Lost his last election, in 2004, with 37% of the vote.
Divorce Act November 5th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous recorded division on the address in reply to the throne speech be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House with Liberal members voting nay.
Speech From The Throne November 5th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, you will find there is unanimous consent that those members who have voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting no.
Speech From The Throne November 5th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on Bill C-49, with the exception of the member for Lanark-Carleton, be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.
Administrative Tribunals (Remedial And Disciplinary Measures) Act November 5th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, you will find there is unanimous consent that those members who have voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with the Liberal members voting no.
Agricultural Marketing Programs Act November 5th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
Agricultural Marketing Programs Act November 5th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, as was mentioned by our colleague opposite, the member for York South-Weston, the intention is simply to avoid any confusion, as we have now taken the practice of applying votes. Private members' business, giving it the due respect it deserves in this House, we felt that we should first deal with the government bills and subsequently, simply to avoid confusion, we would deal with the private members' motions at the end of the process. There is nothing else.
Agricultural Marketing Programs Act November 5th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think you would find unanimous consent to take the deferred recorded divisions on the private members' motions at the end of the votes later today.
Bill C-234 November 4th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a very brief point of order concerning the admissibility of this motion at this stage of our proceedings.
It appears this motion has been set down under Routine Proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 67(1)(p) as a motion:
-made upon Routine Proceedings, as may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the appointment or conduct of its officers, the management of its business-
I would refer the Chair to the annotated standing orders, page 213, which state very clearly:
With reference to subsection (p), the Chair has consistently ruled that all motions referring to the business of the House should be introduced by the Government House Leader.
Speaker's rulings to this effect can be found in Journals from May 30, 1928, May 11, 1944 and May 2, 1961. Madam Speaker Sauvé ruled very clearly against such a motion's being proposed by a private member on April 21, 1982, as seen at pages 16701-2 of Debates for that date.
On July 13, 1988 Mr. Speaker Fraser gave a more adventurous opinion, saying with regard to such motions: "It is not the exclusive purview of the government despite the government's unquestioned prerogative to determine the agenda of business before the House".
On September 23 our present Speaker went one step further when he said: "Under our current practices the Chair may well accept after due notice such a motion on the condition that it is very strictly limited to the terms of the committal of a bill to a committee and that it is not an attempt to interfere with the committee's proceedings thereon".
The Speaker has said that such a motion may be in order but that if the motion sought to interfere with the committee's work on the bill other than to oblige the committee to complete its work by a
specified time, it would not be possible to admit such a motion under Routine Proceedings.
If one reads the motion in question, one sees that the motion would not only order the committee to complete its study of the bill by a certain time, but it would also propose to instruct the committee that it cannot make any amendments to the proposed bill. This clearly and explicitly violates the conditions set down by Mr. Speaker on September 23 last.
The motion is clearly an attempt to interfere improperly with the committee's proceedings on the bill in question and I submit that even if the motion were otherwise acceptable the inclusion of the words "without amendment" violates the conditions set down by the Speaker and makes this motion inadmissible under the rubric Routine Proceedings to propose a motion of this nature under Routine Proceedings.
Business Of The House October 31st, 1996
Madam Speaker, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That any recorded division requested Thursday, October 31, 1996, on any government orders, including the divisions already requested on Bill C-34, and on Friday, November 1, 1996 on the address debate, be deemed deferred until Tuesday, November 5, 1996 at 5.30 p.m.
(Motion agreed to.)
Point Of Order October 30th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I will take the matter raised by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminister under notice and will see that the message is delivered to the parliamentary secretary, being quite sensitive of course from his perspective of the length of time it has taken to get the answers.
On the other hand, quite often that simply reflects the complexity of the question. We will take all those things into consideration and get back to the House, through you, Mr. Speaker.