Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief point of order with respect to the correctness of the Journals of the House of Commons. I know the Chair takes great pride in assuring their accuracy.
The Speaker will naturally recall that on last Friday the Chair delivered a ruling concerning the motion offered by the government concerning the revivification of dead parliamentary business that fell victim to the government's prorogation last session. Your Honour's ruling was that the government's motion was flawed in form and directed that the government motion be divided for the purpose of voting.
There are many rulings of little consequence to the actual business before the House of Commons but, by contrast, Friday's ruling had the effect of altering the question. Indeed, it created two questions where there had previously been one the day before.
There is no reference to that ruling in the Journals. What we are left with is a record that makes no sense. The Journals report that the government leader moved two distinct motions at once. It would be easy for those who consult the Journals to interpret the record as indicative that the government moved by right to move two motions at once.
Avid readers of the Journals, such as myself and others in my employ, simply seek that the record report accurately what occurred on this matter before the House. The Journals are the record of the proceedings of the House. It is my respectful view that your ruling Friday was a precedent in that it altered the question then before the House and therefore the ruling should be recorded and reflected in the Journals.
If the House had altered the motion by amendment, that fact would have been recorded. In this instance, Your Honour used the undoubted power of the Chair to divide the question and, in that fact, and I would suggest it should be the Chair's view, it should be recorded in the Journals as part of those proceedings.