June 27, 1986

PC

Martial Asselin (Speaker pro tempore)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Speaker:

Order.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   ALLEGED MISSTATEMENT
Permalink
PC

Flora Isabel MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration)

Progressive Conservative

Miss MacDonald:

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order-

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   ALLEGED MISSTATEMENT
Permalink
PC

Martial Asselin (Speaker pro tempore)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Speaker:

Order, please. Hon. Members know that this is what happens when a point of order is raised that is not a point of order. The Hon. Minister seeks to reply but it is not a point of order. I think she has already had her comment.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   ALLEGED MISSTATEMENT
Permalink
PC

Flora Isabel MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration)

Progressive Conservative

Miss MacDonald:

Well, it may not be, but on the same point of order that was raised by the Hon. Member-

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   ALLEGED MISSTATEMENT
Permalink
PC

Martial Asselin (Speaker pro tempore)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Speaker:

Order, please. There is no point of order.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   ALLEGED MISSTATEMENT
Permalink
?

Some Hon. Members:

Oh, oh!

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   ALLEGED MISSTATEMENT
Permalink
PC

Martial Asselin (Speaker pro tempore)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Speaker:

Order, please. The Chair cannot hear because of the noise coming from the government side.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   ALLEGED MISSTATEMENT
Permalink

POINT OF ORDER

LIB

Jean-Robert Gauthier (Chief Opposition Whip; Whip of the Liberal Party)

Liberal

Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Senate sent a message to the House of Commons concerning Bill C-62, along with another message which was not read in the House because there was no Royal Assent and, for reasons which I fail to understand, this does not appear either in yesterday's Votes and Proceedings.

As it must be done, I would like the Chair to make public both the message and the observations of the Senate concerning Bill C-62. I think this should be included in Hansard because I think it is important that the House be aware of them and know that the Senate have made an important comment on a Bill which has not yet been given Royal Assent, but which will necessarily go through this process later today, I think.

I urge the Chair to give every consideration to my request because I think it is serious. A very important message has

June 27, 1986

Point of Order-Mr. Prud'homme

been conveyed to us and I suggest that the Chair ought to read the entire message before we go on to something else.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   POINT OF ORDER
Sub-subtopic:   REQUEST THAT A MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE BE PRINTED IN THE DEBATES OF THE HOUSE
Permalink
PC

Ramon John Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Progressive Conservative Party House Leader)

Progressive Conservative

Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order simply to put in a caveat with respect to the point raised by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) about messages between the two Houses. I do not want to get involved in a protracted procedural argument at this point in time but, as Your Honour is aware, I think it is the tradition, custom and convention of the two Houses of Parliament that they do not reflect upon the decisions of the other place.

With respect to messages that are received in the normal way dealing with amendments or other procedural or substantive matters relating to Bills, of course there is an established practice that has developed.

1 would simply suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that when you are looking at this particular matter, it would set a very dangerous precedent indeed if we were to start sending little love letters between the Houses dealing with our views of the truth as we see it in each place.

Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine

East): Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order because I was the principal critic of the Bill when it was before the House. In this situation, the Senate has not amended the Bill, has not defeated the Bill but has respected conventions and has passed the Bill recognizing the role of the House of Commons as the elected body in Canada. However, it has in a way put forward its views in this message. It has attempted to convey to the House its dissatisfaction with the Bill.

I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to have the message printed in Hansard. To my way of thinking, that would be a way of providing better accommodation between the two Houses considering that there is a majority held by one Party in one House and there is a majority held by another Party in the other House. That would be a reasonable accommodation considering that this is the elected House and the other is not.

I think that would be a very reasonable approach to the problem.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   POINT OF ORDER
Sub-subtopic:   REQUEST THAT A MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE BE PRINTED IN THE DEBATES OF THE HOUSE
Permalink
LIB

Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray (Official Opposition House Leader; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):

Mr. Speaker, I would simply ask you to check to see if messages of this kind from the other place have been read to the House before. If I am correct-and I may not be correct-you may find such a precedent, and if you do, I think it is a precedent which must be followed. The matter of the relationship between the two Houses and the suggestion of the government House Leader of the other place reflecting on this place are not at issue. It is simply a question of whether this has been done before. If it has, it should be done again.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   POINT OF ORDER
Sub-subtopic:   REQUEST THAT A MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE BE PRINTED IN THE DEBATES OF THE HOUSE
Permalink
NDP

Ian Deans (N.D.P. House Leader)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):

Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that we have to spend so much time on a matter such as this. I would like to suggest that the whole thing could be resolved if the Government would take our advice and abolish the Senate.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   POINT OF ORDER
Sub-subtopic:   REQUEST THAT A MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE BE PRINTED IN THE DEBATES OF THE HOUSE
Permalink
PC

Dave Nickerson

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I notice that the full text of the message has been made public. It is contained in the edition of Votes and Proceedings of Thursday, June 26. This being the case, it seems to be a reasonable way of dealing with the matter. There is no necessity for it to be recorded in Hansard because it is in Votes and Proceedings.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   POINT OF ORDER
Sub-subtopic:   REQUEST THAT A MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE BE PRINTED IN THE DEBATES OF THE HOUSE
Permalink
PC

Martial Asselin (Speaker pro tempore)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Speaker:

I thank Hon. Members for their interventions. The matter has been absolutely dealt with in the traditional House way.

To answer the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), such messages are often printed in our Votes and Proceedings when they are received from the Senate. The ones which are verbally read to the House are usually notices of an indication that Royal Assent will occur later that day, in order to inform the House that that is what will happen. Many times in the past these messages have been received from the Senate and printed in Votes and Proceedings. This is the way we have handled it before.

If Hon. Members are asking me to review whether there is a point of order with regard to whether it should be printed there-in fact it has become the practice-I would be happy to review that practice, but I see no point of order.

Is the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) rising on a separate point of order?

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   POINT OF ORDER
Sub-subtopic:   REQUEST THAT A MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE BE PRINTED IN THE DEBATES OF THE HOUSE
Permalink

TRIBUTE

LIB

Marcel Prud'homme

Liberal

Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House will not object if I take just a short moment to render homage to Jean Drapeau, a long-service Mayor of Montreal who just announced his retirement. His fabulous personality will be long remembered and missed for many years to come.

Long live Jean Drapeau who has served Montreal, his province and his country so well!

June 27, 1986

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   TRIBUTE
Sub-subtopic:   RETIREMENT OF JEAN DRAPEAU
Permalink

POINT OF ORDER

EFFECT OF PROROGATION ON REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT

PC

Martial Asselin (Speaker pro tempore)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Speaker:

I have one more matter with which I must deal. Unfortunately it is a little longer than normal. Yesterday the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) asked me to deal with a matter, and I think it is important to deal with it before we break for the summer recess.

The Hon. Member raised a point of order as to the effect of prorogation on requests made for Government responses to committee reports. Implicit in the Hon. Member's query is the understanding that normally the effect of prorogation is to abolish all pending proceedings. However, an exception is made in some respects. Standing Order 121 provides:

A progrogation of the House shall not have the effect of nullifying and Order or Address of the House for returns or papers, but all papers and returns ordered at one session of the House, if not complied with during the session, shall be brought down during the following session, without renewal of the Order.

Standing Order 99(2) which pertains to responses to committee reports reads as follows:

Within 120 days of the presentation of a report from a standing or special committee, the Government shall, upon the request of the committee, table a comprehensive response thereto.

It would be well perhaps to engage as briefly as I can at this point in some textual analysis of the terms "order for return" and "Standing Order". As noted in Citation 412 of Beau-chesne's Fifth Edition, at page 150, an order of the House is a decision of the House directing that something be done. Abraham and Hawtrey in "A Parliamentary Dictionary", Third Edition, at page 186, define a return as "a paper or document presented to either House in pursuance either of its order or an address". By combining these two definitions we may deduce that an "order for return" is a short form of stating that there is a decision of the House directing that a paper or document be presented to it.

A Standing Order is, as its very name implies, an order of the House which is to have a continuing effect. In my view by its adoption of Standing Order 99(2) on February 24, 1986 the House therefore made a decision directing that within 120 days of the presentation of a report from a standing or special committee, the Government shall, upon the request of the committee, table a comprehensive response thereto. In other words, the House thereby made a continuing order for the return of requested responses and, by virtue of Standing Order 121, further ordered that such returns should survive prorogation.

It seems to the Chair that the same reasoning developed earlier in these remarks can be applied in respect of responses to petitions as required by Standing Order 106(8) which provides:

The Ministry shall, within 45 days, respond to every petition referred to it.

The practice has developed of tabling these responses in the House. It would therefore appear that that practice has

Interparliamentary Delegation Report

accorded to responses to petitions the status of returns ordered by the House, which are capable of surviving prorogation.

Topic:   POINT OF ORDER
Subtopic:   EFFECT OF PROROGATION ON REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT
Sub-subtopic:   RESPONSE TO COMMITTEE REPORT-SPEAKER'S RULING
Permalink
LIB

Jean-Robert Gauthier (Chief Opposition Whip; Whip of the Liberal Party)

Liberal

Mr. Gauthier:

Mr. Speaker, I accept your decision, and I think I agree with it also. However, I just want to make one important point. If the report in question had not been adopted by the House, would it still be an order of the House? If the report is pending, in other words no concurrence motion has been made, does Your Honour's ruling still apply?

Topic:   POINT OF ORDER
Subtopic:   EFFECT OF PROROGATION ON REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT
Sub-subtopic:   RESPONSE TO COMMITTEE REPORT-SPEAKER'S RULING
Permalink

June 27, 1986