Debates of March 10, 2005 (day 53)

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out a point of privilege. Yesterday, on March 9, 2005, in this Legislature during Committee of the Whole debate, I believe that inappropriate amendments were made to a bill that affects my ability to do my job to represent my constituents. I was unable to send this bill back to the responsible standing committee for proper public debate to engage our institution of participatory consensus government. This bill has changed significantly. The Minister added five amendments to a bill of 10; very irregular, and made a new reference to the Wildlife Act which is not an amendment but is an addition. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Before I rule on the point of privilege, I will allow Members to speak to the point of privilege. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe that I have shown in the past to take very seriously any points of privilege that are raised. I do believe that they are very important and it is one of the privileges of being here, to raise those points, and I respect that very much.

I do want to respond for the sake of the debate here, just to respond to the point being raised. Mr. Speaker, I think it is very serious when anyone raises questions about whether we are giving the public the proper input into our legislative process, and those should be raised whenever there are questions asked and they should be properly answered to. I just want to say that in this case I don't think that it's true that the public have not had a chance to look at this bill or the intent of this bill, Mr. Speaker.

This bill was introduced in the House last October. The public hearing process of this was advertised in mass media throughout November. I know that the Social Programs committee held at least three public hearings on it, and the amendments, I know are troublesome for some and I appreciate that there are some points that are changing the nature and the substantive scope of the bill but, in my view, I believe those changes that were made are very much in line with the preamble of the bill which was introduced and read and accepted by the House, and I don't believe those amendments made in Committee of the Whole yesterday changes that.

So I do respect the right of Members to raise a point of privilege. I do want to add my point to this debate, and that is that I don't believe in this case that the assertions being made are true. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I await your decision.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Do any other Members want to speak to the point of privilege? Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, appreciate any Member's contention that there may be a point of process and an interference with the public's access to what we are doing here. In this case, I do not feel that we have breached that trust.

The purpose of the bill, when it was introduced last fall, was quite clear to me, Mr. Speaker, that it was designed to be a survey, if you will, or an inventory of all of our legislation to catch the areas and definitions regarding spouses or references to particular genders that would not be consistent with Canadian law, and we are compelled to follow that. So even though, as the Member quite correctly pointed out, there were some new provisions brought in in a couple of acts, it was very consistent with the spirit and intent, and I think the impact of the bill will, in fact, result in more people having obligations and benefits returned or restored to them no matter what their gender.

So I think the amendments that were brought forward by the Minister were positive and certainly in the spirit of the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. To the point of privilege. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, for the record, I do believe that Mr. Menicoche does have a point of privilege. If he feels that his ability to represent the interests of his constituents has been curtailed or infringed on in any way, and I think that time is not of the essence with respect to these changes. I think there is substantive time. I would also like to suggest that in fact the reason why these amendments were not made at the committee level was because they couldn't make it out of committee on a vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. To the point of privilege. The honourable Member for Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I am going to support the honourable Mr. Menicoche, Member for Nahendeh, in terms of his point of privilege. Mr. Speaker, when we come into the House, the integrity of this institution is at stake in terms of the process and the respect that we give each other and the jobs that we do. If there are changes made to a bill, we need to be aware of them, as committee members. If there are some changes to a bill without us as committee members not knowing or the House not going through the process, even though it may be consistent with supporting the bill, if there are some new provisions that are brought in at the last minute, then I really question the integrity of the process that we have been engaged in in the last couple of weeks here. So I also await the ruling of your decision, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the point of privilege. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. The honourable Member for North Slave, Mr. Zoe.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I concur with my colleague from Nahendeh and the comments that Mrs. Groenewegen has made also. I believe that the process that’s been outlined by Mr. Yakeleya. I just want to make a couple other points. Although Ms. Lee has indicated that they follow the normal routine and follow a process of putting advertisements out so they can have general public input, I don’t think they’ve gone far enough, particularly on such a sensitive issue as this particular bill is. I think they should have gone a little bit more in consultation with aboriginal and municipal governments. Then that way we could have had more serious input into this particular bill. I think my colleague here has a point of privilege.

Thank you, Mr. Zoe. To the point of privilege. The honourable Minister of Justice, Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. To the point of privilege. No further comments. Thank you, Members. When a point of privilege is raised, the duty of the Speaker is to determine whether a prima facie breach of privilege has occurred and whether the matter has been raised at its earliest opportunity. Having heard the arguments of the Members on this point of privilege, it is my ruling that a prima facie breach of privilege has not occurred in this instance.

I will remind Members that a breach of privilege occurs when the ability of the House to execute its functions has been obstructed or where individual Members have been obstructed in the performance of their individual duties. It is my ruling that neither of these conditions have been met. Many of the Members' arguments relate to the matter of procedure and the rules of this House. While these matters may have been relevant on a point of order raised at the appropriate time, they are not necessarily relevant to a question of privilege.

To the motion. Mrs. Groenewegen.