SoVote

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP)

Apr/28/22 10:11:41 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that interesting intervention. I always appreciate the good debates that we have in this House. The NDP just wants to put on the record that it would have the ability to respond at a later time.

43 words

Context: House Hansard - 60 - Apr/28/22

Mr. Blaine Calkins (Red Deer—Lacombe, CPC)

Apr/28/22 10:12:07 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in regard to government Motion No. 11, and in particular paragraph (b)(ii) of the motion, which states: after 6:30 p.m. the Speaker shall not receive any quorum calls or dilatory motions, and shall only accept a request for unanimous consent after receiving a notice from the House leaders or whips of all recognized parties stating that they are in agreement with such a request. My point of order will challenge the admissibility of the motion, since the quorum in this House is a requirement of the Constitution Act, section 48. Some may point out that certain proceedings in this chamber have proceeded under the unanimous agreement of the House that quorum calls not be heard, but I would like to point out that in those instances, such as late shows, emergency debates and take-note debates, these debates do not result in decisions of this House. The current motion is an unprecedented departure from this usual practice, in that it seeks to remove the quorum requirement for the debate of government legislation on items that could become law should the House vote to support them. The requirement for quorum has never been challenged before, and the quorum requirement of the House is a fundamental component of our rules entrenched in the Constitution. In fact, page 598 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, says clearly, “Nothing done by unanimous consent constitutes a precedent.” I also recognize that the quorum necessity of 20 members is not altered directly. The inability to bring to the attention of the Chair the lack of quorum in this House indirectly waives the constitutional and procedural requirement of quorum. Since a quorum call is the only means by which quorum is enforced during the sitting, the inability to call a quorum is, in essence, the same as waiving the quorum requirement. Mr. Speaker, as you and your predecessors have reminded this House numerous and countless times, we cannot do indirectly what we cannot do directly. If the House were to adopt Motion No. 11, it would adopt procedures that go beyond the powers conferred upon it by the Constitution. There are similar precedents regarding committees that ought to be considered. On June 20, 1994 and November 7, 1996, the Speaker ruled that: While it is a tradition of this House that committees are masters of their own proceedings, they cannot establish procedures which go beyond the powers conferred upon them by the House. If we are to be consistent, I would point out that while the House is a master of its own proceedings, it cannot establish procedures that go beyond the powers conferred upon it by the Constitution. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 1985 that the requirements of section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and of section 23 of the Manitoba Act, 1870, respecting the use of both the English and French languages in the records and journals of the Houses of the Parliament of Canada, are mandatory and must be obeyed. Accordingly, the House can no longer depart from its own code of procedure when considering procedure entrenched in the Constitution. On page 295 of the second edition of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, in reference to the 1985 case, he lists those constitutional requirements regarding parliamentary procedure that must be obeyed and includes in that list section 48, which deals with the quorum of the House of Commons. While these requirements are amendable by the Parliament of Canada, they cannot be amended only by one House of Parliament. This House cannot unilaterally change or suspend the quorum requirement by a majority decision. While it is said that the Speaker does not normally rule on constitutional matters, the constitutional matter of quorum is also stated in our Standing Orders, as are the financial privileges of this House. It is our responsibility to ensure that procedural requirements are observed before a bill leaves this place to become law, since the courts have the legal power to inquire into the procedural history of a bill that has been assented to. On page 186 of Joseph Maingot's second edition of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, there is the claim that “the courts might be effective in ensuring the observance of procedural requirements imposed by the constitution with respect to the enactment of legislation.” The official opposition rejects this procedure being forced upon the minority by the majority in this House. If the House were to adopt this motion without the unanimous consent of the members, and I have my doubts whether we should have been circumventing this rule in the past by unanimous consent, we could be casting doubt upon the legitimacy of our proceedings and placing the entire institution under a cloud. Among the first principles of our democracy is that legislation should be tested through rigorous debate. Allowing for significant portions of debate on government legislation that could become law without requiring a single government or coalition member to be present to contest and debate the legislation is a fundamental abdication of duty on behalf of the government. As many Speakers have stated numerous times in this place, the Speaker is the servant of this chamber and the guardian of the members' rights and privileges. I implore you to find out of order the provision that would remove the ability of the Speaker to ensure quorum present in this chamber.

918 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 60 - Apr/28/22

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/28/22 12:41:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, one of the things it does not do is prevent, for example, emergency debates from occurring, or potential other types of debates, during the day, such as private members' hour. I know there is a private member's bill that deals with this particular issue, at least in good part. I believe there is at least one of them. Everything depends on when it gets called. Unlike government legislation, there is programming that takes place with private members' bills, which will ultimately see it brought to the floor, debated and voted upon. I do not know where that particular issue is at, in regard to Private Members' Business, but I do hope to see a healthy discussion on the guaranteed annual income, because I know there is a great deal of interest out there.

136 words