This week, I changed much of the tech behind this site. If you see anything that looks like a bug, please let me know!

House of Commons Hansard #110 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was aboriginal.

Topics

Public Service Modernization ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Julian Reed Liberal Halton, ON

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Public Service Modernization ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

The Speaker

With that change, is it agreed to apply the vote?

Public Service Modernization ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Public Service Modernization ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Nick Discepola Liberal Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as voting in favour of this bill.

Public Service Modernization ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Dale Johnston Canadian Alliance Wetaskiwin, AB

Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members will be recorded as voting in favour of this motion, with the exception of some who may identify themselves as voting opposed.

Public Service Modernization ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

The Speaker

The hon. members of the Alliance Party who wish to oppose will stand and their names will be called by the clerk to try to save time.

Public Service Modernization ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC

Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois vote against this motion.

Public Service Modernization ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Gerald Keddy Progressive Conservative South Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Party will be recorded as voting no.

Public Service Modernization ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Mr. Speaker, the members of the NDP will be voting no to this motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Public Service Modernization ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed.)

Public Service Modernization ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

The Speaker

Order, please. I wish to inform he House that, because of the ministerial statement and the deferred recorded divisions, government orders will be extended by one hour and eight minutes.

The hon. member for Calgary Centre on a point of order.

Points of OrderGovernment Orders

June 3rd, 2003 / 3:50 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order concerning the government's intention to call Bill C-7, an act respecting leadership selection, administration and accountability of Indian bands, and to make related amendments to other acts.

This bill was reported back to the House on Wednesday with amendments, in fact, with over two dozen amendments. That is proof that at least in the mind of the committee this bill was flawed when the cabinet approved its introduction into the House of Commons at first reading.

This bill was the subject of considerable committee work. When he presented the report last Wednesday, the chair, the member for Nickel Belt, said the following, and I quote from Hansard , Wednesday, May 28:

The committee held a total of 61 hearings on this bill from January 27 to May 27, 2003, travelled over a period of four weeks from Prince Rupert, British Columbia--

Points of OrderGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

The Speaker

Order. The right hon. member will want to make his point promptly. It is a point of order and not a debate yet. I know he will want to come to the point. I have not grasped what his point of order is and I would like to hear that, please.

Points of OrderGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, I will forgo the details of the committee chair's report, simply to say that he indicated at what great length there were hearings and discussions across the country.

The bill has now been returned to the House. We are at report stage. The government itself has introduced new amendments, which indicate that in its own judgment the original bill was flawed.

We must remember the purpose of report stage. In speaking about committee stage and report stage, the Speaker said on March 21, 2001:

Accordingly, I would strongly urge all members and all parties to avail themselves fully of the opportunity to propose amendments during committee stage so that the report stage can return to the purpose for which it was created, namely for the House to consider the committee report and the work the committee has done, and to do such further work as it deems necessary to complete detailed consideration of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is impossible for the House to consider the work that the committee has done without the transcripts of the committee debates. The work of the committee extends beyond the passage of amendments.

The committee travelled. It took evidence. The committee debated and deliberated on the record. Why would it keep and publish a transcript if it were not primarily for the reason of assisting the House at this report stage and at third reading?

Members of the House are entitled to have the entire case in front of them before we are called upon to judge the work of the committee. I make this case emphatically. We are entitled to have it “dans les deux langues officielles du Canada”, in both official languages of Canada.

These transcripts are not yet available in both official languages. Members of the House were and are today precluded from being able to examine the work of the committee in their language of choice. If we cannot know the evidence, we cannot decide if amendments are needed at the report stage.

The Speaker should not assume that the report stage is simply a matter of setting out party positions. At the report stage all members of the House, especially those who are not members of the committee, have an opportunity to propose amendments. The Chair should not assume that members are always acting as party representatives. There may well be members, who have an interest in the bill, who may have been shut out of the process by their parties or for other reasons. I think, for example, of the member for LaSalle—Émard who is known to have an interest in this matter.

The report stage is the members' opportunity to suggest amendments. However they cannot do that in an informed way unless the full record of evidence taken by the committee is available in both languages.

All members, regardless of party affiliation and regardless of the language they speak, have that right. The committee blues are not in both languages. They are in the language used in debate, but they are not available in translation. This puts a large number of unilingual members at a disadvantage and makes it impossible for them to consider the work done by the standing committee.

The majority of the committee's discussions were held in English. It was almost impossible for the more or less unilingual francophones to understand exactly what was happening during the committee's debates.

As of yesterday at least six meetings, including the most contentious and important meetings, have not been available in both official languages.

One thing is certain, if committee evidence is withheld from members in a language they can understand it is not likely that they will propose amendments.

Bill C-7 is about the rights of first nations. The government is now infringing on the linguistic rights of the members of the House by calling the bill for House consideration before members have available the full record of the standing committee.

The government is making it impossible for members to do the job the Speaker described in the ruling of March 21, “to consider the work the committee has done”.

I want to quote the Constitution of Canada, the charter of rights--

Points of OrderGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

The Speaker

I appreciate the zealousness of the right hon. member for Calgary Centre on his point of order but this matter has been dealt with in the House before. As a very experienced member I am sure he is well aware of previous Speakers' rulings on the very point he is seeking to make.

Citing the Constitution, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, statutes or whatever he is going to cite will not help the Chair in making a decision because, as he knows, the Chair has to make its decision based on the precedents in the House and the practice of the House.

I am quite prepared to deal with the matter. I think I have an obligation to do so. I refer him to the decision of Mr. Speaker Parent on page 4350 of Hansard for March 3, 2000.

On that occasion, in dealing with a very similar point, because the argument was that certain of the proceedings of the committee were unavailable to the members at this very stage, the Speaker quoted, and I will cite him. He said:

--I am quoting Speaker Francis who was quoting Speaker Macnaughton. This is what Speaker Macnaughton had to say on March 17, 1965 as reported on page 12479 of Hansard:

Accordingly, I would strongly urge all members and all parties to avail themselves fully of the opportunity to propose amendments during committee stage so that the report stage can return to the purpose for which it was created, namely for the House to consider the committee report and the work the committee has done, and to do such further work as it deems necessary to complete detailed consideration of the bill.The basic question is whether or not a bill in the House of Commons can be discussed, assuming that the evidence has not been completely finished in its English and French printing. I have made a search of the records since Confederation, and there is no case that says that a bill in the House of Commons which is up for discussion cannot be proceeded with until the evidence has been filed. If we were to accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Lapointe, emotionally pleasing as it may be, nevertheless procedurally in my opinion it would be completely wrong, and would establish a very bad precedent.

Again Mr. Speaker Francis stated and I quote from page 4631 of Hansard dated June 13, 1984:

And the right hon. member was in the House at that time.

I really do feel uncomfortable when hon. members do not have the transcripts. However, I am guided by the precedent of Mr. Speaker Macnaughton. I am guided by the fact that the rules are silent as to the form of printing.

Therefore I must decline to accede to the suggestion of the right hon. member that transcripts of proceedings in committee must be available before the House can proceed with a bill. It is not uncommon for bills to be called before committee proceedings have been completely transcribed and are available in both official languages let alone one.

Accordingly, while I have great sympathy, and I know there are dozens of members of the House who want to read these proceedings of this committee, I am afraid that I am not able to accede to his request. Accordingly, it would not be out of order for the House to proceed with the bill at this time, barring some other problems that may arise.

Points of OrderGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am bound to accept your ruling of course, although I note that the ruling by Mr. Speaker Macnaughton was made before the passage of the charter and before the passage of the Official Languages Act, which is binding upon this House of Commons. However you have ruled on that matter.

However I hope there will be an opportunity at some other time, including by the government House leader who has always shown his respect for the Official Languages Act, for us to ensure that the act applies to this House of Commons regardless of precedents that were established before the Official Languages Act became the law of Canada.

The other point I want to make, and which I believe is of equally great importance in this matter, relates to our fiduciary obligation to aboriginal people. We are not here debating any old bill. We are dealing with a bill that has to do with the rights of a people who exist in a fiduciary relationship with the Government of Canada, with the Parliament of Canada and with the Crown of Canada. They are in a status that is unlike the status of others whose positions we may be debating here.

There is an unusual obligation upon us in the House to ensure that there is a full opportunity for all members of Parliament who have an interest in these issues and, indeed, a full opportunity for the people to whom we owe a fiduciary responsibility, the first nations people, to know what was discussed in committee and to be sure that they are in a position to bring forward appropriate amendments to deal with matters in the House.

On Bill C-7 the first nations community had only a matter of hours, on a question that goes to the heart of their capacity to self-govern, to make recommendations after the committee reported. The reprinted bill containing the committee amendments was available for less than 24 hours before the government's arbitrary deadline for the submission of report stage amendments.

Mr. Speaker, at the heart of your office is the duty to protect minorities and minority rights. You will be familiar with the great words of the distinguished clerk of the House, Sir John Bourinot. I quote from Marleau and Montpetit at page 210 which says:

The great principles that lie at the basis of English parliamentary law have...been always kept steadily in view by the Canadian legislatures; these are: To protect the minority and restrain the improvidence and tyranny of the majority, to secure the transaction of public business in a decent and orderly manner, to enable every member to express his opinions within those limits necessary to preserve decorum and prevent an unnecessary waste of time, to give full opportunity for the consideration of every measure, and to prevent any legislative action being taken heedlessly and upon sudden impulse.

This is a matter that goes fundamentally to the interests of a minority in the country but a minority that enjoys special protections under our history and under our practice in the House. Regarding no other group have steps been taken by this Parliament to allow them to sit as members of parliamentary committees when matters affecting their future were considered. For no other group was the process of federal-provincial consultation open to include representatives of those peoples during constitutional discussions, as I have cause to know happened during the preparation of the proposals for the Charlottetown accord.

There is no question that first nations people have an unusual status in the country. There is no question that the subject matters here are of great concern to them. We have seen that before committee and in demonstrations across the country. They have not had the time to consider what was being discussed in committee. They have not had the time to make representations to us in the House as to changes or amendments that might improve the bill. First nations people have had about 24 hours to deal with hundreds, perhaps thousands of years of history that could be changed by a quick decision of this House of Commons.

We have an obligation to protect the rights of minorities generally, but certainly to ensure that the people here, to whom we have a fiduciary responsibility and who are most vulnerable to changes that might be undertaken, have the time themselves to bring forward recommendations for amendments that could be considered by the House.

I respectfully hope, Sir, that you will consider the fundamental importance of this issue and not allow the government to proceed with a bill which, as a practical matter, denies the opportunity for first nations people to consider discussions in committee and to make their own representations as to changes that should be made in legislation that would fundamentally affect their lives.

Points of OrderGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Speaker, I will certainly echo the comments of the hon. member from the Conservative Party. I would argue as well that not only have first nations representatives not had adequate time to deal with the fundamental aspects of this bill and how it will affect their communities and their lives, but members of Parliament as well have had inadequate time to deal with the bill.

What I would draw your attention to, Mr. Speaker, is that in the order of business today we are about to go to Bill C-7, and you will note that it says for Bill C-7, the first nations governance act, that we will be dealing with both report stage and second reading concurrently, that is, we will be dealing with them together.

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to you that about a year ago the bill was very briefly debated in the House and then it was immediately sent to the committee on the basis that it had such a broad scope and such a magnitude and impact on all of the first nations in Canada that the committee would undertake very broad consultations to get people's reactions and so on. The bill subsequently was bridged over a prorogation and in fact, as we know, for the past year the committee has had sometimes very acrimonious debates and discussions about the bill, and now here we are back at report stage.

Even at the committee, in fact, there were something like 200 amendments. Now we are here at report stage with 104 amendments, two of which, I might say, are very substantive changes to the bill. One of them deals with the creation of an ombudsman. Another deals with the establishment of a first nations governance centre.

What I really want to address here is that we are short-circuiting the established procedure for how we deal with a bill in each of its particular stages. I would refer you to the stages in the legislative process as laid out in Marleau and Montpetit on page 625, where it is stated quite clearly, in referring to the stages of a bill:

These stages “constitute a simple and logical process in which each stage transcends the one immediately before it, so that although the basic motions--that the bill be read a first (second or third) time--ostensibly are the same, and seem repetitious, they have very different meanings”.

I would certainly agree with that, but in this particular case we are already back at report stage and second reading when we have not yet had an opportunity to debate the bill in terms of its principle, especially given that this bill is now likely to be changed substantially in terms of government amendments that are coming forward.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to consider this and to make a ruling that when we have dealt with report stage, that is, when we have dealt with all of the amendments that are before us in the groups that exist and so on, at that point afterwards we would then go back to second reading, which properly we should have done before, to debate this bill in principle. Only then will we be following the logical steps that have been set out in the practice of the House for many years.

To circumvent that is an injustice not only to first nations people, who have had a great deal of concern about this bill, but also to members of Parliament who want to have due time and adequate opportunity to debate and discuss each stage of the legislative process on the bill.

Points of OrderGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Bloc

Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will add to what my colleagues have already said by passing on a message at the request of my Bloc Quebecois colleagues.

In order to debate a question like Bill C-7 properly, it is important for all proceedings of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs to be available in both official languages. Some of my colleagues wish to be involved throughout the debate, that is at the report stage, and even more so on second reading, if you allow a debate on principles, and they do not have access in French to the bulk of the deliberations on matters of importance in connection with Bill C-7. The bulk of the deliberations were in English only.

Even the Chair, who is a francophone, spoke almost exclusively in English throughout the deliberations. In order to facilitate debate—

Points of OrderGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

The Speaker

I have already made a Speaker's ruling on this for the Right Hon. member for Calgary Centre. I therefore do not wish to hear arguments on this point.

If the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot has any arguments on other points, I will hear them, but it is hard to continue the debate when a ruling has already been made on the matter he is raising at this time.

Points of OrderGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege.

Is it normal that in a Parliament where the use of both official languages is promoted, that one of the two official languages is not available for debate on an issue as important as Bill C-7? Even first nations have not had all of the privileges needed to assess a bill as important as this one which will shape their lives.

Is it not to be expected that here—

Points of OrderGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

The Speaker

It is not a question of what is normal, it is a question of practice in the House. Nor is it a question of official languages.

In my ruling, I said that even though the blues were not available, the House could go ahead with the study of a bill. This is a ruling that has been handed down by other speakers. The committee minutes are not required to have been tabled in the House before proceeding to report stage. That is the ruling. It is not a language issue.

The hon. member for Calgary Centre also raised the language issue. If we can proceed with report stage in the House without the committee blues, which is the case, then it is case closed. It is not at all a language issue. That is the problem the hon. member now has.

I can hear arguments on other points, but not on the matter of the committee blues. As far as I am concerned, that is not an issue. I repeat that I have already ruled on this matter, based on precedents adopted by at least three of my predecessors here in the House.

If the House wishes to change the Standing Orders on this, as members know, I serve the House and I am prepared to implement a new order. However, for the time being, the rules are clear, the precedent is clear and I have already given my ruling on this point.

Is there anything else?

Points of OrderGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

Mr. Speaker, are my rights as a francophone real in this Parliament? Are the rights of francophones in the Bloc Quebecois and all parties real in this Parliament? Can Parliament circumvent the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

As my colleague from Calgary Centre said earlier, the inspiration for early decisions of the Speakers of this House on committee blues was drawn from whatever existed before the days of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

As French-speaking parliamentarians in this House, we, that is I and those of my French-speaking colleagues who want to debate the same way and have the same privileges as our English-speaking colleagues, do not have such a right in this Parliament. Is that what you are telling us?

Points of OrderGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

The Speaker

No, that is not what I said. All I said was that if nothing was available in either French or English, we can carry on with the debate in the House.

So, even if minutes of proceedings have not been printed, we can still carry on. It is not a matter of the rights of one group or another, but a matter of the rights of the House. Speakers have always contended that it was not necessary to have the transcripts of committee proceedings to commence the next stage in the House. Today, we are considering the bill at report stage, and we can carry on.

To deal with the question raised by the right hon. member for Calgary Centre, the other point, and the hon. member for Vancouver East, I want to say that their arguments, while novel, were ones that caused the Chair some concern in that there were no precedents cited by them to suggest that the Chair in the House had any authority to restrain the government from proceeding with stages of bills in the House that have come back from committee or that are here.

To deal first with the hon. member for Vancouver East, she suggested that it was incumbent on the Chair to require that the House have a debate at second reading after the report stage has been disposed of because the bill had been referred to committee before second reading and therefore there had not been a proper debate at second reading.

I stress that the reason for the rule permitting referral of bills to committee before second reading was to allow the committee greater latitude in its study of a bill. Adoption of a bill at second reading means the House has agreed to the principles of the bill, and the amendments that would be permitted in committee are thereby much restricted because no amendment would be admissible in the committee or at report stage that was contrary to the principles of the bill adopted by the House at second reading.

I understand that the purpose of referring bills to a committee before second reading is to give the committee maximum latitude in the amendments that it may wish to consider. Accordingly, I do not feel it is incumbent on the Chair, the decision of the House having been made to refer the bill before second reading and thereby give the committee this additional latitude, to order that there be a subsequent debate at second reading.

There will be, of course, a debate at third reading of this bill. It is in effect the second crack at the arguments about the principles of the bill and the whole content of the bill as amended, and that means as amended both by the committee and at the report stage. Accordingly, I must rule that the hon. member for Vancouver East has not made a good argument in favour of the Chair intervening in that regard.

To go back to the right hon. member for Calgary Centre, he suggested that it was somehow incumbent on the Chair to defer the report stage on this bill to a later date because the committee's opportunities for amendment were somehow restricted or inadequate.

I am afraid I do not see any authority that he has raised which would give me any reason to think that I ought to deal with matters in this way. I am here to protect minority interests in the House, he is correct, but to argue that the Speaker has some obligation to minority interests outside the House, when I am the Speaker of the House and not someone who is boosted in here with supernatural powers, I think is asking more than should be expected of a Speaker. I think the obligation of the Speaker as servant of this House is to decide matters within the House and decide whether minority rights are in fact being protected.

I know that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot suggested that I am failing to protect the rights of some people by overlooking the fact that certain documents are not available in both official languages. However, I have already said the following.

I have to follow the practices and rules of this place, and we have proceeded to do different things in this House that sometimes minorities do not like, but it is a question of following the rules.

In this case, the report of the committee was brought to the House last Wednesday. The reprinted copy of the bill was available Thursday morning, I am told, at 9 o'clock. The time for filing amendments was extended until last evening, so in fact we have had Thursday, Friday, in effect the weekend, and Monday, for a review of the draft legislation, whatever was available from the committee in terms of the transcript of its proceedings and so on.

I have seen bills proceeded with in much greater haste than this. I am sure the right hon. member himself remembers many bills that have gone much more quickly than this one. Sure, they may not have been as contentious, and there may not have been as many amendments, but I remember ones where we have had extensive amendments and had a lot of votes in the House. I have not gone back to check the time, from the time of report until it was called for report stage, but I think hon. members will find that it often happens very quickly.

Accordingly, I do not see how the Chair can intervene in this case. I think there has been some time, and whether everyone would agree it was reasonable, of course I would not expect we would get agreement on that kind of point. I appreciate the right hon. member's disagreement with that and the forcefulness of his argument, but in the circumstances I do not feel it is a situation where the Chair may intervene in this matter, and accordingly, I am afraid, I suggest that his point of order is not well taken.

Points of OrderGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, this discussion deals with very fundamental questions in our country. I am not of a mind to challenge the Speaker's ruling on the matter because he may well be interpreting the rules as we have them in a way that is defensible.

We often talk about the distinctive nature of this country. We talk more about it now than we have for some time. Two of the elements of the distinctive nature of this country are first, that we are a country that has adopted and respects the spirit of the recognition of two official languages. That is one distinct characteristic of the country that applies to us as much as to other Canadians.

Second, this Parliament, as an instrument of the Crown, has an unusual responsibility with regard to first nations people who have historic rights of self-government that are different and often under threat.

We have a situation now in which a proposed bill has been discussed in committee and where the first nations people, with a remarkable near unanimity, have expressed their profound concern about the legislation.

I do not want to go over the details of it. I simply want to make the point that you, Mr. Speaker, are faced with a decision here where the rules respecting language that you would have us follow and which bind us now are rules that were set before the law was changed.

The second point concerns an obligation that has not been changed and that can never be casually shed. It is our particular obligation regarding the rights of first nations people. The rules may point in one direction. The nature of the country points in another direction. You are the Speaker of the House. You are also consequently an official of this country. We are representatives of this country, its people, its history, and its distinctive nature.

Two of those elements make us a distinct country in the world and make us a community of which so many Canadians are so proud. Two of those elements are at issue here: the official languages and the fiduciary responsibility of this Parliament toward the first nations people.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how you will resolve this, but I believe it cannot be resolved simply by turning back to the rules and precedents that were taken in other times.

Points of OrderGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

The Speaker

I believe the right hon. member has forgotten two things. In my ruling I cited three Speaker's rulings on this issue. One was from 1965, but the other two were from 1984 and 2000, both after the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Official Languages Act had been enacted.

I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. member, but in my view those rulings were made at the appropriate time. They reflect the existence of certain practices in the House which bind me, and at no time has the House sought to change the rule in respect of committee reports and transcripts of committee proceedings.

Notwithstanding the fact that those two rulings were made, ample opportunity was there for the House to adopt changes in its practice if it wanted to. It chose not to. I am sure the right hon. member would agree with me that it would be inappropriate for the Chair to start playing fast and loose with the rules by changing them at his whim because certainly my opinion on what the rules ought to be might be quite different from his on certain points and similar on others. It is not for me to make those changes.

The second thing, with respect to the fiduciary obligation he mentions, will no doubt be the subject of discussion in the House during the course of the debate. I point out to him that the committee report that has brought this bill back is in both official languages. The reprint of the bill and all the amendments that the committee proposed to this bill are in both official languages and are available here for debate. There are no doubt others moved and proposed by members which are on the Notice Paper that we will hear about presently. Those are also available to the House in both official languages.

Certainly, the question of fiduciary responsibility of the Crown to first nations people will be the subject of debate during the discussion of this bill, I have no doubt about that. But I respectfully suggest that it is not for the Speaker to determine when debate on this bill will start. That is a matter for the government, as has been the practice in the House since 1867. The government normally calls the business of the House and accordingly, I will now call for orders of the day.