SoVote

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan (Calgary Forest Lawn, CPC)

Jun/2/23 10:03:12 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order to present my arguments for why you should select my motions and other motions that might not normally be selected. I use the word “normally” because the circumstances of the process at committee were not normal at all. It is important to understand why we are here today, pleading with the Speaker to select amendments at the report stage. O'Brien and Bosc, at page 784, state: It is up to the Speaker to decide which amendments will be considered at report stage. The Speaker rules not on whether the purport of the amendment or its substance is worthy of debate, but rather on whether the amendment is procedurally acceptable within the framework of the rules established for the admissibility of amendments presented at report stage. At report stage, a bill is examined as a whole and not clause by clause as is the case at committee stage. Generally, the rules relating to the admissibility of amendments presented at committee stage also apply to motions in amendment at report stage. However, certain rules apply only to report stage. For instance, since 1968 when the rules relating to report stage came into force, a motion in amendment to delete a clause from a bill has always been considered by the Chair to be in order, even if such a motion would alter or go against the principle of the bill as approved at second reading, and a motion to amend a number of clauses of a bill has been considered out of order. At report stage, the Speaker has ruled out of order a motion in amendment that: infringed upon the financial initiative of the Crown; proposed to alter an agreement that was within the prerogatives of the Crown; proposed to amend a statute or a section of a statute not amended by the bill; and proposed to alter the title of a bill when no substantial changes had been made to the bill that would have necessitated a change in the title. I do have motions on notice to delete clauses, but I have other substantive motions. None of them are in this category concerning the prerogative of the Crown or the title. Bosc and Gagnon, at pages 786 and 787, address the point I want to make today. They say: As a general principle, the Speaker seeks to forestall debate on the floor of the House which is simply a repetition of the debate in committee. Normally, the Speaker will not select a motion in amendment previously ruled out of order in committee, unless the reason for that ruling was the requirement for a royal recommendation or that the amendment moved in committee had proposed the deletion of an entire clause of the bill. Furthermore, the Speaker will normally select only those motions in amendment that could not have been presented in committee. In such cases, Members can send a written submission to the Speaker explaining why it was not possible to present these motions in committee.

510 words

Ruling

Context: House Hansard - 205 - Jun/2/23

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/2/23 10:07:18 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. What the member is referring to is outside of normal process. The member should have corresponded with the Speaker's office to express his concern, as opposed to trying to anticipate what a Speaker's ruling might be. The Speaker, from what I understand, is very close to making a ruling. To interject at this point in time is highly inappropriate. The member should have been in correspondence with the Speaker's office prior to doing what he is doing currently. I would suggest to the member that he wait until there is a Speaker's ruling before he tries to anticipate what the Speaker is going to say.

118 words

Context: House Hansard - 205 - Jun/2/23

Mr. John Nater (Perth—Wellington, CPC)

Jun/2/23 10:08:10 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in response to the point of order from the member for Winnipeg North, I would just state that the intervention by the member for Calgary Forest Lawn is in anticipation of such a ruling. It would not be appropriate for an individual member to try to persuade a Speaker in a private forum beforehand, when a decision is about to be made. It might be inappropriate to try to go in that direction. I do think that the member for Calgary Forest Lawn is laying out the point in advance of the Speaker's making a ruling on this important matter.

103 words

Context: House Hansard - 205 - Jun/2/23

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Jun/2/23 10:08:43 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, just logically, I am confused by the arguments from the member for Winnipeg North. He is saying that the Speaker is, in his view, about to make a ruling, and, therefore, that the member should wait to hear the Speaker's ruling before making arguments that would be material to the Speaker's ruling. It seems to be quite logical that members would want to make arguments to the Speaker prior to the Speaker's ruling, in order to inform the Speaker in their deliberations about what ruling they are going to make. The Standing Orders are also explicit about the fact that oral arguments may be part of the deliberations around which amendments are put forward. Standing Order 76 describes not only the procedure whereby members may write to the Speaker, but also the procedure whereby members may address or be called upon to address the Speaker with oral arguments. It is fairly rare that we are in the situation where this is necessary, but insofar as the situation is necessary, the procedure being followed by my colleague, the member for Calgary Forest Lawn, is clearly anticipated by the Standing Orders.

200 words

Context: House Hansard - 205 - Jun/2/23

Mr. Philip Lawrence

Jun/2/23 10:15:00 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I certainly respect any ruling you might make, but I did have my hand up prior to your saying that we would go to orders of the day after this. I would like my point of order heard before we—

43 words

Context: House Hansard - 205 - Jun/2/23

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

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

Context: House Hansard - 205 - Jun/2/23

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

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

Ruling
Clear