SoVote

Jun/5/23 11:03:23 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47

The Chair will begin by addressing the concerns raised by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, before turning to the question of selection and grouping of report stage motions. In his intervention, the member claimed that his privileges were breached during the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by the Standing Committee on Finance. His concerns centred on the contention that his right to vote, to move subamendments, to speak and raise points of order were unfairly limited by the committee chair. He argued that Standing Order 116(2)(a) had not been respected. Furthermore, the member alleged that the scheduling of the bill last Friday by the government had limited his ability to have report stage motions drafted and submitted in time for publication in the Notice Paper. Standing Order 116(2)(a) makes clear that a committee can set time limits in relation to its own proceedings. The standing order reads: Unless a time limit has been adopted by the committee or by the House, the Chair of a standing, special or legislative, committee may not bring a debate to an end while there are members present who still wish to participate. This also applies during the consideration of legislation. It is an established practice that a committee can adopt its own orders, set its own deadlines to submit amendments or limit debate during its clause-by-clause consideration of bills. This appears to be what occurred in this case, where the committee adopted a motion to restrict the time for considering Bill C-47. Given that the committee made such a decision, as the Standing Orders allow, I do not believe that the Speaker has any cause to invalidate its proceedings nor to consider them a breach of privilege. As to the other matters raised by the member, Speakers generally will not address procedural concerns from committees without first having a report outlining what procedural irregularities may have occurred. This was stated by the Assistant Deputy Speaker on Friday and I too see no reason to deviate from this well-established practice in this case. As to the contention that the scheduling of the bill for consideration in the House last Friday limited members’ ability to submit report stage amendments, I would refer members to Standing Order 76.1(1), and I quote: The report stage of any bill reported by any standing, special or legislative committee after the bill has been read a second time shall not be taken into consideration prior to the second sitting day following the presentation of the said report, unless otherwise ordered by the House. The report in question was presented on Wednesday, May 31, 2023. It could therefore be called for debate as early as Friday, June 2, 2023. This two-sitting imperative, combined with the 24-hour notice requirement to submit report stage motions, is standard and usually provides enough time to have motions drafted and submitted. As such, members who wish to receive support in the drafting of report stage motions should contact the capable staff in the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel as soon as possible with clear drafting instructions. If members wait to see when the bill will be called, they run the risk of not having their motions drafted in time. For all these reasons, the Chair fails to see how the rights and privileges of the member were breached.

576 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 206 - Jun/5/23

Hon. Mark Holland (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/5/23 5:02:49 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-35

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the following: report stage and third reading of Bill C-35, an act respecting early learning and child care in Canada. Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the respective stages of the bill.

96 words

Context: House Hansard - 206 - Jun/5/23

Hon. Mark Holland (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/5/23 5:03:47 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the following: report stage and third reading of Bill C-47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023. Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the respective stages of the bill.

102 words

Context: House Hansard - 206 - Jun/5/23

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/5/23 7:02:21 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for his intervention. However, in the Chair's opinion the request does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders.

25 words