Debates of Sept. 27th, 2000

Marine Conservation Areas Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

A few moments ago I called for debate and no one rose. Since no one rose on debate, we put the question for this group. We still have to do the yeas and nays.

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, for further clarification, will you have to repeat for the next grouping the request for whether there is debate or not?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Yes. When we go into the next group there will be an opportunity for debate.

We have already put the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All of those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The recorded division on the motion is deferred.

As the House knows, Group No. 1 went through rather quickly. Some of the movers and seconders of motions in Group No. 2 are not in the House. Could there be a motion from the floor to have the motions in Group No. 2 deemed moved and seconded? Is there such a motion?

[An hon. member]

Yes.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is there unanimous consent to move such a motion?

[An hon. member]

No.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We find ourselves in a very awkward situation and I need your help to see how we can go about this.

According to the order of business, to agreements made by the parties and the way we usually work here, Bill C-8 and the amendments thereto were not supposed to be brought before the House today.

We are now faced with the following problem. We come here to pass legislation with full knowledge of the facts. Our speakers are usually well prepared to take part in the debates. In a democracy, the most basic rules of courtesy and decency require the government to advise us of the bills it wishes to put before the House. Never, in any parliament, would a government call a bill at the very last minute without advising anyone as is being done here right now.

Since we only have 10 minutes left for government orders, could we not agree to say that it is 5.30 p.m. Then, when the House leader asks to bring this bill back before the House, we can have a very objective and effective debate, gladly and with good humour.

[An hon. member]

With great glee.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

We could resume consideration of the bill in the light of a strong debate. That is what I am asking for.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

As usual, the hon. House leader of the Bloc has suggested a very gentle means to get the Chair out of a bit of a problem. The House leader is quite correct. The House operates in a fashion that provides for fairness between all parties. The Chair thanks the hon. member very much for the suggestion.

Does the House give unanimous consent to the suggestion of the House leader of the Bloc Quebecois that the clock be seen as 5.30 p.m.?

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to clarify something further to what the House leader of the Bloc said. That is that we understood this bill would be coming forward on October 5 and we have now found out that the bill will be coming forward tomorrow. Now, at about 22 minutes after five, is the government planning on bringing report stage of this bill in for the second and third groupings?

It would look like perhaps this Chamber does not know how to run the country when it is putting bills in here at the last moment. I see that the government House leader is here. Maybe he could enlighten us.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Actually, it is not so much a reflection on the Chamber as it is on the chair occupant who also is faced with the same dilemma.

The House leader of the Bloc has suggested a very elegant means to get us through this, but obviously the government House leader should have an opportunity to respond.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will forget the comments that were made by the last speaker, which is probably the best most of us could do at any time, and I will refer to the other comments that were made that were more enlightening, not that any of them could be less enlightening than the one that we just heard. I would agree to call it 5.30 and to end this debate for today.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a further point of order. The House leader has announced that I am not the House leader and I certainly do know my place.

I would like to ask, if by the good graces of this Chamber, we call it 5.30 now, six minutes early, when might we see Bill C-8 come again, because I think it is important enough that it needs to be discussed now. I do not think we are prepared to give unanimous consent to just send it off into the proverbial night.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Actually, we will not get into this. We have a suggestion on the floor to see the clock as 5.30 p.m. and that is what we will address.

Is there unanimous consent to see the clock as 5.30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, an act respecting an agreement with the Norway House Cree Nation for the settlement of matters arising from the flooding of land, and respecting the establishment of certain reserves in the province of Manitoba, be read the third time and passed.