Debates of June 9th, 1998

Points Of Order

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek unanimous consent to move:

That the Order of the House of June 8, 1998, respecting motions pursuant to Standing Order 57 and 78(3) be rescinded.

[The Speaker]

The government House leader has asked for unanimous consent to put a motion. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

No.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

What is this about, Mr. Speaker?

[The Speaker]

My colleague asked a question. For his information, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has moved a motion. It reads as follows:

That the Order of the House of June 8, 1998, respecting motions pursuant to Standing Order 73 and 78(3) be rescinded.

[The Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker]

The reason I explained this to the hon. member for Joliette was that he wanted to know what the motion was. However, I had already asked for unanimous consent to put this motion and I heard a “no” from my left. Therefore, the motion cannot be put.

Government Response To Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 20 petitions.

Interparliamentary Delegations

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to table the report of the parliamentary wing of the United Nations called the Interparliamentary Unions where delegates worked effectively to raise the urgency to commit to the humanitarian clearing of land mines and the removal of same and moved to adopt the needed Ottawa convention.

Therefore, it is my pleasure to table the report of the 99th interparliamentary conference held in Windhoek, Namibia, on April 5 to 11.

Committees Of The House

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure and honour to table today, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food on biotechnology.

Your committee reviewed the issue of biotechnology as it pertains to agriculture and agri-food. As part of the process of renewing the Canadian biotechnology strategy it came up with a number of recommendations which are contained in this report.

The new Canadian biotechnology strategy involves three departments: Industry, Health and Agriculture and Agri-Food. With the explosion of genetically modified products, this strategy will have to be an ever-changing one which members of parliament will have to respond to.

The committee is also requesting a comprehensive answer to the report from the government pursuant to Standing Order 109.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the committee members from all sides for their work. I also wish to thank the committee staff, especially our research co-ordinator, Sonya Dakers, who will be retiring at the end of the month. This happens to be her last major piece of work after 12 years with the agriculture committee. We all wish her well.

Business Of The House

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 56(1), and having raised the issue earlier today, I move:

That the Order of the House of June 8, 1998, respecting motions pursuant to Standing Order 57 and 78(3) be rescinded.

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the government House leader is trying to put this motion to the floor this morning, but this is the time for routine motions to be put and this is not a routine motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, to assist the Chair, if I may, I know that the opposition House leader has raised the proposition that this was not, in his view, a routine motion. I draw to your attention Standing Order 67(1)(p) which states:

(p) such other motion, made upon Routine Proceedings, as may be required for the observance of the properties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the appointment or conduct of its officers, the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings, the correctness of its record, the fixing of its sitting days or the time of its meetings or adjournment.

I think this very well covers the fact that indeed this motion is receivable the way it was presented under Standing Order 56(1).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very new to this place and I do not profess to be an expert in this, but my understanding is that what happened yesterday was that a substantive motion was passed on the floor of the House and that cannot simply be overturned by a routine motion from the government. There is a procedure that has to be in place. There is notice that has to be given. My understanding is that this cannot happen in the way that the government House leader is trying to put it before the House.

[The Speaker]

The House leader for the Conservative Party makes a very interesting point, as does the opposition House leader.

I point out to the House that it would be one thing to go with the strict wording of this rule. However a motion was put on February 19, 1998 which perhaps went beyond the scope of the wording and it went through the House. On December 1, 1997 a motion pursuant to Standing Order 56.1(1) was put and it went through the House.

My interpretation of both of those motions is that we cannot pick and choose on the way through. Those two motions went through before and they seemed to go somewhat beyond the scope of the wording, and at that time no one raised a voice of objection.

I am loath to interfere at any time like this. I would rule that because of these other two motions that went through as precedents, I will allow this one to go through. I would strongly urge the committee on procedure to perhaps take this up again and to give direction more clearly to the House and the Speaker. I am going to allow this Standing Order 56.1 to stand.

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

Mr. Speaker, what happened in this House last night was in effect an order of the House. Now we are going to get into a discussion of the principles of this House of Commons. It is an order of the House. The government cannot just come in here and change an order of the House, something which was passed by this whole House. Otherwise all of the issues we deal with here—

[The Speaker]

I made a ruling on this issue. Now the House will have a chance to pronounce itself.

[An hon. member]

Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

[The Speaker]

Not on this issue. I have made a ruling.

The question is on the motion. Will those members who object to the motion please rise in their places.

The hon. member on a point of order.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I point out to your attention Standing Order 67:

67.(1) The following motions are debatable:

[The Speaker]

This motion is not debatable. I repeat, will those members who object to the motion please rise in their places.

And 25 members having risen:

[The Speaker]

Because there are 25 members standing in their places, this motion is deemed withdrawn.

(Motion withdrawn)