Debates of Nov. 7th, 1997

Petitions

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the citizens of Kamloops, I want to associate our views with that of the member for Mississauga South who has just presented three petitions. We would certainly go on record as endorsing those three petitions. Perhaps I can ask the same of my hon. friend.

The first petition I wish to present refers to the GST being applied to books. These few hundred petitioners from throughout British Columbia are urging the government to demonstrate support of education and literacy by eliminating the sales tax on reading materials. They also ask Parliament to zero rate books, magazines and newspapers under the GST. Also they say that as the provinces and Ottawa consider harmonizing their sales taxes, reading materials must be zero rated under the provincial sales taxes as well as the GST.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is a large one. This brings to a total of nearly 15,000 names from the greater Kamloops area that are on record as asking the government to remove section 745 of the Criminal Code which they say allows murderers to apply for a reduction in the number of years of imprisonment notwithstanding having been tried, convicted and sentenced in a court of law.

I agree with their sentiment. They are asking Parliament to simply eliminate section 745.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on another matter, petitioners from Kamloops and Clearwater, British Columbia outline a large list of reasons why the present tax system needs to be changed. I will not go into the reasons because they are already clear on the public record. They are simply calling upon the Government of Canada to consider introducing major tax reform and re-examining the recommendations made, I believe it was in the sixties, by the Carter commission on tax reform.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, finally on the matter of euthanasia, the petitioners primarily under the leadership of Ursula Bond from Clearwater, British Columbia are simply asking Parliament to ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously, and that Parliament make no change in the law that would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to rise in the House today to present a petition on behalf of the people of Surrey Central and other regions of British Columbia.

The petition concerns Yasmine Reddy, a Canadian citizen who was abducted from Canada by her mother, Nadia Reddy, on February 16, 1997 and remains a hostage trapped in Amman, Jordan.

This petition is signed by 83 persons and calls on the federal government to act to have Yasmine Reddy safely and promptly returned to Canada and to ask the King of Jordan to issue a royal decree to repatriate Yasmine Asha Christine Reddy back to Canada.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-16, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Interpretation Act (powers to arrest and enter dwellings), as reported (with amendment) from the committee; and of Motions Nos. 3 and 5.

Criminal Code

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent to revert to Motion No. 2.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

On a point of order, the hon. chief government, the whip of the official opposition.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, all the speakers are having trouble with that today. It is prophetic.

I feel this matter can be given unanimous consent, but I want to rise to address it on two points.

The reason we are reverting to deal with this motion is that the government's process on how it has handled this whole bill and the amendments surrounding this bill along with the amendments to the bill itself has been so seriously flawed that, as it is trying to rush it through this House, mistakes were made earlier this day by people forcing a vote on this amendment. The government does not want an amendment because it wants it pushed through today and today it must go through. None of us on this side of the House want to hold that up.

However, what has happened is another example of what happens in this place when legislation is brought in at the last minute, when it is rushed through committee where there is no chance of bringing in amendments like this, when there is no chance to bring expert opinion to bear on amendments, when there is not an opportunity to hear all sides of it. That is what happens when this stuff is pushed through.

I said as much in committee. I want to repeat it here again today. This is a problem with the flawed process of last minute, last ditch, knife at your throat, let us get this thing passed or else attitude that the government brings on this legislation. It is wrong, wrong, wrong. I just want to point out that we are reverting to this motion because the process is so flawed.

I also want to caution the Speaker in accepting this motion. There have been discussions with all parties and we are in agreement to revert to this motion to deal with it.

However earlier today, five members at least stood in their place and demanded a recorded vote on this motion. The caution I have on that is what if those five members have now left the Chamber to do other duties and are not here to deal with the unanimous consent?

I just want to go on record to say that this cannot be construed as a precedent setting incident. It is only because the government House leader assures me that the members who stood on his side of the House and asked for this vote are in agreement with this and will not be coming back on the House and accusing anyone in here of somehow doing something inappropriate in the democratic process.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that it is absolutely clear that at any time in the future when five members stand to force a vote we do not reconsider that vote unless there is agreement by all parties and agreement by the five members who stood.

I hope on those two counts the government is paying attention, that the department is paying attention and that we will not be dealing with this sort of sausage making factory when we should be dealing with legislative debate in a serious manner.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say briefly that the point made by the Reform Party whip is a good one. I too very much regret that we have to do what we are doing.

This would be a bad precedent if it in any way were to be understood as a precedent. I think this needs to be understood as an aberration. I think the point is well made that one could certainly imagine a future circumstance in which the leadership of all parties, in fact all parties, might conspire to overturn the will of five members who might not have been acting in concert with their parties, causing a vote to be taken by standing and forcing a recorded division.

This should in no way be seen as a precedent in respect of any future circumstance. In the future we would have to have guarantees, as we have today, that the members who caused the vote to be taken were in agreement with the procedure we are now following.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to confirm to the House that this is not considered by the government as being a precedent.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Before we take the vote on unanimous consent, the Chair takes this very seriously and has duly noted all the comments made by all the members on both sides of the Chamber concerning this bill.

The Chair also recognizes that a precedent is not set when unanimous consent is requested. Any member of the House may deny unanimous consent and therefore a precedent is not set.

With regard to this bill, the House did give unanimous consent earlier to exceptionally deal with this legislation, to pass it at report and third reading stages today. Therefore the House has already expressed its desire to see this legislation proceed.

The Chair very clearly states that this is not and will not be considered as a precedent. The concerns of the hon. whip of the official opposition are noted.

Accordingly, is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Carried.

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[An hon. member]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

In my opinion—

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important for the House to know whether you are seeking consent to put the motion on whether to revert to the previous clause or whether you are adopting Motion No. 2 itself.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

That is a very wise clarification. It is to revert to the motion as put by the whip.

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

So that we are absolutely clear, we are now dealing with Motion No. 2.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?