44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 11, 2024 10:00AM
- Apr/11/24 10:04:51 a.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle is rising on a point of order.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 10:05:15 a.m.
- Watch
I thank the hon. member. I will consult with the table officers to ensure that is the case.
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.
34 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 10:06:02 a.m.
- Watch
I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary and I would like to thank the hon. House leader for the opposition for raising the point.
Questions of privilege, once accepted, do supersede other considerations, but the Chair has not given his response to the question of privilege. Yes, the Chair did give indication to the opposition House leader that we will be providing a response to the question of privilege, and I will endeavour to do that as soon as possible, once this matter is dealt with.
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 10:07:26 a.m.
- Watch
4 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 10:50:53 a.m.
- Watch
I declare the motion carried.
5 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 10:51:04 a.m.
- Watch
Given the large number of report stage motions for Bill C-50, the Canadian sustainable jobs act, the Chair would like to explain some of the principles applied in the selection and grouping of these motions. In arriving at this ruling, I have sought to be guided by precedents established by my predecessors, especially Speaker Milliken, whose landmark ruling on March 21, 2001, serves as the basis for our modern report stage practice, as well as one of my predecessors, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, who faced a number of lengthy and complex report stages when he was Speaker.
In general, the motions most often selected for debate at report stage are those that delete clauses of a bill and those that further amend clauses that were amended at committee. Regarding motions to delete, as the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle remarked in decisions rendered on June 11, and December 12, 2012, the Chair frequently groups as many of them as possible and applies the vote on one to as many others as possible.
As for motions that further amend changes made in committee, the Chair often faces a dilemma in deciding how to group them in a way that ensures members can clearly express their point of view while appropriately managing the House's time. Where possible, the Chair has endeavoured to group motions that are similar or that deal with a similar subject matter.
Finally, the Chair would like to draw members' attention to the note to Standing Order 76.1(5), which states, and I quote:
For greater clarity, the Speaker will not select for debate a motion or series of motions of a repetitive, frivolous or vexatious nature or of a nature that would serve merely to prolong unnecessarily proceedings at the report stage.
The Chair notes that, in several cases, the same member or members from the same party have submitted a variety of different proposals to amend the same line or lines of the bill. In some cases, each proposal is a slight variation on the other. It would be impossible to apply the results of the vote on one motion to the others, as a line can only be amended once. The Chair has sometimes provided for a distinct vote on each, but in cases where the above-mentioned note seems applicable, the Chair has selected only one proposal per party. I would refer members to a ruling delivered by Speaker Milliken on February 18, 2002, for an example of such an approach being adopted.
There are 207 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-50.
Motions Nos. 13, 43, 46, 50, 55, 62, 63, 65 to 68, 70, 72, 73, 81 to 89, 92 to 94, 98 to 100, 103 to 105, 107, 109 to 111, 114 to 116, 120 to 122, 124 to 126, 133, 135, 139, 150, 156 to 158, 167, 168, 170, 173 to 175, 179, 186, 195 to 198, 201 to 203 and 205 to 207 will not be selected by the Chair because they are similar proposals that affect the same lines in the bill.
All of the other motions will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.
I will now put the following motions to the House.
590 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 2:34:30 p.m.
- Watch
I will remind members that all questions should come through the Chair and not go directly to other members.
The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan.
26 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 2:35:16 p.m.
- Watch
I would like to remind all members, as the Speaker has made this point before, that it is important not to call into question any member's courage.
The hon. Minister of Labour and Seniors.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 2:57:53 p.m.
- Watch
Order.
The hon. government House leader.
6 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 3:03:23 p.m.
- Watch
I am going to ask all members to please restrain themselves. There were a couple of very loud interventions while the minister was speaking. It is hard for me to hear the answer. Sometimes it is difficult to hear the question.
I know I could identify the members, but they are hon. members. I ask them to please hold their comments back.
The hon. minister.
65 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 3:09:26 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Kitchener Centre has the floor.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 3:11:12 p.m.
- Watch
I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on February 26, 2024, by the House leader of the official opposition, concerning the alleged premature disclosure of Bill C-63, an act to enact the online harms act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act and an act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts.
The opposition House leader claimed that the bill's contents had been leaked to the media, as evidenced in two separate reports from CBC and CTV News. Pointing to the anonymous quotes in the news reports, he concluded his remarks by positing that the information was leaked intentionally, knowing that it was wrong. In doing so, it breached the rights of members of Parliament and the House.
For his part, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader countered that the envisioned legislation's objectives were widely known and already in the public domain long before the bill was placed on notice and introduced, given the government's prior commitments and extensive public consultations. Furthermore, the parliamentary secretary emphatically rejected the allegations that the government had shared the bill before it was introduced.
The House leader of the official opposition is correct in asserting that there are abundant precedents that once a bill is placed on notice, its contents are not to be disclosed prior to introduction, thus ensuring that members have the first opportunity to take note of the bill. The premature disclosure of bills has usually been seen as a contempt of the House.
I will invite MPs to please take their conversations outside of the House, including the member for Scarborough—Guildwood.
In a ruling on October 4, 2010, which can be found at page 4711 of the Debates, Speaker Milliken stated, and I quote:
It is indisputable that it is a well-established practice and accepted convention that this House has the right of first access to the text of bills it will consider.
On the substantive matter raised in this question of privilege, as members know, the policy direction leading to a government bill is not typically developed in the strict isolation of a government department. Prior to the putting on notice and introduction of most modern legislation, extensive consultations and public debate frequently occur for months or even years. Past precedents from the Chair address this reality, and Bill C-63 seems to be another example of that pattern.
On June 8, 2017, Speaker Regan emphasized the need for balance between members' right to have the first opportunity to see the bill and the need for prior public consultation. He said, at page 12320 of the Debates:
The right of the House to first access to legislation is one of our oldest conventions. It does and must, however, coexist with the need of governments to consult widely, with the public and stakeholders alike, on issues and policies in the preparation of legislation.
In the same ruling, Speaker Regan indicated that the denial of a premature disclosure of the bill by the government, and the absence of evidence that members were impeded in the performance of their parliamentary duties, had led him to find that the matter was not a prima facie case of privilege.
Having reviewed the contents of the bill against what was reported in the media, and considering the assurance given by the parliamentary secretary that the government did not share the text of the bill between its placement on notice and its introduction, it cannot be determined that the information that appeared in the news media necessarily came from a premature disclosure of the bill by so-called senior government sources.
The title of the bill, combined with the various sources of information mentioned above, such as background information provided during the consultation process, could have easily informed as to the specific objectives of the bill. There is a plausible argument to be made that the scope, objectives and targets of the bill were known prior to its being placed on notice and introduced.
Not being able to say with certainty that the information in the media reports came from the bill itself, I cannot determine that any member was impeded in the carrying out of their parliamentary duties, or that the dignity of the House was transgressed. As such, the Chair cannot find that there is a prima facie question of privilege.
That being said, the Chair shares the members' concerns when detailed information on proposed legislation, whether accurate or not, appears in media stories prior to their introduction.
It casts doubt on the role and predominance of Parliament in the legislative process and may lead to—
Order. I am going to remind all members that one of the fundamental rules of being a member and being a Speaker in this House is that members are not to question or to insult the Speaker, unless they are doing it through a motion which would call into question the Speaker's role. I would like to remind all members about this fundamental rule. I know that I have had some conversations with members in the past about this.
I will continue.
It casts doubt on the role and predominance of Parliament in the legislative process and may lead to understandable frustration.
I thank all members for their attention.
908 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 3:22:57 p.m.
- Watch
I thank the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for his intervention on this question of privilege. The Chair has duly noted his question of privilege and will come back to the House in due time.
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
