44th Parl. 1st Sess.

March 18, 2024 11:00AM

Context: House Hansard - 290 - Mar/18/24

Mar/18/24 7:23:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order that pertains to the relevancy of this amendment. On page 541 of chapter 12, Bosc and Gagnon says that an amendment may not be in order if “it deals with a matter foreign to the main motion, exceeds its scope, or introduces a new proposition which should properly be the subject of a separate substantive motion with notice”. This morning, the Minister of Foreign Affairs stood in this place and talked about how this motion would substantively alter Canada's foreign policy positions on matters of grave urgency to the entire world. This amendment has been dropped with, to my point of order, substantive changes to the original motion, which no member in this place has had a chance to look at or debate since it was provided to the Table. For example, for your consideration, it is adding, after paragraph (vi), a new paragraph on Israel and its right to defend itself; adding paragraph (d), support the work of the International Criminal—

175 words

Hear!
Rabble!
add
star_border
share

Context: House Hansard - 290 - Mar/18/24

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner

Mar/18/24 7:24:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, amendment (m) reads, “reaffirm that settlements are illegal under international law and that settlements and settler violence are serious obstacles”. These are all major substantive amendments to the scope of the original motion. As I argued, and as said on page 541 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, this materially “introduces a new proposition which should properly be the subject of a separate substantive motion”. Given that it is major public policy for Canada, peer nations are going to be watching this debate, watching this table drop at seven o'clock—

99 words

Hear!
Rabble!
add
star_border
share

Context: House Hansard - 290 - Mar/18/24

Mr. Anthony Housefather

Mar/18/24 7:29:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to echo the point of view of the hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence. This was tabled after the entire debate had concluded. How can there be such substantive amendments that nobody has had the chance to see or debate at all? It offends my privileges and the privileges of the people of Mount Royal.

59 words

Hear!
Rabble!
add
star_border
share

Context: House Hansard - 290 - Mar/18/24

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner

Mar/18/24 8:22:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have three points. First of all, to add to the point of order that has been made about decorum, the reality is that what happened here on a major issue of foreign policy is that the Liberals came in with a substantive amendment that would change seven out of nine components of the original motion, including changing the unilateral recognition of Palestine to something else, on the back of a napkin, and told the NDP what to do. Point two is that anybody voting by app tonight will not have had a chance to see this, so there are going to be people at home who will not have seen it. The last component is language. This is one of the most substantive amendments that has been tabled in the House on a major point of foreign policy. Our peer nations are watching this. They are going to think this Parliament is a complete joke, because the government is coming in at the end and table-dropping the motion and expecting Parliament to vote on it. This sends a poor message to our peer nations, and the amendment should be ruled out of order.

197 words

Hear!
Rabble!
add
star_border
share

Context: House Hansard - 290 - Mar/18/24

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/18/24 8:24:59 p.m.
Watch

I wish it were within my power to hold the vote tomorrow, because I do recognize that it is a substantive change to the motion. However, it is not within my power, because there has been a motion in the House, so I am ordered to have the vote immediately unless someone wants to ask for unanimous consent to have a vote tomorrow at a specific time.

67 words

Hear!
Rabble!
add
star_border
share

SoVote

House Hansard - 290