Debates of Nov. 7th, 1997

Criminal Code

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The division on Motion No. 2 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 4 and 6.

Motions Nos. 3 and 5 will be grouped for debate.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have two points. First, unless I heard wrong, in calling the vote you mentioned only Motion No. 2, while the vote should have been on Group No. 2, which includes three motions: Motions Nos. 2, 4 and 6. A vote was called on Motion No. 2 only. This was my first point.

Second, while I sit at the other end of the chamber, it was obvious to me that the nays were louder than the yeas. I wonder if there has not been a misunderstanding here. If so, perhaps you could consider taking the vote over, specifying this time that the vote will be on Motions Nos. 2, 4 and 6.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, when you make a ruling on something like this, another member cannot argue with you, dispute the ruling and reverse it.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

On the point of order raised by the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, I would like to point out that Motions Nos. 4 and 6 were included in Motion No. 2.

I will now deal with the point of order raised by the other hon. member.

The decision has been taken. On the other hand, if the House wishes to give me other instructions, I am prepared to listen.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I would also concur with the hon. member from the Bloc. I believe in terms of the yeas and the nays, that the nays had it also.

Also, we would like to voice our objection to the ruling of the Chair.

I agree that it was not mentioned that Motions Nos. 2, 4 and 6 were going to be grouped together and that we were going to vote on a package.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would remind you that if you reverse your ruling in this case you are setting a precedent.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, may I suggest that there is substantial agreement in the House on the importance of this legislation. We are 10 minutes away from question period. I wonder if the House would be agreeable to proceed with the next group of motions. Discussions could be held during question period and in the minutes leading up to question period to resolve this situation to the satisfaction of the House.

If we could move on to debate the next group of motions then we might be able to conclude the business which the House wishes to conclude today.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, Fridays are supposed to be slow days, but not always.

I bring to your attention Standing Order 10. I ask that it be applied to this case and that we not have any further discussion of whether rulings are appealable. Let us get on with it. I think that Standing Order 10 is very clear as to how things should be conducted in the House.

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

Madam Speaker, with all due respect for the office you hold, I would like to point out that it is absolutely impossible to reverse a ruling made by the Chair.

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

Madam Speaker, it would be most unusual if the House were to somehow try to overturn your ruling by doing what I do not understand it to be permitted to do, which is to appeal your judgment of what you heard in terms of yeas and nays.

I happen to share the view that you heard differently than I heard. But it is up to the Chair to judge what the Chair hears and to make that judgment. It puts the House in a rather difficult position, because certainly had you ruled the other way with respect to yeas and nays, opposition members would have had a chance to decide whether they wanted a recorded vote on this. Perhaps they would have risen anyway. The irony is that the government was forced by virtue of your ruling to cause a recorded vote on the very thing that it did not want a recorded vote on.

I am sure the government regards that as unfortunate but whether it is reversible or not is another matter.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The Chair has heard many arguments to that effect. The decision remains unchanged for now. We shall proceed to Motion No. 3.

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

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-16, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after line 10 on page 6 the following:

“or a person with the following description (—),”

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-16, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 7 on page 8 with the following:

“of A.B., or a person with the following description (—),”

In circumstances where the exact name of the individual sought is unknown to police officers, rather than put in the actual written name of that individual, they could put in a physical description, thus increasing their ability in investigations where the name of the person sought by police for whatever reason could be pencilled in. Obviously this will be at the discretion of the justice of the peace. It is something that will be monitored. It is not an arbitrary or frivolous change to the form that would be included in the warrant.

I would strenuously suggest that this is something to which the government should give due consideration in its adaptation of both amendments with respect to clause 3 in the bill, as they pertain to Form 7 and Form 7.1. For those reasons I would again solicit the support of the House, including the government, with respect to this amendment.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, without belabouring the point, we had asked the hon. member if he would be willing to separate motion No. 3 from motion No. 5. I take it to mean that he is not going to agree to separate motion No. 3 from motion No. 5?

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

Madam Speaker, I have no difficulty whatsoever with having these two amendments split and discussed separately, that is amendment 3 and amendment 5. I am certainly prepared to agree to that suggestion by the parliamentary secretary.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Does the House agree to have a debate and to hold two separate votes on Motions Nos. 3 and 5?