Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I rise today on a point of order. I have had the opportunity to review the unedited Hansard for Friday, November 4, 1994, with reference to comments made by the
honourable Minister responsible for the Public Utilities Board on the Standing Committee on Legislation review of Bill 8, An Act to Amend the Public Utilities Act.
The Honourable John Todd stated in the House on November 4, 1994, and I quote from page 1856 of the unedited Hansard:
"Just for clarification, we did go before the Standing Committee on Legislation and it recommended, I thought, to support the bill based upon the two amendments they asked us to do. Now the Standing Committee on Legislation Members are naying the bill. I don't understand what is going on here. By resolution, they passed it, the last time I met with the standing committee."
Madam Speaker, this quote was repeated in a CBC news broadcast this morning at 7:30 am.
Additionally, the Minister stated in the House, and I quote from page 1856:
"Maybe someone could help me out in terms of procedure, being the layman that I am, why some aggressive Members of the House have decided to raise their voices louder than those who don't."
The honourable Minister appears to be suggesting that because the Standing Committee on Legislation considered this bill in committee, Members of the House should rubber-stamp the bill. Madam Speaker, regardless of what recommendations the standing committee makes with respect to any bill, Members of this House are, and should be, free to fully debate the bill on the floor of the House. This debate may be delivered aggressively if it is necessary to fulfil their obligations as Members of the Legislature.
For the record, Madam Speaker, I must note that the Standing Committee on Legislation's report, as contained on page 1853 of the unedited Hansard dated November 4, 1994, makes reference to problems that the public had with the bill. Additionally, the report refers to committee concerns with respect to the bill representing an additional tax on the consumers. During the public hearings on September 8, 1994, the public record clearly shows that there was no agreement between the Minister and the standing committee as to support of the bill.
Madam Speaker, the committee did not "approve" this bill. The committee did its job, heard submissions from the public, considered the bill and moved the bill into committee of the whole for consideration.
The point of order, Madam Speaker, is the Minister, by stating the committee had recommended support of Bill 8, has mislead the House and the public. By his remarks, the Minister is leaving the public and this House with the perception that the Members of the Standing Committee on Legislation say one thing and do another.
I would appreciate, Madam Speaker, if you would consider this point of order on behalf of myself as well as Members of this House who believe that Members should feel free to fully debate all legislation in this House, aggressively if necessary.
Further, Madam Speaker, I would ask for an apology from the honourable Minister. Mahsi cho.
---Applause