Derek Lee

[Questions Passed As Orders For Returns, February 15th, 2000]

I ask that the answer to starred Question No. 55 be made an order for return. If the House gives its consent, this return would be tabled immediately.

[Questions On The Order Paper, February 15th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, Question No. 56 will be answered today. .[Text]

Question No. 56—

[Committees Of The House, February 15th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the 17th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

[Government Response To Petitions, February 15th, 2000]

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

[Privilege, February 15th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite raises a point which is raised in the House from time to time. Members are quite appropriately sensitive to the parliamentary traditions and the rules that we follow in particular with respect to impending legislation.

In this case there is an allegation that someone outside the House had knowledge of impending legislation. Of course that is not a surprise or a secret to anyone because this legislation had been speculated on frequently over the last few weeks. In fact, the government did quite a bit of consultation with citizens on the bill. Notice of the bill being introduced in parliament was tabled in the House.

It is worth noting that nowhere is there a suggestion here that the individual referred to had a copy of the bill. It is clear that the individual would have had some knowledge of some elements of the bill as did members of parliament around the House.

Quite frequently the press is able to put together enough information about impending legislation to write about it before the bill is actually introduced. That is one of the things that happened in this case.

I would just note that the government does consult with citizens and groups. Ministers do it, ministries do it and members of parliament do it. Consequently members of the public do have knowledge of elements of impending legislation. I suggest that is what has happened here.

I would also point out that it is not the government, the minister or the ministry which has prepared the briefing or publicly sent a letter attempting to analyse the bill. It was a citizen. I hope there is no fault alleged in relation to the minister here.

In any event I make those comments for the record and hope that they will assist the Chair.

[Points Of Order, February 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I thought we had entered Routine Proceedings. We are most anxious to get on with our day.

[Committees Of The House, February 14th, 2000]

moved:

That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.

[Committees Of The House, February 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member has moved concurrence in this particular committee report. I can only think that he is arguing against it now. He is actually reading the report instead of debating its concurrence. All I am hearing is him reading the report. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to direct your attention to that.

[Government Response To Petitions, February 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 20 petitions.

[Canada Elections Act, February 14th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, members opposite will know that the government has suggested approximately 13 technical amendments. Most of the opposition parties have agreed to the introduction of those technical amendments.

The amendments just read to the House were three of those technical amendments contained within Group No. 2. Because we did not yet have full agreement among all the parties in the House to the introduction of all of the technical amendments, we thought we should deal with the three in Group No. 2.