Peter Milliken

[Government Response To Petitions, May 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages the government's response to 60 petitions.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 4th, 1995]

It is the pot calling the kettle black.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 4th, 1995]

The Reform Party.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 4th, 1995]

I would not want to bore the House or impugn motives to members as they have done in respect of some of the members on this side of the House in the debate.

However, it is fair that we give members every opportunity to express their views. One of the things we do not like doing is cutting off debate. Often, as the hon. member knows, when we have used time allocation in the past we have offered to sit late to avoid having to use time allocation so members could get an opportunity to express their views. That is exactly what we are doing tonight.

I want to ensure that all members who want to express their opinion on this bill are given a good opportunity to do so. Sitting late tonight gives all members that opportunity. They may have to leave their office or skip the movie they were going to go to, but most of us are here until 11 o'clock at night anyway working, so it is no problem and we are happy to stay and listen to hon. members.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 4th, 1995]

The hon. member says it is unnecessary. We have made very little progress this week on government legislation. We expected to get two or three bills done yesterday afternoon but we did not get any.

Tuesday was an opposition day. On Monday we expected to get two bills. We got one motion to a vote which, as I recall, was on an amendment. The motion to set up a special joint committee to study ethics was opposed particularly by the Reform Party. It has been stalled and is not happening now. We have a tremendous number of bills to deal with. The government is anxious to move on with its legislative agenda.

Because we have had very good co-operation until the last few weeks we did not feel it necessary to sit late very often. Hon. members will note we did not. However, now that we have an extremely heavy agenda, dozens of bills waiting to be dealt with, it seemed only reasonable that we allow members to express their views on a bill to which we recognize there is significant opposition from Reform Party members who for various reasons do not like this bill. Some of us have views on what those reasons are but I will not go into that on a comment.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to be suggesting that sitting late is somehow unfair.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I intend to split my time with the next speaker. I would like to indicate that. It is a pleasure to participate in this debate.

I move:

That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary time of daily adjournment for the purpose of considering the second reading stage of Bill C-85, an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and to provide for the continuation of a certain provision.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 4th, 1995]

That is not a direct quote.

[Committees Of The House, May 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That the Subcommittee on Aboriginal Education, composed of five members, of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, be authorized to travel to Vancouver-Sechelt, Kuujjuaq, Cornwall, Cape Breton and Conne River from May 9, 1995 to June 3, 1995, and that a staff of three do accompany the subcommittee.

[Points Of Order, May 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order today arising out of question period. I do so with some reluctance. This practice has continued now for some time and I want to draw to the House's attention and also to Your Honour the rules in respect of question period which do apply and which I think are relevant when the opposition considers questions it wishes to ask in the House.

This afternoon, Sir, you ruled a question or two out of order and I want to draw to your attention the provisions in citation 409 in Beauchesne:

In 1975, the Speaker expressed in general principles in order to clarify the regulations and restrict the negative qualifications which traditionally have guided the Question Period.

On that occasion the Speaker said:

A brief question seeking information about an important matter of some urgency which falls within the administrative responsibility of the government or of the specific minister to whom it is addressed, is in order.

It goes on under number (12):

Questions should not anticipate a debate scheduled for the day but should be reserved for the debate.

That view was reinforced by a ruling by the Speaker in 1986 and which is quoted in citation 410 of the sixth edition of Beauchesne:

In 1986 the Speaker put forth further views in light of more recent conditions and precedents. It was observed that-

I need not repeat the entire citation but I turn to paragraph (14) thereof:

Questions should not anticipate an order of the day although this does not apply to the budget process.

I know hon. members opposite would like me to dispense with reading these important practices of the House. They have been rigorously enforced for many years. I know Your Honour in seeking to enforce them today was acting in the very best traditions of the House.

I can only urge Your Honour to continue to do so with vigour and ensure practices outlined in 1975 and 1986 are adhered to by the opposition.