SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 173

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 27, 2023 11:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 173 - Mar/27/23
The Speaker
  • Mar/27/23 11:01:16 a.m.
  • Watch
It is my duty to lay upon the table, pursuant to subsection 7(5) of the Auditor General Act, the spring 2023 report of the Auditor General of Canada. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(g), this report is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
53 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 173 - Mar/27/23
The Speaker
  • Mar/27/23 11:12:55 a.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-11 
I want to thank the hon. member for his point of order. After consultation with the Clerk, as the hon. member knows, the next motion will start at noon and it does not give us a lot of time to come up with a resolution. I do have some information from last week when it came up. I will allow it to start at noon, but we will come back with a response as soon as possible to the hon. member's point of order, likely tomorrow at some time. I thank members for their patience and understanding.
98 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 173 - Mar/27/23
The Speaker
  • Mar/27/23 2:23:18 p.m.
  • Watch
The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
6 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 173 - Mar/27/23
The Speaker
  • Mar/27/23 2:35:33 p.m.
  • Watch
I want to remind hon. members to use their language judiciously and try to respect and not mock or criticize each other. The hon. Minister of Housing.
27 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 173 - Mar/27/23
The Speaker
  • Mar/27/23 2:47:07 p.m.
  • Watch
The hon. member for Calgary Centre.
6 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 173 - Mar/27/23
The Speaker
  • Mar/27/23 2:50:17 p.m.
  • Watch
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.
12 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 173 - Mar/27/23
The Speaker
  • Mar/27/23 3:05:53 p.m.
  • Watch
The hon. Minister of Families.
5 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 173 - Mar/27/23
The Speaker
  • Mar/27/23 3:06:36 p.m.
  • Watch
The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.
16 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 173 - Mar/27/23
The Speaker
  • Mar/27/23 3:11:07 p.m.
  • Watch
The hon. minister, from the top, please.
7 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 173 - Mar/27/23
The Speaker
  • Mar/27/23 3:12:26 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-26 
It being 3:12 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-26. Call in the members.
42 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 173 - Mar/27/23
The Speaker
  • Mar/27/23 3:13:21 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 173 - Mar/27/23
The Speaker
  • Mar/27/23 3:25:42 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-26 
I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.
20 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 173 - Mar/27/23
The Speaker
  • Mar/27/23 3:26:44 p.m.
  • Watch
It is my duty to lay upon the table, pursuant to subsection 536 of the Canada Elections Act, the report of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada on the by-election held in the electoral district of Mississauga—Lakeshore on December 12, 2022. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(a), this report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
66 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 173 - Mar/27/23
The Speaker
  • Mar/27/23 3:28:57 p.m.
  • Watch
All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
33 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 173 - Mar/27/23
The Speaker
That is a fair question. We are working on it as we speak, and it is in process. In no way will the debate affect the ruling. Could all those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion please say nay? It is agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
64 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 173 - Mar/27/23
The Speaker
  • Mar/27/23 5:50:02 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-11 
I would like to address the point of order raised earlier today, concerning government Motion No. 2 to concur in Senate amendments to Bill C‑11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts. The House leader of the official opposition has raised concerns as the procedural admissibility of the government's new motion claiming that it is substantially identical to the motion that the House has been seized with since March 8, citing the ruling of anticipation. He contended that two motions cannot both be before the House at the same time, as stated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition at page 568, that the rule of anticipation is: dependent on the principle which forbids the same question from being decided twice within the same session. It does not apply, however, to similar or identical motions or bills which appear on the Notice Paper prior to debate. The rule of anticipation becomes operative only when one of two similar motions on the Order Paper is actually proceeded with. For example, two bills similar in substance will be allowed to stand on the Order Paper but only one may be moved and disposed of. If a decision is taken on the first bill (for example, to defeat the bill or advance it through a stage in the legislative process), then the other may not be proceeded with. If the first bill is withdrawn (by unanimous consent, often after debate has started), then the second may be proceeded with. In a ruling on November 2, 1989, Speaker Fraser, at page 5474 of the Debates, provided this helpful observation: “in the view of the Chair, two or more items are substantially the same if...they have the same purpose”. This is the test to be applied when determining if an item of business is so similar that it cannot coexist with another item of business. In this case, while the difference between the two motions may appear to be minor, adopting the second motion would bring about a different outcome than adopting the first, in that it would result in a different amendment being accepted by the House in the French version of the bill. This means that the second motion is indeed substantively different than the first motion, and therefore, the concern over similarity is not present. It should also be noted that, according to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, the rule of anticipation has never been part of our Standing Orders and, furthermore, is no longer strictly observed. Invoking the rule stating that a decision once made must stand, which is detailed on pages 590 and 591 of the third edition, is often more relevant than the rule of anticipation. Indeed, there are several examples, including some cited by the opposition House leader, of two items proceeding simultaneously until a decision is made on one of them. I would point out that the House has not yet made a decision on the first motion. As I understand it, the objective of the second motion is to correct an error found in the first, an error that arose because the numbering of the amendments is not the same in English and in French. Allowing such an error to stand runs the risk that the English and French versions of the bill would be different, with different definitions being kept in each language, therefore making the will of the House unclear. The opposition House leader argues that the appropriate course of action should be to make this correction by way of an amendment, which could be moved once the current amendment to motion 1 has been disposed of. While that is indeed one way of addressing the issue, the Chair does not believe it is the only way. Instead, the government has proposed to bring forward a new motion with the necessary correction. Given that the substantive effect of the two motions is different and given that no decision has been made on the first motion, I am prepared to allow debate on Motion No. 2 to proceed. I thank the members for their attention.
700 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border