House of Commons Hansard #122 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.

Topics

Private Members' Business
Routine Proceedings

11:45 a.m.

Bloc

Michel Gauthier Roberval, QC

Mr. Speaker, what I was suggesting earlier was to ensure that the House of Commons take votes that are always above reproach.

You even said in your decision—

Private Members' Business
Routine Proceedings

11:45 a.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Private Members' Business
Routine Proceedings

11:45 a.m.

Bloc

Michel Gauthier Roberval, QC

They will ask us to support the closure motions. They can wait for the next one.

Mr. Speaker—

Private Members' Business
Routine Proceedings

11:45 a.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Private Members' Business
Routine Proceedings

11:45 a.m.

The Speaker

I have no problem hearing the hon. member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean. Maybe there is too much noise in that corner of the House, but I can hear him just fine from here.

Private Members' Business
Routine Proceedings

11:45 a.m.

Bloc

Michel Gauthier Roberval, QC

Mr. Speaker, as long as you can hear me that is all that matters since I am speaking to you. Earlier, in your explanation, you told us you watched the video tapes.

I know that you are aware—and I am sure that you recall—that it is absolutely unacceptable and impossible to use the video tapes to quote what a member said, to discuss someone's attitude or to review any confrontation in this House. The video tapes are not considered official documents and cannot be used.

We cannot do so as MPs and, as the Speaker—you have the same rights as we do—you cannot do so either. Therefore, the only real solution is to retake the vote and we will accept the verdict.

Private Members' Business
Routine Proceedings

11:45 a.m.

Bloc

Stéphane Bergeron Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC

Mr. Speaker, since this is a question of my vote or non-vote, and since you have very clearly cited the confusion that reigned on this side of the House at the time of the vote, I think the only thing to do under the circumstances is indeed to retake the vote so that my vote can be expressed clearly this time without any confusion whatsoever.

Private Members' Business
Routine Proceedings

11:45 a.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Mr. Speaker, there is only one point I want to want. A member went to see the table officers in order to tell them that he had not voted. That is clear.

The member may now address the House, if he so chooses. However, it could set a precedent if a second vote were to be held as the result of some confusion in the House. The next time the House is divided 149 to 148, I could advise the Chair that there had been some confusion in the House and call for another vote.

Mr. Speaker, you have made your decision, and it should be upheld.

Private Members' Business
Routine Proceedings

11:45 a.m.

The Speaker

I think I have heard enough. There is clearly no agreement on having another vote at the moment. I would suggest that the House leaders have a little discussion about this and if they decide that another vote is in the best interests of the House, we are having votes this evening at 8 o'clock and it can all happen again then.

Therefore, I would suggest that in the meantime we let the House leaders have a discussion, perhaps with the whips, and see if the matter cannot be resolved. However, continuing debate on the matter here is unnecessary.

Points of Order
Routine Proceedings

11:50 a.m.

The Speaker

Yesterday in question period the hon. member for Nepean--Carleton in a question to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services referred to a “Liberal lawbreaker”.

In a previous ruling involving the hon. member for Nepean--Carleton on a point of order raised by the hon. member for Mississauga South concerning remarks made in question periods on Friday, June 3 and Monday, June 6 by the same hon. member, I gave a ruling which indicated that certain matters should be respected by all hon. members in the House. I quote once again from Marleau and Montpetit the same passage I cited in my ruling on June 14 on this matter, which is about a week ago. The quote is as follows:

References to Senate debates and proceedings are discouraged and it is out of order to question a Senator's integrity, honesty or character. This “prevents fruitless arguments between Members of two distinct bodies who are unable to reply to each other, and guards against recrimination and offensive language in the absence of the other party.”

I thought and hoped that the hon. member for Nepean--Carleton would read my ruling if he had not heard it all at the time that I delivered it, and abide by it. I am concerned that his continued use of intemperate language in respect of members of the other place is in breach of our practices and principles of behaviour in this House as set out in Marleau and Montpetit and as observed for some time in the House of Commons.

It does not behoove us to speak disrespectfully of the other place, as it does not behoove them to speak disrespectfully of this place. I therefore ask the hon. member for Nepean--Carleton to withdraw the words “Liberal lawbreaker” that he used in his question. I urge him to refrain from such conduct in future, or he will face more difficult penalties from the Chair.

Points of Order
Routine Proceedings

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Nepean—Carleton, ON

Mr. Speaker, exclusively out of respect for the Speaker and for the rules of this place, I withdraw any language that may have referred to a member of the other place in a negative way.

The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

Extension of Sitting Period
Government Orders

June 23rd, 2005 / 11:55 a.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Mr. Speaker, I gave notice to both the Deputy Speaker and to the Table yesterday that I intended to rise on a point of order regarding the amendment to the motion that was put yesterday by the hon. House leader of the official opposition.

The amendment that was moved yesterday by the hon. member was to amend the government motion in a way that would have the House come back only in September, albeit on a slightly different date than the one on which we would normally return. On the other hand, Motion No. 17 would have the House continue to sit, arguably after today and continuously until the particular program was adopted.

The point I am making to Your Honour is that the purpose of the amendment is the opposite of what the main motion does. Mr. Speaker, I draw to your attention citation 578(2) of Beauchesne at page 176, which states:

An amendment which would produce the same result as if the original motion were simply negatived is out of order.

That has been the rule since June 23, 1990 and it can be found at page 435 of the Journals for that day.

There is a further reference in citation 575 which says that a six month hoist or a reasoned amendment may only be applied against the reading of a bill, not against a motion. In other words, we cannot, by way of amending a motion, give an effect which is similar or identical to what we would have by producing a reasoned amendment. My argument is that this is exactly what the amendment does.

I now draw to your attention page 453 of Marleau and Montpetit where it says:

An amendment should be framed so that, if agreed to, it will leave the main motion intelligible and consistent with itself. An amendment is out of order if:..it would produce the same result as the defeat of the main motion.

In intent, we have a motion before the House to sit now and presumably have a summer recess later. The amendment would produce a recess now and Parliament would come back in September. That is the exact opposite one of the other.

The argument of the House leader for the official opposition will be that it is marginally different in the sense that in coming back in September, we would come back on the 12th instead of on the 19th. That is still inconsequential to the main proposition.

The fact is that the motion moved by the hon. government House leader is to have us sit now to deal with legislation. The amendment produced is to delay that until the fall, which is the opposite of the main motion.

I would argue that should be examined before the vote is taken tonight to determine whether or not my allegation is correct; in other words, that the motion as amended would be out of order because it does the reverse of the main motion. By voting against the main motion, we would achieve almost 100% of the same result as voting for the amendment, which is another proposition raised in Marleau and Montpetit and in Erskine May in that regard.

Extension of Sitting Period
Government Orders

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

Jay Hill Prince George—Peace River, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would obviously argue that the hon. member is in error. In reality, the amendment does not do the opposite as he said.

I would refer the Speaker to page 453 of Marleau and Montpetit. I believe that an amendment must be relevant to the main motion. Clearly it states:

It must not stray from the main motion but aim to further refine its meaning and intent.

Page 175 of Beauchesne's states:

The object of an amendment may be either to modify a question in such a way as to increase its acceptability or to present to the House a different proposition as an alternative to the original question.

The main purpose of the main motion is to fix the date for the resumption of the House of Commons after its adjournment on June 23, today. That is what the motion is doing. It is to have Parliament and the House of Commons resume Monday, June 27. It says that right in the motion.

I would argue that it is not the opposite to suggest that it should resume on September 12. We are dealing with a difference in dates. The motion says that the House upon its adjournment tonight at midnight will resume on Monday, June 27. My amendment says that it should resume on September 12. That is hardly the opposite. It is just a difference in dates.

I contend that the amendment offers an alternative proposition. It offers the date of September 12 without conditions. It does not enlarge upon the main motion or introduce any foreign matter. Therefore, the amendment is in order.

Extension of Sitting Period
Government Orders

11:55 a.m.

An hon. member

It is the opposite.