44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 2, 2022 11:00AM
- May/2/22 12:04:45 p.m.
- Watch
I am now ready to rule on the points of order raised on April 28, 2022, by the chief opposition whip and the House leader of the official opposition concerning, respectively, the admissibility and division of Government Business No. 11.
The chief opposition whip challenged the admissibility of subparagraph (b)(ii) of the motion which will prohibit quorum calls after 6:30 p.m. on extended sitting days. The member argued that a 20-member quorum is a constitutional requirement, explicitly stated in section 48 of the Constitution Act, 1867. To this I would add that this quorum obligation is also found in Standing Order 29. The member alleged that the motion would render this requirement meaningless, as there would be no means of enforcing it. He also suggested that the House cannot, by motion alone, alter a constitutional requirement in regard to the minimum presence of members.
For his part, the House leader of the official opposition maintained that Government Business No. 11 is an omnibus motion, consisting of several parts, each capable of standing on its own. In his view, the motion could be divided into seven separate questions, each debated and voted on individually, while noting that some parts could be grouped together for debate. Citing instances when this had happened, he asked the Chair to exercise its authority and divide the motion as per his suggestion.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the government House leader countered that the motion does not require any division since the unifying theme is to organize the business of the House for the remaining weeks before the summer adjournment. He submitted that similar motions containing many provisions relating to the business of the House have been adopted in the past, without being divided.
The Chair will begin by addressing the elements brought forward by the chief opposition whip. While he is correct in stating that certain elements of our procedure are provided for in the Constitution and are not subject to amendment or suspension by motion alone, the Chair does not believe that this is what the motion does. It instead prevents members from drawing the Chair’s attention to the absence of a quorum during a particular part of the sitting. As the chief opposition whip readily concedes, there is ample precedent for such motions, as they are regularly adopted by unanimous consent in relation to debates taking place in the evenings. I find it difficult to conclude that such motions are constitutional when adopted by unanimous consent, but unconstitutional if proposed in a debatable government motion.
Secondly, members will recognize that there are already circumstances during which quorum calls are not permitted. For example, Standing Order 29(5) authorizes the Speaker to take the chair when the Usher of the Black Rod is at the door whether quorum is present or not.
Moreover, it is a well-established practice that a quorum call is not permitted during Oral Questions, Statements by Members, Adjournment Proceedings or the taking of a recorded division. Therefore, in the Chair's view, this provision alone does not render Government Business No. 11 inadmissible.
As for the second matter concerning the division of the said motion, I would like to reiterate the ruling of one of my predecessors, cited by the House leader of the official opposition which can be found at page 65 of the Debates of October 17, 2013:
In adjudicating cases of this kind, the Chair must always be mindful to approach each new case with a fresh eye, taking into account the particular circumstances of the situation at hand. Often, there is little in the way of guidance for the speaker and a strict compliance with precedent is not always appropriate.
I would suggest, like my predecessors, that the Chair should exercise caution before intervening in the business of the House and, more precisely, before dividing a motion.
With this in mind, the Chair has considered the arguments put forward and reviewed the provisions of Government Business No. 11. There is indeed an overall theme to the motion, relating to the management of the House’s schedule and its business, and therefore the Chair does not believe it meets the threshold required to be divided for the purpose of individual debates. However, the Chair does agree that some provisions of the motion are sufficiently distinct to be the subject of a separate vote.
Therefore, I rule that the motion will be divided in three parts for the purpose of voting, which are as follows: part I, consisting of paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d), relating to the business of the House for the remaining sitting weeks until June 23; part II, consisting of paragraph (e), which relates to deadlines set for the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying; and part III, consisting of the last paragraph that seeks to permanently amend Standing Order 28(1), listing the days on which the House shall not meet.
I thank all members for their attention.
834 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/22 12:30:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to give the justice minister an opportunity, because I believe he did misspeak. Perhaps he did not understand that there is a constitutional obligation for quorum to be held in this place.
He said that this has happened before, but it only happens in take-note debates. It also happens in emergency debates when no vote on government legislation is held. In fact, this has never been held before. I would give the justice minister an opportunity to correct himself and not mislead the House.
96 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/22 5:36:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to ask my hon. colleague about the part of the motion that prevents us from making quorum calls. This is not just a matter of suspending a standing rule. This is a constitutionally entrenched right. The rules of the House call for the ability of members to make a quorum call. In other words, we could have literally one or two members in the House introducing motions or bills.
I wonder if the member could comment on why the government would think this is important to do.
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/22 5:36:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right.
In the House, it is even harder to make sure we have quorum because some people are attending virtually. I know I cannot talk about who is here. At times over the past few days, I have wanted to do a quorum call, but I was told that some people might be attending virtually.
That said, this is definitely something we need to pay attention to. At some point, we will have to stop sitting virtually because we have work to do and we have to find way to get it done without closure motions.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/22 6:46:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member tries to appeal to those who might be following the debate in terms of what is taking place. It is a very simple motion. The intent of the motion is to enable opposition members and other members the opportunity to speak after 6:30 p.m. It would be from 6:30 p.m. to midnight. The Conservatives might want to try to confuse the issue. Everything else is based on votes, so it is not like the government on its own can ram things through. It is all based on votes.
It is an issue of should we be having more debate between 6:30 p.m. and midnight. If we were to canvass Canadians, we will find there are hundreds of thousands of Canadians who work past 6:30 in the evening. There is nothing wrong with having more opportunities to debate.
The member is wrong. He is wrong on the quorums. Opposition parties have equal responsibility in the issue of quorum. On the issue of quorum, there are many occasions when we see no quorum or dilatory motions. That is nothing new.
189 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/22 6:47:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague across the way, as much as I try to have respect for what he has to say, is actually completely wrong. He is not only misleading Canadians who are watching this, but this has never been done. This type of motion, the removal of quorum and the autopilot on government legislation has never happened in the 16 years I have been an MP.
As I said in my speech, these kinds of things happen on motions before this House that do not have a question being put, like an emergency debate, a take-note debate or autopilot on other procedures where there is no vote, no money being spent and no bills being passed.
The difference now is that the government is so afraid of not only dealing with and debating with the Conservatives, but obviously it is afraid of its own backbench if it is not even sure it can muster quorum and keep 20 people here to listen to what Canadians have to say.
170 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/22 7:18:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, from time to time at committee, particularly when travelling but sometimes here in Ottawa, the committee will waive its quorum requirement and provide that no substantive motions can be moved or debated, in order to hear from witnesses. The committee sees value in hearing points of view and getting them on the record, but recognizes that it may not be an appropriate time to address issues that come out of left field, so to speak. That is kind of similar to what is being proposed for evening sittings in the House of Commons when we have these extended meetings.
I just wonder if the member has some experience with a committee that has conducted its business this way and if democracy ended when the committee decided to conduct its business that way.
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/22 11:39:40 p.m.
- Watch
There has been a ruling made by the Speaker earlier today that there are no quorum calls during late sittings.
The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
