Debates of Sept. 30th, 1998

Privilege

[The Speaker]

Before I go to the government House leader I would put a question to the hon. member so that I understand.

The hon. member did send me copies of material that the minister was to have answered if he were asked a question. My direct question is to you, my colleague. Did the minister ever utter those words?

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.

[The Speaker]

I will to go to the government House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things wrong with the statement made by the hon. member on this alleged question of privilege and sometimes called contempt of the House as it has been referred to in her remarks.

First, she is referring to a law which she herself has said in her remarks was not yet applicable. She said that the law would only be applicable starting tomorrow, so how can the non-administration of a law that is not yet a law be a question of privilege? That is the first opposition.

Second, whether or not a law is in force is not in itself a question of privilege, even if that law were already in effect. That is the second point.

The documents to which the member has referred, according to her, are briefing notes for the benefit of a minister should he choose to use those notes to answer a hypothetical question which has not yet been raised.

For all these reasons this is not a question of privilege. Finally, rest assured that I will not draw the parallel between this case and the raising of taxes. The raising of taxes works under the process of an initiative of the crown and works by way of a ways and means motion. Obviously that is not applicable in this case.

[The Speaker]

In view of the fact that I asked the hon. member and she answered that she did not know of the minister ever having said that, and in view of the fact that this is not October 1 and we are dealing with a hypothetical case and we would have to deal with a real case, I would rule at this time that there is no point of privilege.

[An hon. member]

Mr. Speaker, take it under advisement.

[The Speaker]

I thank the hon. member for his advice but I have already made the ruling.

Points Of Order

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have had the opportunity to raise this matter since the event happened. What I am referring to is the seating arrangement in the House of Commons and the change in the party seating. Our party was located in the other end of the Chamber.

I will quote Beauchesne's and I will go through this point of order systematically, but I just want the floor for a minute or two.

The decision on where the parties would be assigned their—

[The Speaker]

I have read Beauchesne's. I will give the hon. member about a minute to put the case, but unless I find there is something new I do not know about I will probably intervene again.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I can cram it into a minute. Beauchesne's fifth edition at page 34 under the section entitled “Places of Members”, clearly states:

Members are allocated desks in the Chamber by the Speaker on the advice of the party Whips—

My argument is that our whip did not consent to this arrangement. The arrangement I am talking about is putting us at this end of the Chamber.

We admit and acknowledge that we are the fifth party in the House of Commons, but following the general election of 1997 it was negotiated by all parties, us being the fifth party at the time, where we would be sitting. That applied until last week.

The byelection in Quebec changed the House in terms of our membership by one person. That one person displaced an entire party to the other end of the Chamber. I fundamentally disagree with that.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member has every right to hold whatever opinion he wants. The fact of the matter is that our tradition has been as follows.

After an election the party that has the most seats has the first choice of the seats. The second party, the second choice. The third party, the third; the fourth, the fourth; and the fifth, the fifth. I am responsible for where independent members sit.

We would hope that we would always act in the House after discussions and collaboration, but at the end of the day seats must be assigned and I have followed the traditions of the House.

There is no such thing as a bad seat in the House of Commons. We have all been elected in the same manner to sit in here as hon. members. I accept the hon. member may well be frustrated and disappointed, as other members might well be with their seating arrangements, but the seating arrangements as they are will stand.

Is the member rising on another point of order?

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order based on unprecedented procedure and the discontinuation of the same argument.

[The Speaker]

This point of order is over.

[Gary Lunn, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, in response to my great question, made reference to a document that he sent an hour ago to the fisheries committee chairman. I would ask the Speaker to rule that the document be tabled.

[The Speaker]

First, for greater certainty, the minister is required to table a document if he quotes directly from it. Would the hon. member give me the time to review the blues?

[Gary Lunn, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree that he only referred to it; he did not read from it.

[The Speaker]

If he did not quote from it directly then there is no point of order.

Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-436, an act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act (recommendations of the Review Committee).

Mr. Speaker, this is a very specific bill to amend section 52 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. It would provide that the recommendations of the Security Intelligence Review Committee are to be implemented unless overruled by the minister concerned.

In the event that the minister were to overrule, the minister would be required to report to parliament the reasons for overruling the decision of the committee. If the reasons were secret, the minister would be required to report to parliament why they are deemed to be secret.

The principle of the bill has been recommended to successive governments by the Security Intelligence Review Committee. Successive governments keep ignoring that recommendation so I keep bringing the bill forward.

(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Petitions

[Rose-Marie Ur, Liberal, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am honoured to present a petition signed by many residents of Grand Bend, Ontario, in my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

They note that the use of MMT in gasoline has been proven to foul emission control devices and adversely affect engine performance resulting in higher smog levels.

They call upon parliament to set some new national clean fuel standards for gasoline with zero MMT and lower sulphur content.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to table a petition on behalf of certain members of the Shuswap band in British Columbia who ask parliament to cause internal audits to be done within their band. They are very concerned about accountability of the funds the band is receiving.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have five petitions on the same subject matter, totalling 334 signatures from the communities of Kelowna and Chetwynd, British Columbia; Brantford, Ontario; and Winnipeg, Manitoba.

These petitions from across the country pray that parliament enact Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage Act and the Interpretation Act so as to define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a single female.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present today.

The first is signed by 73 people from my riding and requests that parliament support laws which severely punish all violent criminals who use weapons in the commission of crimes, support the new Criminal Code firearms control provisions which recognize and protect the right of law-abiding citizens to use recreational firearms, and would repeal existing gun control laws.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition notes that children have a need to be loved and nurtured by both parents and the right to be economically supported by both parents.

The petitioners call on parliament to pass legislation incorporating the rights of children and the principles of equality among parents.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition asks parliament to enact Bill C-225 so defined in statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a single female.

Questions On The Order Paper

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

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