Paul Zed

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague knows, we have nothing to hide. The question is in process and we are preparing an appropriate answer.

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 27th, 1996]

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

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 5 and 18.

Question No. 5-

[Government Response To Petitions, May 27th, 1996]

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

[Order In Council Appointments, May 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table in both official languages a number of order in council appointments which were made by the government pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1).

These are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.

[Committees Of The House, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That 10 members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food and the necessary support staff be authorized to travel to Washington, D.C. for three days between May 27, 1996 and June 5, 1996 in relation to the impact of the U.S. farm bill on Canadian agriculture

[Committees Of The House, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your indulgence. There are two travel motions which I believe there has been unanimous agreement to put forward.

I move:

That the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Transport and one researcher be authorized to travel to Washington, D.C., Chicago and Montreal on May 21, 22, and 23 and on June 4, 5, and 6 to gather information on the creation of a binational structure for the St. Lawrence Seaway.

[Business Of The House, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in order to assist the House, I will outline the business the government will place before it for the remainder of this month.

Tomorrow we will continue with Bill C-20, followed by Bill C-4, the Standards Council Act amendments, and Bill C-5, respecting bankruptcy.

When the House returns on May 27, and on Wednesday, May 19 and Friday, May 31 it will turn to Bill C-31, the budget implementation legislation. This will be followed by consideration at second reading of the income tax legislation based on the ways and means motion concurred in yesterday.

We will then return, if necessary, to Bill C-20, Bill C-4 and Bill C-5. If there is time we will call Bill C-23, respecting nuclear safety, and Bill C-24, amendments to the Tobacco Products Act.

Tuesday, May 28 and Thursday, May 30 shall be allotted days. In order to assist the Table, I ask my friend, the hon. Minister of Finance, to confirm their designation.

[Supply, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what my hon. colleague said, as I always do. In his view the Prime Minister has three different speeches for three different audiences.

Did his former leader, the now premier of Quebec, Mr. Bouchard, not have a different speech or a different commentary when he was in California trying to explain the concept of sovereignty to the American audience? In describing the concept of sovereignty in the United States he was trying to liken it to the sovereign state of California, and the Americans could not quite understand that.

I am wondering whether my colleague wishes to comment on the confusion which occurs. Perhaps it is planned with crooked questions that are being put to people, with questions that are confusing, with questions that in fact supplant democracy. We believe in democracy, as my hon. colleague knows. However, when my colleague talks about different kinds of speeches he might want to reflect in the mirror or have his leader reflect in the mirror about the kinds of speeches his leader is giving to the ethnic communities and business communities in Quebec City and Montreal, the Toronto business community or to the California community.

[Supply, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, while I understand the comments made by my hon. friend, it is important to mention that it was out of respect for the fact that he was in the middle of making his speech that no one rose at that time. It was a courtesy to the hon. member. We felt that it was important not to get up in the middle of his speech over one comment. Otherwise, we would be always standing.

While I accept the point that my hon. colleague made, I do not think that the Chair should take it too seriously. The points that the chief government whip made amply demonstrate some of the difficulties that we would endure if the Chair were to rule in a different way.

My hon. friend, the opposition House leader, has talked about a recent decision, but there was no decision of the Chair. It was a practice; not a decision of the Chair. It is only one practice. It does not make a ruling. There has been no ruling of the Chair.

There is no ruling and the chief government Whip has made that point. There is no precedent. If there were a precedent, then I would suggest that the chief government whip would not have risen at all.

I believe respectfully that the Chair should consider this matter in due course and we should be given an opportunity to hear what the Chair's ruling might be in this matter.