Bill C-10 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, there was a lot of hot air but not much substance in that comment. Let us get to the facts in terms of the $2 million cost. Admittedly so, it was the net cost of the program as originally estimated. The member talks about the $1 billion figure. We are not at $1 billion; by 2005 we may reach that point.

I do want to make this point. The members are saying that I was opposed to this system and that since I became a minister I now support it. I think it would be useful if members opposite went back to look at the voting record in Hansard . They will see how I voted on this issue. Certainly I have debated, as have many members of our caucus; I see some of them sitting here. I have debated within our own caucus and within the House some of the concerns we had on the gun registry. We did have concerns. We tried to improve it.

That is what we are trying to do today: improve the bill to meet the concerns of the people within our party and some of the concerns of the people opposite and certainly of the general public.

On the last point on democracy, the member says to listen to the will of the public. That is what we are trying to do. The public said yes, they want this system, but they want it run efficiently.

If we could ever get to voting on Bill C-10A, we could create some of those efficiencies in the system that the public wants. That is what we are trying to do by getting this bill through the House of Commons, but the opposition members continue to try to disrupt us. Twenty days of debate between the two houses is unbelievable.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member is roaring across the aisle that what we cannot do by the front door we are doing by the back door. Nothing could be further from the truth.

We have said on this side of the House that there have been extensive costs to this program. Through Bill C-10A, we have found ways to make the gun registry more efficient. We need the legislative obligations which are laid out in Bill C-10A in order to put those efficiencies in place.

I understand the opposition by some to the program. The intent of the gun control issue, as the member fully knows, is not to make criminals out of legitimate gun owners. They have a right to those guns. However, there are certain obligations they must follow through on that are part of the gun control program.

The specifics of the hon. member's question pertained to costs. One of the reasons why, as outlined in the presentation before the estimates, and one of the difficulties in terms of administering the program and getting registrations on the phone-in system is that we had to cut back on resources and on people on the other end of those phones because of the reduction of the amount of money the member talked about. It added to our problem of inefficiencies in the system because that money was withdrawn.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice went before the estimates committee and outlined some of those costs. Maybe the member should have listened more closely at that point in time. However, the best way to look at what the costs to the system would be is to look at the history. I outlined to his leader a moment ago what the costs were in 2000-01. As we can see from those figures, the costs that the member opposite talks about most of the time are greatly exaggerated.

The fact of the matter is, regarding his question on Bill C-10A, this proposal would make it possible for us to create better efficiencies in the system and that is what members opposite should be wanting us to do.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is pretty obvious the minister is not answering our questions.

I have a question for him. RCMP testing has confirmed that many air guns, pellet guns, and even some BB guns exceed both the muzzle energy and muzzle velocity requirements in Bill C-10A and would have to be registered as soon as Bill C-10A is proclaimed. This would drive up the costs, contrary to what the minister has just said. There may be as many as one million air gun owners, and two or three million pellet guns and BB guns in Canada.

Would the minister tell us how much it will cost to register all of these guns?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the official opposition is implying that this system does not make streets safer. Let me provide a couple of examples.

A public safety warrant was executed after an individual threatened several employees of local businesses and a school principal. As the individual lived directly across from the school, there was concern that he would follow through with his threats. The search warrant allowed police to find a number of shotguns and rifles unsafely stored in a closet in the individual's home. All the firearms were seized and the individual was subsequently prohibited from owning firearms and the guns that were found in his home were disposed of. That is making safer streets and the members in the official opposition do not want to admit that.

Let me explain what this bill would really do. If the opposition were to let us pass Bill C-10A we could save money. I will name a few of the possible effects that it would have. It would simplify the requirements for licence renewals, which members opposite should want; it would stagger firearm licence renewals to avoid a surge of applications in five year cycles; it would increase the use of the Internet for applications and the issuance of documents, which is making great efficiencies; it would establish a pre-application process for temporary importation of non-resident visitors; and it would streamline the transfer process of firearms from one owner to another. That is helping to create efficiencies within the system.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to outline the costs for the hon. member because he has been talking about what his colleague from Yorkton—Melville has been doing in terms of outlining the costs. The motion today is about getting Bill C-10A through the House, which will in fact reduce the costs.

Let me the outline the worst year of costs for the Canadian firearms centre. The opposition alleges that all the costs are with the registry. I will outline those figures in detail for the year 2000-01: public administration was $10,670,000; communication and public affairs was $34,820,000; firearms registration, the area the opposition is always talking about, was $40,362,000; program delivery was $114,216,000; and the national weapons enforcement support team, which does all the good work in terms of finding illegal weapons and which is part of the purpose for the program in the first place, was $296,000. That totals $200,364,000. Those are the real facts and that was the worst year of costs.

We want to ensure that we pass Bill C-10A to create some efficiencies in the system and save money for Canadians.

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

moved:

That in relation to Bill C-10, an act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the stage of consideration of Senate amendments to the bill and, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the allotted day of the consideration of the said stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

Points of Order

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, today as the House leader for the government responded to the request of the House leader for the opposition regarding the business for the coming week, he mentioned a number of bills that would be dealt with today, tomorrow, and on through to Wednesday. In talking about all of them he gave the indication that there would be carry-over time and that we would go back to aforementioned business. However, when he talked about Tuesday he just said we would be doing the Senate amendment on Bill C-10A specifically, without any provision for carry-over. Would the House leader for the governing party tell us if he plans to introduce time allocation on that bill?

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to note the lobby just put before us by the hon. member for Bill C-10A to be debated next week.

This afternoon, we will continue the debate on the opposition motion. Tomorrow, we will commence with Bill C-34, the long-awaited bill to amend the Parliament of Canada Act.

I have informed the House leaders of the other parties of my intention to propose, pursuant to Standing Order 73(1), that this bill be referred to committee before second reading. If this debate is completed by the end of the day, we will return to third reading of Bill C-9, which deals with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act; then we will go to Bill C-13, the reproductive technologies bill, but I would be surprised if we got that far tomorrow.

On Monday and Wednesday, we will return to the two bills that I just mentioned and we will add to that Bill C-35, regarding military judges, which I think was introduced this morning. Then we will complete, I hope, Bill C-33, dealing with the transfer of offenders.

On Tuesday, and again I am responding to the request made by my colleagues opposite, we will continue consideration of the Senate amendments to Bill C-10, respecting the Criminal Code.

Next Thursday will be an allotted day.

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the government House leader to advise us of what the business is for the rest of this week and next week. Could he also advise the House if he will be bringing forward Bill C-10A? It has been on the agenda week after week on Tuesdays and always withdrawn. Will it be on the agenda next Tuesday, and will he use his time allocation motion so that it is completed on that day?

Privilege

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. This morning the other side of the House wandered all over the procedural map. First, the hon. member challenged the Speaker's rulings with regard to Bill C-10A. In fact, he challenged pretty much everybody, spoke ill of other hon. members of this House, and, to top it off, made gratuitous accusations about me because, in the past, I volunteered to help improve committee procedures in the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons on which we all sit. Finally, he made all kinds of accusations about the hon. member for Nickel Belt.

As we are all aware, the hon. member for Nickel Belt chairs the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources. Recently he has faced long debates, sometimes up to 10 hours or more on such topics as the committee's agenda. It has been difficult for a number of hon. members.

This issue was brought before the House. You and your colleagues who sit in the Chair felt that the committee should, of course, first report on its work and then action would follow, if necessary.

Once again, this ruling is challenged. However, this does not mean that a parliamentarian who sits on a committee would be authorized to do just about anything since no report has been submitted to the House. Of course not.

The accusations made against the hon. member are very serious. This is why I think that, before the Chair makes a ruling on this issue, the hon. member for Nickel Belt who, right now, is not available to provide an immediate reply, should at least be given the opportunity to defend his actions. He probably did not get a notice informing him that this issue would be raised. In fact, I myself as House leader was not notified. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that the hon. member for Nickel Belt was probably not given that courtesy either.

I am sure that he will want to reply. Should the Chair decide to investigate this matter with the committee, then I would ask the Chair to also look at the other side of the coin, that is the accusations made by some members against the chair of the committee, who told the House about being the object of physical threats and so on.

Should the Chair of this House decide to investigate the issue, he should not look at just one component. It would be important to look at both sides. Indeed, based on what the hon. member for Nickel Belt told the House a few days ago, there is another version to this whole affair. Therefore, it would be important to hear it if, of course, the Chair decides to take a closer look at this matter.

I will conclude by saying once again that, in light of the seriousness of the accusations made, the hon. member should at least have the right to give his version before the Chair rules on this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, since the 36th Parliament, parliamentary privilege has been increasingly and repeatedly attacked. Privileges are defined as follows by Joseph Maingot in his book Parliamentary Privilege in Canada , on page 11, and it is very clear:

Parliamentary privilege is a fundamental right necessary—

Later, on the same page, he goes on to state:

It is obvious that no legislative assembly would be able to discharge its duties with efficiency or assure its independence and dignity unless it had adequate power to protect itself and its members and officials in the exercise of their functions.

I would like to give a few examples of how these privileges are being completely disregarded.

We need only think of the pre-eminence of Parliament in terms of the rights of parliamentarians to be the first informed. Committee reports are leaked before they can be tabled in the House. Statements are being given outside the House, which means that the media are quite frequently more up to date on the work of committees than parliamentarians are.

This is not the first time that this matter has been raised. I already condemned this disturbing situation when I raised a question of privilege on December 12, 1998, about information leaked from a report on prebudget consultations prepared by the Standing Committee on Finance. I stated at the time that leaked committee reports are becoming common occurrences.

I will name a few instances that occurred during the 36th Parliament: the report on nuclear non-proliferation by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs; the report on amateur and professional sports in Canada by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage; and the report by the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access.

This kind of leak is still happening on a regular basis. Recently, the chair of the Standing Committee on Industry himself expressed the committee's viewpoint as set out in a draft report. The same thing happened with the Standing Committee on Health. In fact, on December 11, 2002, the supplementary report of the Special Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs was leaked. Since the beginning of the 36th Parliament, almost 15 leaks have undermined the privileges of the House and for only a few of these were the culprits admonished.

And what about the government motion on the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-10 that deals with animal cruelty? Let me remind the House of that motion.

That, in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, this House concurs with the Senate's division of the bill into two parts, namely, Bill C-10A, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (firearms) and the Firearms Act, and Bill C-10B, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals), but

that the House, while disapproving any infringement of its rights and privileges by the other House, waives its rights and privileges in this case, with the understanding that this waiver cannot be construed as a precedent; and

that a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours therewith.

It has become so commonplace to infringe upon the privileges of parliamentarians that we have no qualms about referring to it in a motion. It does not matter if we say in a motion that it cannot be construed as a precedent. When we abuse someone, whether it is verbally or in any other way, we cannot argue afterwards that it never happened. These things hurt and are not forgotten.

The same applies to the privileges of parliamentarians. When can we expect another motion like that one, where we are told that it is not a precedent? Putting up with this kind of abuse, although we might not acknowledge it, does undermine our position.

Parliamentary privilege is not some sort of flexible concept. It is fundamental and essential to the work we do. To play with parliamentary privilege in such an odious way is to discredit the institutions in which we work.

Nevertheless, let us return to the case at hand and your ruling on Monday. The procedural irregularities that took place on April 1 and 2 in the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources are yet another instance. We have a committee chair who permitted the moving of the previous question, despite this passage on page 786 of House and Commons Procedure and Practice :

The moving of the previous question is prohibited in a Committee of the Whole as it is in any committee.

You said, in your ruling on Monday:

—committees are also expected to adopt any such limits in a regular and procedurally acceptable manner.

Moreover, you quoted Speaker Fraser's ruling given on March 26, 1990:

—I would urge all chairmen and members of committees to try and strive mightily to ensure that the general rules of this place are followed as far as is sensible and helpful in those committees.

He also stated:

—chairmen ought to be mindful of their responsibilities and make their decisions and rulings within the bounds of the fine balance provided by our rules.

How can we expect the Chair of this committee to maintain order and decorum, pursuant to Standing Order 117, when he is the one creating disorder? He even invited a member of the government party to appeal his ruling with respect to the previous question, as if to say, “Go ahead and contest my ruling. You have the majority. We will hold a vote and you, with your majority, can reverse my ruling. Then you can move the previous question. And to hell with the Standing Orders”.

A committee chair who openly invites a committee member to contest a ruling based directly on the Standing Orders, and on a point of order into the bargain, is issuing a direct invitation to circumvent the rules that govern us, not once but twice, to serve his own purposes. That is, to put it plainly, dictatorial.

What is the implication of contravening the Standing Orders for members who are insulted in this manner? Let me quote once again page 786 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice :

—the moving of the previous question would prevent Members from proposing amendments and considering the legislation to the fullest extent possible.

To deliberately prevent a member from having the tools required to do his job is a breach of his privileges. I know full well, as you said in your ruling on the point of order that I raised last Monday, that committees are the masters of their own proceedings. This committee is led by a tyrannical chairman who decisions show no signs of fairness. In this case, the committee, particularly its chairman, through his actions, has shown that he must be brought into line because he very clearly contravenes the Standing Orders, preventing members, as the previous quotation shows, from appropriately and effectively doing their job.

Once again on the matter of order and decorum, the committee chairman assumes an arrogant and contemptuous air when some opposition members speak, when we try to ask for clarification on certain decisions. He also assumes an indifferent air during committee proceedings, slouching in his chair and even joking with his Liberal colleagues, detracting from discipline while opposition members are speaking. His attitude is quite different when his Liberal colleagues are speaking.

I would like to share with you another breach of my parliamentary privileges. At a committee meeting, I asked the clerk to clarify a decision the committee was preparing to take. The chair of the committee came between the committee clerk and myself in order prevent her from answering me directly, and by that very fact stopped her from providing me with an answer. The committee chair himself provided me with a cursory answer, with no explanation, as he stated this was not necessary.

Quoting from page 834 of Marleau and Montpetit;

The clerk of a committee is the procedural advisor to the chair and all members of the committee and also acts as its administrative officer. The role of the committee clerk is analogous to that which the Clerk of the House has with respect to the Speaker and members of the House. As a non-participant and independent officer, the clerk serves equally all members of the committee as well as representatives of all parties; clerks discharge their duties and responsibilities with respect to the committee in consultation with the chair. The clerk also acts as the committee's liaison with other branches and services of the House of Commons.

It is clear that, once again, my rights and privileges have not been respected and I have not been able to properly perform my duties as a member of Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, I am calling upon you today because I have been unsuccessful with all the recourses you invited me to call upon in your ruling this past Monday. I came to you with a point of order and complied with your request to return to the committee with a motion calling upon it to report on the procedural irregularities of April 1 and 2. This was disdainfully refused with cynicism and arrogance by the committee chair and the Liberal members.

Consequently, the entire matter remains unresolved. Yet it is very urgent to take action because the committee is still in operation. I am appealing to you as the guardian of my rights and privileges, because the chair of my committee has not been able to protect them, and on more than one occasion moreover. You, Mr. Speaker, are, to quote House of Commons Procedure and Practice page 26:

—the guardian of the rights and privileges of Members and of the House as an institution.

In addition, on the previous page, we see that your duties:

—require balancing the rights and interests of the majority and minority in the House to ensure that the public business is efficiently transacted and that the interests of all parts of the House are advocated and protected against the use of arbitrary authority.

We expect no less. This latter quote captures the essence of parliamentary privilege as well as of your role and duty to preserve the delicate balance between the power between the government party and the opposition.

You said you wanted to rule on my point of order in a timely fashion since:

—it may have some bearing on the work that the committee intends to take up this week.

Referring us to committee resulted in our being subjected to an illegitimate gag order, which breaches our privileges as parliamentarians. Of course, the chair of the committee did not allow a motion to censure the disorder in that committee.

How can a chair who ignores the procedure and practice of the House be expected to allow me to move a motion to report to the House what happened in committee?

Discussing the matter at the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons is inappropriate. The suggestion by the government House leader was dishonest. This matter must de decided now.

What is at stake today is respect for the privileges of parliamentarians and the rights of opposition members to do their job properly without the sword of arbitrariness being held over their heads.

If the procedural irregularities that took place during the consideration of Bill C-7 at the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources are allowed to go unchallenged, this will create a dangerous precedent. How can we trust after such a affront that it will not happen again? How will the work of the committee be managed from now on?

These questions are all the more pressing because since you handed down your ruling in response to my point of order, the work of the committee has been done in a permanent climate of tension that has been exacerbated by the smug and contemptuous attitude of the committee chair, an attitude that even affects the public that attends the meetings.

On Tuesday, the day after your ruling, the attitude of the chair of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources provoked a strong verbal reaction from two first nations representatives who were present. The chair abruptly ordered their removal, and had it not been for my intervention, these perfectly peaceful women would have been subjected to the humiliation of being forcefully expelled by four security guards. When I was heading out the door with the two women, the committee chair hurled abuse at me and ordered me to mind my own business, using language that was disrespectful, irreverent and unworthy of a member of Parliament.

Since your ruling on my point of order, the Chair of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources has also demonstrated bias and used a double standard in his decisions. For example, on Tuesday he would not allow first nations members to take photographs in committee, and then on Wednesday, he was quite happy to let constituents from his riding take all the pictures they wanted, even extending an invitation to two students to sit at the table during the committee's hearings.

Given the importance of the issues being examined, it is imperative that the committee chair be rigorous, have decorum, be professional and especially impartial. I wonder how the House would have reacted if this type of behaviour or these types of injustices had occurred here in the House.

Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I am asking you, since the chair of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources has violated the Standing Orders by his cavalier management of debate and his complete lack of decorum, to recognize that there has been a prima facie breach of my privilege, of my right to do my job properly. I am therefore prepared to move the appropriate motion.

Points of Order

[The Speaker]

I wish now to indicate to the House that I am ready to rule on a point of order raised on Monday, April 7, by the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast concerning the motion on the Order Paper to concur in the Senate's message to divide Bill C-10, an act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act.

I would like to thank the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast for raising the issue. I also wish to thank the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the member for Vancouver East for their interventions on the matter.

The hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast raised a number of interesting points, stating that the message from the Senate regarding Bill C-10 could not be considered a stage of a bill nor could the Senate's division of Bill C-10 be considered an amendment. He went on to argue that the motion to concur in the Senate's message should therefore not be listed on the Order Paper under Government Bills as a motion in response to an amendment made to a bill but rather should be listed as a motion under the heading Government Motions.

In consequence, the hon. member argued that the notice given by the government to time allocate the motion was invalid since Standing Order 78 can only be used to curtail debate on motions related to the stages of bills and not on a government motion.

At the time this point of order was raised, I indicated that this matter had previously been before the House in December 2002, when questions were raised about the admissibility of the motion and the possible breach of the privileges of the House in relation to the actions taken by the other place in dividing the bill.

In my ruling delivered on December 5, 2002 I stated that there was no basis for a prima facie question of privilege, and I made the following point at that time:

—while the Speaker agrees with the view of Mr. Speaker Fraser that privileged matters are involved where the Senate divides a House bill without first having the House’s concurrence, this is not the case in this instance. Our concurrence has in fact been requested—

See House of Commons Debates , December 5, 2002, p. 2336.

Given the conclusions delivered in my ruling in December, the motion to concur in the Senate message to divide the bill is a proper motion and it is properly before the House, and accordingly I consider the issue of the admissibility of the motion closed.

In my December ruling, I also pointed out to hon. members that they would have the opportunity to debate the motion when it was brought before the House and to propose amendments as they saw fit. That process is well underway. Debate on the motion to concur in the Senate's request to divide Bill C-10 commenced on December 6, 2002, and members of the official opposition have since proposed an amendment and a subamendment to the motion.

On February 14, the government gave notice of time allocation on consideration of the motion to concur in the Message from the Senate, and this is the issue to which I would now like to turn. In his arguments, the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast questioned whether the Senate message seeking concurrence to divide Bill C-10 could properly be considered an amendment and treated as a stage of a bill under the provisions of Standing Order 78. The December ruling on this matter found the motion to be in order and therefore properly before the House.

After full consideration of the arguments presented in this unusual circumstance, I have now concluded that the motion to concur in the Senate message to divide Bill C-10 is indeed intrinsic to the legislative process for this particular bill.

The hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast sought to draw a parallel with the case of a motion from the House instructing one of its committees to divide a bill. Whereas it might be argued that such a motion is complementary to the legislative process already in train and not integral to it, in the case before us, the motion to waive House privileges and permit the other House to divide Bill C-10 is, in my view, clearly part of the critical path of the legislative process with regard to this bill.

For this bill to proceed down its unique and admittedly unprecedented legislative path to royal assent and proclamation, a decision must be taken by the House either to concur in or defeat the motion to concur in the Senate proposal to divide the bill. I therefore feel that this motion is part of the legislative process on this bill, not an additional motion introduced to do something to a bill otherwise before the House.

Given this set of circumstances, I find that it is in order for the government to give notice and move time allocation pursuant to Standing Order 78 on the consideration of this motion. I draw the attention of members to page 563 of Marleau and Montpetit, where the following point is made regarding the use of time allocation:

...although the rule permits the government to negotiate with opposition parties towards the adoption of a timetable for the consideration by the House of a bill at one or more stages (including the stage for the consideration of Senate amendments), it also allows the government to impose strict limits on the time for debate.

In conclusion, I would concur with the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast that this is indeed an unprecedented case. Absent a definitive rule or practice of the House with respect to the Senate's proposed division of House bills, the Chair believes it prudent to act with an abundance of caution. The Senate has properly sought the concurrence of the House in its proposed course of action and now awaits the decision of the House before proceeding further. This motion clearly seeks the concurrence of the House to divide Bill C-10, thus responding to the Senate request. This dialogue is intrinsic to the legislative process for Bill C-10 and the Speaker is thus bound to accept that the procedure being followed is acceptable in this case.

I would again take the opportunity to remind hon. members that they have the opportunity to debate the motion and to propose amendments to it within the rules of the House.

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned the Senate amendments to Bill C-10. These senate amendments would divide the bill in two, and create Bill C-10A.

Therefore, as the hon. members will agree, that is all that is before the House. The other bill is not before us at this time.

[Dale Johnston, Canadian Alliance, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government House leader said Bill C-10. My understanding is that Bill C-10 is comprised of A and B. Does he intend to call both Bill C-10A and Bill C-10B or one or the other?