Private Members’ Business / Miscellaneous

April 1, 1992

Debates, pp. 9208-9

On April 1, 1992, at the beginning of Private Members' Business, immediately following the moving of a motion standing in the name of Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt), Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston) rose on a point of order. He was of the opinion that the House was getting into a debate on a motion the subject of which was already under consideration in a committee. The Member explained that Mr. Rodriguez' motion called for legislation establishing conflict of interest guidelines for Members of Parliament, Senators, senior bureaucrats and senior political staff He mentioned that the Government had previously tabled Bill C-43 respecting the Senate and the House of Commons Conflict of Interests Act and had set up a Special Joint Committee to do a pre-study of the Bill in question. Mr. Rodriguez argued that no provision of the Standing Orders prevented the House from debating a private Member's motion on a subject similar but not identical to a matter before a parliamentary committee. Other Members also intervened in the discussion.^[1] The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charles DeBlois) took the matter under advisement and allowed debate on the motion to begin. Later in the course of Private Members' Business, he delivered his ruling which is reproduced in extenso below.

Decision of the Chair

The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois): Before giving the floor back to the honourable Member for Nickel Belt, the Chair has had some time to think over the point of order raised by the honourable Member for York South—Weston. I do not think that it is good to leave the House uncertain and so I think it useful to go over the chronology of events, given the sensitive subject before us.

On May 13, 1991, the honourable Member for Nickel Belt presented a motion concerning, among other things, conflicts of interest for senior officials and senior political staff. On November 22, 1991, Bill C-43 was tabled in the House of Commons on first reading and this bill makes no mention of senior officials and senior political staff.

The same day, a special committee was created and the subject matter of Bill C-43, not the bill itself, was referred to it. On December 2,1991, the motion of the honourable Member for Nickel Belt was placed on the order of precedence. It was drawn by lot and placed on the order of precedence and on December 10, 1991, the committee was struck to consider Bill C-43.

In summary, we are faced with certain principles, the first of which is the right of any Member to present bills, and motions—this is an important point. Second, the motions are not identical. The motion for Bill C-43 is not the same as the one from the honourable Member for Nickel Belt, since this one extends the debate to senior officials and senior political staff. Finally, the motion is not votable. That is why, under the circumstances, I think the Chair can allow a debate limited to one hour, since on balance, weighing the pros and cons, I think that a Member's legitimate right to present a motion could be weakened or violated by an overly strict interpretation of the rule which forbids discussing a bill that is already being considered in committee.

All this is to say that I find the motion of the honourable Member for Nickel Belt to be in order and I again give him the floor for the three minutes remaining to him. Again I ask honourable Members to be careful in what they say since the subject referred to is part of the work now going on in a parliamentary committee.

Therefore I call on both sides of the House to co-operate.

F1006-e

34-3

1992-04-01