Debates of Oct. 8th, 1997

Presence In The Gallery

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, in your name and on your behalf I will be receiving these distinguished Canadian in room 216 for a reception.

I formally invite all of you to meet them and to speak with them right after question period.

The Late Claude Ellis

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a few words in tribute to Mr. Claude Ellis who was a member of Parliament elected for the CCF in the city of Regina in 1953 and again in 1957.

Unfortunately Mr. Ellis passed away on October 1 of this year at the age of 77. He served two terms in the House. He was well known as a dedicated member of Parliament who served his constituents very well. He was also a superb educator and teacher. As a matter of fact, he was one of my professors when I first attended university back in the mid-1960s.

Mr. Ellis was also one of the founders of the CCF in Saskatchewan in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s. He was very active in the educational movement, in the trade union movement and in the formation of the CCF both provincially and federally.

At this stage I pay tribute to his wife Bessie who has been an activist for many years, to his three sons and his daughter and to their spouses, to his grandchildren and great-grandchildren, and to his friends.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, like the member for Qu'Appelle I was saddened to hear of the passing of Mr. Claude Ellis, a former member of Parliament for Regina City from 1952 to 1958 representing the CCF.

Mr. Ellis' interest in politics started very early in life. As a youth he served on his party's provincial council in Saskatchewan and as youth president in the late 1930s. His political involvement continued through his university years at the University of Saskatchewan. Mr. Ellis also showed his aspirations to serve very early on in life, being elected prime minister of the university parliamentary forum for two years running.

During that time Mr. Ellis was very well served by his excellent speaking ability, an ability for which he won both oratory prizes and debating trophies, culminating in a trip to Guelph, Ontario, where he walked away with the Canadian debating championship.

In the House of Commons Mr. Ellis was an advocate for the less well off in society, in particular in the areas of housing and health care, helping to form the caring society that Canada has become, a tradition that all of us from Regina would aspire to continue.

Mr. Ellis is survived by his wife Bessie, three sons and one daughter. On behalf of the Government of Canada I would like to offer our sincere condolences to the Ellis family.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition I would like to pay tribute to Claude Ellis and the work he did in the Canadian parliament.

The minister mentioned that he was involved at a very young age. He was involved at 16 years old. How many of us were thinking and breathing politics at that age? He had a pretty remarkable career. Think of the thrill he must have felt as a young man when he appeared on the same stage as J. S. Woodsworth, one of the founders of the CCF, and Mr. J. Coldwell, the national leader at that time. What a thrill it must have been for that young man.

He was elected in 1953 and again in 1957. On a personal note, my great-grandfather, Ted Applewhait, was in the 1953 to 1957 parliament. He was the Liberal member for Skeena.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

It was amazing that my great-grandfather and Claude Ellis were colleagues. I am sure they had some friendly discussions. They may have disagreed politically, but that does not matter. They served in the House. They were parliamentarians during that parliament.

On behalf of my family and the official opposition I wish his family well and thank them for the public service they and their family shared through Claude Ellis.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not have the honour of knowing Mr. Ellis, to whom tribute is being paid today, personally. But I want to say that when someone has sat in the House for two terms of office and worked hard for his constituents, we cannot but express our admiration and note that this was truly someone who put himself out for those he represented.

He was a CCF member, someone who undoubtedly did some very useful work in the Parliament of Canada and who spared no effort in serving his fellow citizens in the Regina area.

On behalf of Bloc Quebecois members, I would therefore like to express our deepest condolences to his entire family and to tell them that we are keenly aware that there were lengthy periods during which they had to manage without Mr. Ellis, because he had to be here in Ottawa to serve his constituents. They have our sympathy and our deepest respect for the sacrifices they were willing to make so that he could do his work in the House.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in tribute to Claude Ellis, former CCF member of Parliament for the city of Regina. While I did not have the privilege of knowing Mr. Ellis, I have to say the tale of his 77 years is quite unique as lives of MPs go.

Although he was a long time resident of Regina, the city he represented in the House of Commons, Mr. Ellis was born in Weyburn, Saskatchewan, the son of Bill Ellis and Peggy Dawson Gibson. He was educated at public schools and Scott Collegiate in Regina, moving on to teachers college. From this Claude Ellis enjoyed a lengthy career as an educator, teaching in Manor, Saskatchewan, and at his alma mater of Scott Collegiate.

Mr. Ellis' impressive career came to an end at the University of Regina where he was awarded the title of professor emeritus.

Claude Ellis did take some time from teaching to represent the city of Regina in the House of Commons. He was first elected in 1953 and re-elected in 1957, during which time he actively articulated the needs and concerns of his constituents. Even when he did not serve as an elected MP, Mr. Ellis remained a strong supporter of the CCF movement and later the New Democratic Party.

He formed a vibrant partnership with his beautiful wife Bessie, who for many years has been a tireless worker in the community. Together they raised three sons and one daughter, who in turn blessed Claude and Bessie Ellis with five grandchildren and two great-grandchildren.

When Claude Ellis passed away on October 1, parliament lost a former member, Saskatchewan lost a distinguished educator, but most important the Ellis family lost a husband, a father, a brother, a grandfather and a great-grandfather. We could only hope that they find solace in the wonderful life he lived and the contributions he made to education and to the public service.

On behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus I offer my condolences to members of the Ellis family on their loss.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to join with colleagues in the House of Commons to pay tribute to Claude Ellis.

I had the honour and privilege of knowing Claude Ellis for the last 24 years. I represented him and his wife Bessie in the 1993 to 1997 term. Throughout that period Bessie and Claude were advisors to me. They sat on my executive and were very wise counsel on many issues, in particular when in the last parliament the New Democratic Party did not have a lot of resources. Their experience and counsel were very important to us.

I had occasion to have supper with Mr. Ellis about 18 months ago when he was in Ottawa with his wife Bessie and we talked about a lot of important issues affecting our country. Even during the last couple of months in Regina he was always very keen on ensuring that New Democrats represented citizens well in parliament. He was very keen on ensuing that issues such as pensions were a priority and he asked us to ensure that the principles and fundamental issues which are important to all Canadians remain on the agenda of parliament.

I want to join with members in acknowledging Mr. Ellis' contribution to the city of Regina, the province of Saskatchewan and to our country. As citizens we have suffered a great loss as a result of his passing. I appreciate the opportunity to extend my condolences to his widow Bessie and their family.

[The Speaker]

We also have tributes to Mr. J. Chester MacRae a former member of the Progressive Conservative Party.

The Late Mr. J. Chester Macrae

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the citizens of New Brunswick and the constituents of the former federal riding of York—Sunbury are mourning the death of long-time resident and friend, John Chester MacRae. The former member of Parliament and D-Day veteran died this past Sunday after a brief illness.

John Chester MacRae was born in Hope-Town, Quebec, received his education at Campbellton High School and the provincial Normal School in Fredericton. He taught in the public school system until 1940 when his regiment was called out to active service. He served in Britain and France, going into France on D-Day. For service in France he was awarded the Military Cross and after his return to Canada received the Efficiency Decoration.

J. Chester MacRae continued his interest in the military after the war and throughout his life with his final appointment being honorary Colonel of the First Battalion, the Royal New Brunswick Regiment (Carleton and York).

J. Chester MacRae was elected to the House of Commons in 1957, won five subsequent elections and retired undefeated in 1972.

Former New Brunswick Premier Hugh John Flemming once described Chester MacRae as being a man who it was a privilege and pleasure to know, stating that “he was a great Canadian, distinguished in everything he's ever undertaken”.

People from the Fredericton area will always remember Chester MacRae for his dry wit. He once said “My relationship with the Conservative Party was a happy and cordial one, although elections to me were agony.”

As a long-time member of the Royal Canadian Legion he served as branch president, provincial president, grand patron and a life member of the St. Machar Masonic Lodge, Aberdeen, Scotland.

In one of his final speeches in the House 31 years ago, he reflected on a wide range of matters, some of which are very relevant today. He spoke on the issue of the population explosion, of the need for peace in the world, on the equality of all races, and the matter dearest to his heart, the veterans of Canada and, indeed, the veterans of all countries. He stated in this Chamber that those veterans who were prisoners of war underwent greater hardships than perhaps any of the rest of us who were privileged to serve in World War II.

The people of Fredericton and the people of New Brunswick will long remember J. Chester MacRae for his dedication, his service, his kindness and that rare quality, his heroism.

Chet MacRae is survived by his wife of 64 years, Mina Catherine Gerrard MacRae, one daughter Marjory Ann and her husband Jack Patterson of Vancouver, one daughter-in-law Darlene MacRae of Saint John, 10 grandchildren and six great grandchildren.

Chet MacRae would want to be remembered as an ordinary Canadian who served his country well. This he did.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured, humbled and saddened to pay tribute to Chester MacRae. He was a friend of my father's although I did not meet him until I was going door to door during the 1993 election campaign. He brought the futility of my exercise to my attention.

Being the wonderful gentleman that he was, after the election he came to visit me. We spent a wonderful afternoon discussing the difference between being a member of Parliament in 1993 and being a member of Parliament in the late fifties and early sixties. He spoke of travelling to Ottawa on the train and being away from home so much of the time. It was remarkable for me as a brand new member who had not yet been to Ottawa to have that kind of discussion.

I had the good fortune two years later on Remembrance Day as a member of Parliament to lay wreathes on behalf of the government in our communities, often in many places at the same time. I asked Chester to represent the Government of Canada and to lay the wreath in Fredericton. This was the last Remembrance Day before the onset of his illness.

During the campaign I had the opportunity to drop in and visit Chester at the DVA in Fredericton. He was very alert. He advised me that my success in 1993 was surely a fluke. I will remember him fondly for the rest of my life.

The people of the community of Fredericton know what a contribution Chester MacRae made in war, in peace, as an educator. They remember what he did for the Legion, for veterans and for his community. He will be missed. All his family and his friends in Fredericton have our condolences.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House privileged to pay tribute to Chester MacRae. Chester MacRae was the finest example of a dedicated parliamentarian, having won six federal elections and retired undefeated after 15 years of service.

The dedication one puts toward the goal of improving one's country is the mark of a great person. Chester MacRae worked tirelessly toward the improvement of Canada for future generations.

Not only did Chester MacRae serve Canada and Parliament but he was a decorated war veteran who served in both England and France, having participated in the D-Day invasion of France. For his service he was awarded the Military Cross.

Just yesterday I walked through the visitor's welcome centre to see Chester's name on a plaque that commemorates those who preceded us in this House. In addition to his honoured name we all remember his qualities of integrity, compassion and devotion, in particular toward the interests of Canada's veterans.

Chester MacRae will be sorely missed but never forgotten in this House. We offer our condolences to the members of his family, to his friends and colleagues and our sincere regrets in his passing.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we were saddened yesterday to learn of the death of Chester MacRae, who, for 15 years, from 1957 to 1972, was a Conservative member of this House.

I did not know Mr. MacRae personally, but everyone I talked to described him as a devoted individual and member of the Conservative Party for 15 years, and especially as a devoted officer in the Canadian army. Mr. MacRae was considered a hero in the second world war. He even took part in the landing in France.

Although a Conservative, Mr. MacRae was known as an ambassador of peace, mutual assistance between peoples, and equality. It was more likely the vision of Lester B. Pearson that he carried abroad than the Conservative vision of things.

All those I spoke with remembered this man clearly. He was devoted, good-natured, upstanding, courageous and a man of conviction.

On behalf of myself and my party, the Bloc Quebecois, I offer my sincere condolences to Mr. MacRae's family.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, I would like to pay my respects to the memory of J. Chester MacRae.

Mr. MacRae was a Progressive Conservative member of Parliament from 1957 to 1972. He was a decorated war veteran who served in both England and France.

As a fellow New Brunswicker, Mr. MacRae served the people of New Brunswick well. I did not have the pleasure to sit in the House with him, but he was known in Parliament as a devoted and tireless advocate for veterans' interests.

My colleagues and I in the New Democratic Party extend our sincere condolences to Mr. MacRae's family, especially to his wife Mina Catherine, his daughter Marjory Ann and his two sisters.

His contribution to Canadian and New Brunswick political life will remain with us for the years to come.

Privilege

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises out of the motion that the government intends to move with respect to time allocation on Bill C-2. It has to do with what I regard to be the responsibilities of the Chair to protect the rights and privileges of members of this House of Commons to engage in adequate debate on matters of national importance.

The Chair will know that the time allocation motion has to do with the amendments to the Canada pension plan. This is a national social program, an income security plan which is very rarely before the House, very rarely debated, very rarely amended. This is one of those occasions when it is being amended, therefore, it is a unique opportunity for members of the House of Commons to put their views on the record on what our national pension plan system should look like. We will disagree with each other about that. The Reform Party will have its position, as will the NDP. The government will have its position, as reflected in the legislation.

My concern is that the Chair consider, before seeing whoever it is who will be moving the motion on behalf of the government—we have notice that the motion will be moved—not seeing the mover of the motion as a way of using the power of the Chair to intervene on behalf of members of Parliament, both collectively and individually, in a situation where our right to adequate debate is being violated by the government's rush to judgment on the appropriateness of time allocation.

Others have said in the course of comments during question period that somehow the amendments that were moved by the opposition were an attempt to close off debate. Quite the contrary. We know these motions are procedurally designed in such as way, whether a six-month hoist or whatever, and are often moved in order to create the possibility of more debate so that the government cannot move to the question on the main motion.

It is a bit disingenuous for the government to say that this was an attempt to close off debate. It was, rather, to prevent or to act in a preventive way against the government moving to the question right away by not putting up speakers.

An amendment was moved, a subamendment was moved and right after the subamendment was moved the government gave notice of closure. How long did we debate this motion? We debated it for one day. We did not debate it the next day in the morning because we were debating Bill C-4. Then we moved to Bill C-2 and we were hardly into the second or third hour and the government moved closure.

Mr. Speaker, I know that for you to do something about this would be to break with Canadian precedent. I am aware of the significance of what I am asking you to do. I have only asked a Speaker to do this once before and it was Speaker Fraser in the context of the North American Free Trade Agreement. But you will know that at Westminster and in other Parliaments, Speakers have sometimes taken upon themselves the responsibility of ensuring that the rights of Parliament collectively are not abused by a government which moves too quickly to closure or to time allocation.

It is precisely what I am asking you to consider here today, that this is an occasion where very early in this Parliament there is no reason to believe that the debate would have gone on and on. All we wanted was an opportunity to have our amendments considered, to have a full airing of the subject, which is what second reading used to be before we got the kind of rule changes that we got in a previous Parliament in 1991 and which this government having condemned these changes now uses to the full.

I think it is the wrong way to start off this Parliament. We were doing just fine. We were getting along even though we disagree with each other politically. For the government to move at this time as I suggested earlier is a very unfortunate thing. But it is an unfortunate thing that could be remedied by the Chair taking, admittedly, new responsibilities but not responsibilities that are totally out of character with what Speakers have done in other Parliaments, to intervene on behalf of the collective rights of parliamentarians to adequate debate on a matter of obvious national importance.

Mr. Speaker, I rest my case and I ask you to consider the matter and to consider it urgently because obviously if you were to intervene you would have to do it when the motion was about to be moved. Sometimes Speakers can be given to a judicious blindness when it comes to motions being moved or to breaking new ground by actually arriving at a judgment on this in time to prevent this very unfortunate reaction on the part of the government to the fact that there was lively, informed and concerned debate about CPP reform and it moved to choke it off in the way that it did.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly in support of this member's point of privilege and lay before you two additional pieces of information which may assist you in responding to this.

First I refer to Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 3 which outlines some elements of the Constitution Act:

Without further elaboration, Canada thus was ensured a responsible cabinet system with the assumption that there will always be a recognizable government with a legislative program. If the electorate so wishes, the system also presupposes an opposition ready and willing to attack the government in an attempt to have its legislation altered or rejected—. More tentative are such traditional features as respect for the rights of the minority, which precludes a government from using to excess the extensive powers that it has to limit debate or to proceed in what the public and the opposition might interpret as unorthodox ways.

I suggest that is what we have happening here today. The government is closing off debate on the bill that the opposition and the public honestly feel is a tax increase and a massive rip-off of young Canadians. We need to express those views and the views of Canadians on this issue before the principle of the bill is adopted.

To limit that debate is to permit in effect taxation without effective and adequate representation. One of the fundamental functions for which Parliament was created was specifically to constrain arbitrary taxation and actions by the executive.

One further piece of reference for your consideration was referred to by the hon. member. On April 14, 1987 Speaker Fraser felt it necessary to make this comment to the House on this very same issue:

It is essential to our democratic system that controversial issues should be debated at reasonable length so that every reasonable opportunity shall be available to hear the arguments pro and con and that reasonable delaying tactics should be permissible to enable opponents of a measure to enlist public support for their point of view.

Speaker Fraser felt that the Speaker had a role to play in these matters. He made this statement as a result of protest from the opposition. Ironically one of the most vocal opponents to this abuse at that time was the very minister who has given notice and intends to close off debate on Bill C-2 after only eight hours of debate on the very first bill to hit this floor, a bill that is over 100 pages long and extremely technical and a bill that happens to have attached to it a schedule which imposes a payroll tax rise of 73% on millions of Canadians and employers.

The debate has only just begun and we are confident that a reasonable debate will enlist public support for our point of view and that of taxpayers and young Canadians who have little or no voice in this debate.

As Speaker Fraser said, it is essential to our democratic system, and therefore essential for you, Mr. Speaker, to protect the opposition and delay even for one day the government from moving to close off debate in this manner.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to add a few words with respect to the point of privilege raised by the member from the New Democratic Party.

The very first principle of parliamentary law as set out in Beauchesne's states:

The principles of Canadian parliamentary law are: to protect a minority and restrain the improvidence or tyranny of a majority; to secure the transaction of public business in an orderly manner; to enable every member to express opinions within limits necessary to preserve decorum and prevent an unnecessary waste of time; to give abundant opportunity for the consideration of every measure, and to prevent any legislative action being taken upon sudden impulse.

These are very telling words used in this very first section of parliamentary procedure. This is not an untimely debate in any way, shape or form. There are important issues that have to be considered and discussed.

I would also bring to the Speaker's attention the fact that the government House leader has brought forward a motion pursuant to Standing Order 78(3) which is, as you know, predicated on the House leader's not being able to reach an agreement for the allocation of time for a stage of a bill.

I want to bring to the Chair's attention that at no time did the government House leader raise the subject of a time allocation agreement at our meetings. There was no consultation. He did ask if a number of our members were prepared to debate further, but there was no consideration given to the fact that there was going to be further debate.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 78, I would ask you, in your capacity as Speaker, to rule on the motion and rule it out of order, keeping in mind that there were no actual attempts to reach agreement between the House leaders. That may or may not be possible but the government House leader has an obligation to ask the question to the other House leaders and permit consultation.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond briefly to the question of privilege raised by the House leader of the New Democratic Party and supported by two other members of this House earlier this day.

I think the Chair will need to consider two issues. One, is the House leader of the New Democratic Party correct about what he has alleged this afternoon? Two, is he also correct in the purpose of the amendment that he has offered to the House along with other members?

Let me take the points in reverse. The amendments that are before us today, just to remind the Chair, are as follows. The amendment offered in the name of the member for Calgary Southwest reads “that this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-2” and so on. That amendment is further amended by a subamendment in the name of the hon. member for Halifax West.

In his presentation, the hon. member from the New Democratic Party conceded to the fact that the purpose of the amendment was to prevent the bill from proceeding. He said it in this House some moments ago. In other words, the amendment is specifically designed to prevent us from having the committee study of the bill. That is what he admitted to on the floor of this House.

Having established that the opposition has admitted today and possibly in its speeches over the last couple of days that the purpose of what it is doing is to prevent the bill from proceeding to the next stage, I believe that any reasonable person would claim that the government has an equal right to propose measures to ensure that the bill does proceed in good and proper form.

Hon. members across are heckling, very rudely I might add, at this moment but they should be listening in particular to the judgment that Mr. Speaker will no doubt be giving in a few moments.

It has been alleged that there was no consultation. Let me remind the Speaker of the rules of the House to that effect. Standing Order 78(1) refers to the procedure as follows: “When a minister of the crown, from his or her place in the House, states that there is agreement” and so on. Standing Order 78(2) states, “When a minister of the crown, from his or her place in the House, states that a majority of the representatives—have come to an agreement—” and finally, Standing Order 78(3) is the procedure when an agreement cannot be reached.

Yesterday afternoon at 3.30 there was a meeting in which I asked all members present, and all parties were present, whether or not they intended to put more speakers. Only one of the four opposition parties, I believe it was the Bloc Quebecois, indicated a definite number of speakers that it wanted to put up.

Shortly afterward after having held the consultation in which I did not get a commitment from all parties represented pursuant to Standing Order 78(1) and (2), then on the floor of the House moments later, a further dilatory motion was produced within minutes of the end of our meeting, this time proposed by an NDP member, the purpose of which was again to further delay proceeding on the bill. That was after the consultation was held.

Finally, later yesterday afternoon before I proposed a motion on the floor of this House I even informed my counterpart in the official opposition which I believe was the good and proper thing to do so a motion would not be introduced behind his back. That was done in good and proper form at a meeting at which Your Honour was present.

Mr. Speaker, you must judge whether an amendment that you will be receiving later is in order. Of course the House has not been seized of that motion yet, which could come later this day. Once you receive such an amendment, if one is forthcoming, the Chair will have to decide whether the amendment is in order and acceptable to this House.

Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that on the third day of debating this bill, the purpose of which is to refer it to committee after years of consultation in the public generally, to move it to committee so we can hear witnesses on this federal-provincial agreement is not wrong. To send it to committee for detailed study is not wrong. It is the good and appropriate thing to do.

For the opposition to produce two different amendments, the purpose of which is dilatory as admitted on the floor of this House today, and the purpose of which is only to make the same hon. members speak not once, not twice but even three times on the same bill at second reading is nothing short of a dilatory measure. It is quite legitimate for the government and for this House to want to listen to ordinary Canadians, people from the private sector and the provinces as to why this measure is necessary in order to ensure a pension plan for our children and grandchildren.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are two points which must be clarified in the House.

The government House leader is incorrect in his assertion that the amendments may be an avenue to limit debate. The fact of the matter is that our amendment in and of itself is debatable, and that is what we want to do in the House. We want to debate the merits of the bill through our amendments.

Our amendment reflects a difference of opinion in the House, an alternative to be debated. I question the point of sending the bill to committee if the government is already showing its indifference to any other opinion but its own by shutting down debate.

Furthermore, the government House leader indicated today that adequate and reasonable notice was given to me in the House. As it happened, yesterday I was at a meeting of the Board of Internal Economy. I was called outside the door and given notice that he was on his way downstairs to give notice to the House. I hardly call that adequate and reasonable notice in this day and age of democracy.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege to provide some clarity. In my view the government House leader has partially misinformed parliament.

The government House leader and all members know that it is standard procedure for the opposition, and maybe another opposition party or two, to move amendments and subamendments on important bills. This is not out of the ordinary. The purpose is to provide fuller debate.

When I was at a meeting yesterday with the government House leader, other House leaders and whips, they asked us how many more speakers we had and we said about five. The government House leader has forgotten that number.

He also said that the motions we have passed with respect to the amendments would allow each member of Parliament to speak three times. The majority of New Democratic Party members have not had an occasion to speak once on the bill, never mind three times. I have not spoken on the bill and I want to speak on the bill. I stepped aside for members of Parliament who have not had an opportunity to speak yet. I would like to do that at some point.

The final point I want to make is quite outrageous. It deals with what the government House leader said. He failed to give New Democrats notice of this motion. That is absolutely incredulous in view of our co-operative parliament and the way we have made progress in the first three weeks of parliament as five official parties.

He has failed his unofficial pact, denied the pact, or abandoned the pact to provide some co-operation to deal with issues of a substantive nature.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have new and relevant information on this issue. I am vice-chair of the House of Commons finance committee. The government's premise that it is important to get this legislation to committee for debate is simply false.

Not only has this not been discussed, but the House of Commons finance committee strikes out next week to go on a tour across the country to hear from Canadians on completely different issues.

The clerk and chairman of the committee made it very clear in the discussions we had that in the nine days after that when we will be sitting up until the middle of November we will be hearing witnesses on a completely different issue, the pre-budget hearings.

When the House leader opposite says this legislation is being pushed into committee, I can assure that is absolutely false.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have one piece of information of which I would like you to be aware. I have not spoken to the bill and I want to speak to the bill.

[The Speaker]

Members have asked me to rule on a specific question of privilege. I want to thank all hon. members who have taken part in giving me the information I have before me now.

With regard to what the member for Winnipeg—Transcona said, I am aware and I understand full well the serious nature of this request and the rather innovative way that he suggests it might be resolved.

At this point, unless I have more direction from the entire House and in view of the fact that Speakers have consistently ruled since 1968 that they would not intervene in the quality of whatever discussions took place on either matter, I am left to decide this on what is in the standing orders.

At this point I hesitate to go down the road where you would put this kind of discretionary power into the hands of your Speaker. Therefore I would rule at this time that there is no question of privilege.