Debates of March 17th, 1997

Request For Emergency Debate

[The Speaker]

Could I see the letter please?

I am sorry. I am getting old and I cannot see very clearly. It certainly looks like the signature of the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 52 of the House of Commons, I wish to request that an emergency debate be held regarding the social, economic and human consequences of the war being waged by some biker gangs in Quebec.

The Bloc Quebecois represents the majority of Quebecers in the House of Commons, and the biker gang war recently moved from Montreal to the Quebec City region where, in the past year, some 80 criminal incidents have taken place.

The Quebec government took action by setting up an operational co-ordination group, as well as a regional intervention group against organized crime, known as the GRICO unit. The provincial government earmarked $1.5 million for Operation GRICO. In spite of all the efforts made by the public and the government, people are absolutely helpless against what is happening.

We in the Bloc Quebecois listened to our party's grassroots during our national convention and passed an urgent motion in that regard. We must not forget the recent rally in Saint-Nicolas and last weekend's bomb.

Mr. Speaker, I would therefore ask that you consider favourably our request for an emergency debate.

[The Speaker]

I have here the hon. member's letter. The issue raised by the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata is a serious one, which causes great concern in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada.

However, upon reading the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, it seems to me that the hon. member's request does not meet the prescribed requirements. Should the context change, the hon. member could always avail herself of the same process.

An Act To Amend Certain Laws Relating To Financial Institutions

[Doug Peters, Liberal, for Minister of Finance]

moved that Bill C-82, an act to amend certain laws relating to financial institutions, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we do not mind that Orders of the Day being changed halfway through the day. As you know, we were talking about the amendments by the other House to Bill C-70. Now we find, with no consultation, we will be debating Bill C-82.

We think of the co-operation that we have given the government side on the tobacco legislation and other legislation. Now we find, with no consultation whatsoever, it changes the order of business and we are now expected to debate another bill today when we have been talking about the harmonized sales tax all morning.

I am wondering where the government is coming from in changing the Orders of the Day like this.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member will appreciate that Standing Order 40(2) states that:

Government Orders shall be called and considered in such sequence as the government determines.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the same point of order?

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

[The Deputy Speaker]

No, I am not going to listen to any more.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Well, it is a new point of order then.

[The Deputy Speaker]

That will be judged very quickly, whether or not it is a new point of order.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, prior to question period starting at two o'clock, I was on my feet during my 20 minute allotment. I was not finished. I was told by the Speaker who chaired question period that I would get the floor after Routine Proceedings. I do not have the floor. I was given a certain amount of time to finish my speech because I have some very important things to say on that bill.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The member has raised an interesting point. Speaker Parent did give an undertaking that the member for Calgary Centre would speak right after question period. Undoubtedly the Speaker thought that the bill would be recalled and the member could finish his intervention.

Of course, if there is unanimous consent, we can do anything that the House wishes to do. I wonder if the member wishes to ask for unanimous consent to complete his intervention.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps when Bill C-70 is brought back there would be favourable winds to having the hon. member finish his speech at that time.

The government has the prerogative to call what business it wishes. I know you have already ruled on that. I would remind my hon. colleague from St. Albert to refer to the House business

statement that was given on Thursday which clearly indicates that Bill C-82 is coming forward today.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It goes without saying that the hon. member will be entitled to finish his intervention the next time that matter is called.

I take it from the comments of the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader that there will not be unanimous consent to allowing the member to finish his remarks.

Accordingly, we are caught by the Standing Order. I have heard enough on that point of order. The Standing Order is very clear. The government can call any order it wishes at virtually any time.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I had the floor prior to question period. As a member of Parliament, my privileges are that I am allowed to give a speech with a certain allotment of time.

Because question period comes at a certain time and interferes with my speech, I should not be denied my right as a member of Parliament to finish my speech which has four minutes left.

If this government is in such a darn hurry to get on with other legislation without letting me finish my four minutes, this is just another example of the dictatorial power that these-

[An hon. member]

Order.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

I had the floor, Mr. Speaker. My privileges are being denied.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There was the possibility of a solution which, obviously, is not one that is acceptable to all the members of the House as it must be. Accordingly, it is my duty under the orders to put the bill presently before the House.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You alluded to the fact that you thought there was no unanimous consent. I do not recall you seeking unanimous consent of the House to let the hon. member for Calgary Centre finish the four minutes of his speech.

[The Deputy Speaker]

That is correct. There was not a call for unanimous consent. Perhaps the easiest thing to do is ask if there is unanimous consent to let the hon. member for Calgary Centre finish his speech?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair heard a no, therefore there is not unanimous consent.