44th Parl. 1st Sess.

April 15, 2024 11:00AM

Context: House Hansard - 299 - Apr/15/24

Apr/15/24 3:18:47 p.m.
Watch

I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on March 20, 2024, by the member for Portneuf─Jacques-Cartier concerning the presentation of an amendment in one language only during the debates of Monday, March 18, 2024. In raising the question of privilege, the member alleged that the ability of francophone members to fully participate in the proceedings of the House had been impeded because the government House leader had proposed an amendment in one language only near the end of debate on an opposition motion. In the member’s view, since the French version of the amendment was made available only a few moments before the vote, some members were unable to consider it properly, which amounted to obstructing the ability of francophone members to take part in House business. The member added that the use of either official language in the House is a constitutional right. He also cited Standing Order 65 in support of his assertions. The deputy government House leader responded that the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, in bringing the matter to the House’s attention two days later, did not meet the requirement that a question of privilege be raised at the first opportunity. He also pointed out that the French version of the amendment was available well before the vote, enabling members to understand the content of the amendment. The Chair would like to start by reiterating the importance of protecting and upholding parliamentarians' right to speak in the official language of their choice. The Chair appreciates their support in achieving this goal. It also takes seriously any attempt to trample on or limit that right. Let us now revisit the events of March 18. A few minutes before the end of debate on the opposition motion in the name of the member for Edmonton Strathcona, the government House leader put forward an amendment to it. The mover’s consent was obtained so that the text of the amendment could be proposed to the House. The written version was shared with the Chair, who read it and found it procedurally in order. A procedural discussion and a suspension of the House ensued. Pursuant to a motion adopted by unanimous consent on March 1, 2024, the vote on the supply motion that day could not be deferred, which would normally have been allowed under Standing Order 45. As a result, the amendment, and the amended main motion, were put to votes. Amendments are proposed fairly regularly during our proceedings. Their purpose is to make a motion more acceptable or to provide new text to replace the proposal being considered. The rules of debate have long allowed amendments to substantive motions while the latter are being debated. Of note, for most motions, the rules do not restrict when an amendment can be proposed, as long as it is procedurally acceptable. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states the following, on page 540: A motion in amendment arises out of debate...requires no notice and is submitted in writing to the Chair. After an amendment has been moved, seconded and evaluated as to its procedural acceptability, the Chair proposes it to the House. ...Debate on the main motion is set aside and the amendment is debated until it has been decided.... The Chair can confirm that the sequence of events on March 18 was consistent with our rules and procedures. Clearly, English or French may be used in the House, and members can move motions and amendments in the language of their choice. Official documents must, of course, be published in both official languages. This is a constitutional imperative. Language requirements are also set out in the Standing Orders, including in Standing Order 65, which provides that motions that are seconded must be read in English and in French. However, since January 15, 1959, members have had access to simultaneous interpretation services. As the second edition of the Annotated Standing Orders states on page 227, and I quote: The provision that all motions be read in both languages is…regularly relaxed, given the bilingual nature of the House and the existence of simultaneous interpretation. The Chair was able to confirm that simultaneous interpretation was available when the amendment was moved and brought to a vote. Moreover, the length and complexity of a motion or amendment have never been sufficient grounds for the Chair to rule a motion out of order or to deem that it could impede members’ ability to carry out their duties. Accordingly, in the circumstances, I cannot find a prima facie question of privilege in this case. That said, the Chair would like to reiterate that while all parties have occasionally introduced amendments in one language only, it would be far better if they were prepared in both languages. In any case, the Chair will continue to ensure that simultaneous interpretation is available when amendments are moved in the House. It will also ensure that a translation is available for consultation at the Table and in the electronic voting application before a recorded division. If necessary, the Chair will suspend the sitting in order to obtain the translation before proceeding with a vote. Finally, the Chair encourages members who wish to suggest changes to the Standing Orders regarding the introduction of amendments to submit their proposals to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for consideration. I thank all members for their attention.

915 words

Hear!
Rabble!
add
star_border
share

SoVote

House Hansard - 299