custody without eligibility for bail or release of any form whatsoever until such time as the matter is fully concluded in a Canadian court of law.
The first petition comes from Abbotsford, B.C. The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that our police and firefighters place their lives at risk on a daily basis as they serve the emergency needs of all Canadians. They also state that in many cases the families are left without sufficient financial means to meet their obligations.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to establish a public safety officers compensation fund to receive gifts and bequests for the benefit of families of police officers and firefighters who are killed in the line of duty.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value to our society. The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families who choose to provide care in the home for preschool children, the chronically ill, the aged or the disabled.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that the consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health problems or impair one's ability and specifically that fetal alcohol syndrome or other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to enact legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the containers of all alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers and others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.
(1525 )
The petitioners state that the existing 7 per cent GST is an unjust taxation of reading materials and that education and literacy are critical to the development of our country and a regressive tax on reading handicaps that development.
The petitioners urge all levels of government to demonstrate support of education and literacy by eliminating sales tax on reading materials. They ask Parliament to zero rate books, magazines and newspapers under the GST as the provinces and Ottawa consider harmonizing. Unfortunately, they already have harmonized. The petitioners ask that reading materials be zero rated under the provincial sales taxes as well as GST.
I know, Mr. Speaker, when you were in opposition you spoke so eloquently and harshly about some of the drawbacks of the GST. Therefore, I know you not only appreciate this petition, I am sure you would agree with it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The hon. member for Beaver River knows that it is out of order for a member to say whether the member agrees or disagrees with a petition. I am sure
that in the kind comments she made she was not suggesting that either she or I would take a particular position in respect of the petition which she so ably presented.
Miss Grey: Not at all.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Shall all questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.