44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 2, 2023 10:00AM
- Jun/2/23 10:18:12 a.m.
- Watch
I have a point of order on your point of order.
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/23 10:18:15 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is highly irregular, and it defies a process that has been well established, not only with this government—
Mr. Garnett Genuis: Point of order.
28 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/23 10:18:26 a.m.
- Watch
One moment please.
We have already started hearing part of what this is, but we have not heard what the point of order is that the hon. parliamentary secretary is saying.
I will allow the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan a point of order once we have heard the basics of this point of order.
58 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/23 10:18:46 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there is well-established process that needs to be followed in order to be able to do what it is that the Conservative opposition party is attempting to do. The Conservatives have known, and we, as a government, have followed due process. We can go back to Wednesday and to the Thursday question. All of this has been before the House. What is not appropriate is for opposition members to anticipate the type of ruling that you could make, Madam Speaker, and addressing it at this point in in time.
The opportunity was there. Maybe the Conservatives did not do their homework, or whatever it is, but that does not justify their breaking the process that has long been a procedure of the House, not only for the current government but also for the governments before it.
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/23 10:19:38 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it was actually a point of order on the process for raising points of order during points of order. This member has, on multiple occasions, interrupted a point of order. When another member is raising and explaining a matter of order, his point of order should not take precedence over an existing point of order on the floor.
I think he has also failed to take note of the fact that the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South's point of order was distinct from the point of order raised by the member for Calgary Forest Lawn.
His objection may have had some relation to the previous point of order, but it does not have any relation to the one currently being raised.
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/23 10:20:26 a.m.
- Watch
I have not heard enough of the point of order from the hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South to determine whether it is in order, so if we can allow him to elaborate. It is different from the previous point of order. This is more about regrouping. Again, it seems to border on a decision that has not been rendered yet. I will just double check that by allowing him to elaborate a little bit more on his point of order before I indicate whether I will allow him to go even further.
The hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/23 10:21:11 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as always, I appreciate your patience on these matters.
It is normal, of course, for a government to table a budget and then get a bump in the polls, but this budget is so unpopular with Canadians that the Liberals actually dropped in the polls after the finance minister tabled it in the House—
57 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/23 10:21:35 a.m.
- Watch
Some of what the hon. member is bringing up is debate. I would just ask him to get to his point of order without bringing debates into the matter.
The hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South.
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/23 10:21:54 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will jump ahead in my remarks here in order to expedite things, given your continued patience.
I will start here and, I promise, get to my point relatively quickly. This little bit of context is important and germane to my point. I am just going through the facts here.
On May 29, beginning at 4:30 p.m., the Chair was empowered by a programming motion to put every question necessary to dispose of the bill without further debate and then report the bill to the House. The Chair interrupted the programming motion in such a way that the amendments could not be table-dropped or moved from the floor. Instead, he ruled that the only amendments that could properly be moved were to the ones provided to the Clerk before May 19. Notably, this was before testimony was supposed to be wrapped up. He also ruled that subamendments could not be moved, because members would need the floor in order to move a subamendment, but he refused to allow debate under the programming motion.
These rulings by the member for Mississauga East—Cooksville made the committee even more dysfunctional but, importantly, at the heart of—
201 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/23 10:23:07 a.m.
- Watch
I just want to remind the member that decisions made by the committee are not things that the Speaker can rule on, as mentioned on a number of occasions while I have been here. Other speakers have also indicated that we do not give rulings to committees. Committees are an entity in themselves and make their own decisions.
If there are matters about the report itself, those matters within the report are what can be debated. At this point in time, I am not satisfied with the additional information the hon. member is providing, especially given the fact that there has not been a decision read out and rendered by the Speaker.
The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan has a point of order.
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/23 10:24:06 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I recognize the correctness of everything you said, but I would add that there is an exception to the Standing Orders in terms of the Speaker's power as it relates to what happens at committee. Standing Order 116(2)(b) reads:
A violation of paragraph (a) of this section may be brought to the attention of the Speaker by any member and the Speaker shall have the power to rule on the matter. If, in the opinion of the Speaker, such violation has occurred, the Speaker may order that all subsequent proceedings in relation to the said violation be nullified.
I believe that may have been where the member was going. I am not entirely sure but, certainly in my own view, there were things that occurred at the finance committee that were in violation of Standing Order 116(2)(a), which is referenced in Standing Order 116(2)(b). Therefore, I think those arguments can at least be made, given this particular and admittedly very unique exception to the Standing Orders that allows matters from committee to be brought directly to the attention of the Speaker.
190 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/23 10:25:18 a.m.
- Watch
The hon. parliamentary secretary is rising on the previous point of order.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/23 10:25:24 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, a point of order is when a member would highlight a breach of the rules. It is clear that this particular bill is properly before the House. You have already ruled on that. I would suggest that the Conservatives are doing indirectly what they cannot do directly, and that is to filibuster by using points of order to prevent matters from being debated in the House.
The government has followed the process, and the opposition knows that. The Speaker has recognized that the bill is properly before the House.
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/23 10:26:08 a.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South wants to weigh in on the point of order again.
18 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/23 10:26:14 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my point of order is a little different from what the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan was saying, but I look forward to hearing his comments with respect to that.
I was literally stating the facts, which I believe, on a point of order, I am not only allowed but also obligated to do. Facts that I am describing are critical to the argument because, in order to introduce an amendment at report stage, it has to be established that it could not be made at committee. I was simply litigating the facts, and not debating, as per my point of order.
Relatively quickly, I will cite a couple of sections, Madam Speaker, if you would be so kind. I will then yield the floor.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/23 10:27:17 a.m.
- Watch
The hon. member is basing his arguments on an anticipated decision, and that has not happened yet. That point of order is not acceptable, and I will end it here.
The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan can proceed with his question of privilege.
46 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to raise a question of privilege in relation to a number of issues respecting the process on Bill C-47 that I believe violate the privileges of members. I will identify at least three distinct situations, or areas, where the privilege of members of Parliament, in my view, was violated in the process of disposing of this bill. I will begin with just a few relevant references to contextualize this.
The discussion of privilege in Bosc and Gagnon, at page 57, reads:
It also refers to the powers possessed by the House to protect itself, its Members and its procedures from undue interference so that it can effectively carry out its principal functions which are to legislate, deliberate and hold the government to account. In that sense, parliamentary privilege can be viewed as the independence Parliament and its Members need to function unimpeded.
At page 59, it states, “The House has the authority to assert privilege where its ability has been obstructed in the execution of its functions or where Members have been obstructed in the performance of their duties.”
Page 60, meanwhile, elaborates on the concept of contempt, saying:
Any conduct which offends the authority or dignity of the House, even though no breach of any specific privilege may have been committed, is referred to as a contempt of the House. Contempt may be an act or an omission. It does not have to actually obstruct or impede the House or a Member; it merely has to have the tendency to produce such results.
Then, at page 81 of the third edition, House of Commons Procedure and Practice states, “There are...other affronts against—”
286 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/23 10:30:04 a.m.
- Watch
There is a point of order by the hon. parliamentary secretary.
11 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/23 10:30:07 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is very clear, but to make it as crystal clear as possible for the member and members listening, the Speaker has made it clear that a ruling was made on this bill. It has gone through the process properly, and it is in order. The members opposite are using points of order in order for us to prevent—
62 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/23 10:30:38 a.m.
- Watch
This is not a point of order, but a question of privilege. I will allow the hon. member to continue.
The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan has the floor.
32 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
