Debates of June 12th, 2014

Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, you actually put the question twice. The minister and the member for Newmarket—Aurora are quite right to say that the second motion to actually adjourn the House was denied consent, but the first motion was accepted, which means the question has been put. It overrides Motion No. 10 that was adopted two weeks ago. The motion has been put.

Mr. Speaker, you asked if there was unanimous consent to adopt the motion, which would have adjourned the House. I agree with the member for Newmarket—Aurora that a number of Conservative members of Parliament at that point denied consent to adjourn the House, but the question was put unanimously. No one denied consent to put the question, which means the House now has to be called to vote on that question.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are multiple people on this side of the House who have been sitting here for a considerable length of time listening to the debate, being part of the questions and comments, and speaking as well. We were certainly here when there was a call for unanimous consent. There was no canvass of the House by the Speaker in terms of the request for unanimous consent, so whatever the House leader of the official opposition is suggesting in terms of unanimous consent being granted just simply did not happen in this place. The only way around this, in my opinion, is to have a canvass emanating from the Speaker. As far as I am concerned, it is a very clear ruling that you would have to make.

It only makes sense that there cannot be this many people who would find anything to this. It is astounding to me that the House leader for the opposition would find this to be a realistic situation with all of us present here.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

I am sorry. We cannot go to a second point of order. We are on one already.

The House leader of the official opposition had the floor first. I will recognize the Minister of Employment in a minute.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, you quite properly put the question. At that point the House said agreed, which is why you then moved on to the second motion, which is if the House is in agreement with the terms of the motion that the House now adjourn.

It is true, and I completely agree, that a number of members of the Conservative Party have come in and said they did say no to the second motion. That is very true. We all heard that. We admit that. However, the reason you put the second motion, Mr. Speaker, is that the House agreed to the first motion, which now means that the bells need to ring and we need to call in the members to have a vote on the motion to adjourn. We had unanimous consent from the House to call the vote and unanimous consent was denied. I completely agree. Because unanimous consent was denied, we now have to have a vote.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, given the apparent confusion and ambiguity, I just want to say that I have been a member of this place for 17 years, which I think is perhaps the longest tenure of anyone in the chamber right now, with the possible exception of the government whip and the member for Vegreville—Wainwright, and I think I have learned a thing or two about how unanimous consent motions are put. I used to be deputy opposition House leader. I have probably put several dozen unanimous consent motions myself.

When a member moves for unanimous consent that a motion be heard, the formula is for the Speaker to say that the member has sought unanimous consent of the House that the following motion be put. The Speaker then seeks the consent of the House.

I was sitting here, as were several members of the government. I have no recollection of unanimous consent having been sought. The only question I heard was, “on the motion”. I, and several other members of the government, denied consent.

I would submit that unless you can get the blues, at the very least this is a question as to whether the Chair, with respect to Your Honour, properly sought unanimous consent. To be generous to the official opposition, it is at the very best a question of ambiguity, and I would submit, in the absence of clarity on this point, that we continue with the business of the House, because clearly this motion has been put in a dilatory spirit.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

Is the hon. member for Essex rising on the same point?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with my earpiece in, I believe I only heard the word “consent”, but said no.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that both sides are agreeing that the Conservatives said no to the second motion, but the reality is that you put the second motion, Mr. Speaker, because the first motion was adopted unanimously.

That is simple. You put the question. The folks who were listening heard it. The folks who were not listening may not have heard it. I am sorry, but in this game we have to be attentive. The reality is that first motion then put the question of adjourning the House to the House and that, of course, negates Motion No. 10, which ties up a whole range of procedural tools from the opposition.

We are now in a situation in which the House needs to be called to vote. It is not a big thing. I do not think any member of the House would object to voting on it. The reality is that because the motion was put unanimously, overriding Motion No. 10, we are now at the point where the members should be called for a vote. We would like to see that vote.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

This process, as I think everybody is appreciating, is a two-step process. What happened was that the initial motion was put, seeking unanimous consent, and requesting in effect that the second motion be put. On that initial request, there were no negatives at all. It was unanimously consented to.

There is no question that on the second—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Please sit down. The Speaker is standing. You cannot interrupt the Speaker.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. For the purposes of the record in Hansard, we will recognize the government House leader.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while people have been in here debating this issue, I have had the opportunity to go in and see the record in real time.

In real time, in French, you made the motion. You invited comment. There was one oui, and then you proceeded very quickly to the question itself.

In translation, the actual question of “Is there unanimous consent?” did not happen until the same time you were asking the final question for adjournment. As a result, those who were relying on translation of the question “Is there unanimous consent?” said “no” at the time you were taking into account the nays to the motion itself.

In this House, where we wish to allow full participation and reliance on translation, I think it is only fair to allow every member of the House the right to hear the question in his or her official language before being asked to make a decision on it.

Suspension of Sitting

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

I am going to suspend the House for a few minutes to look at the tape. The government House leader has raised a valid point. My observations are the same as his, and I think it is a valid point that he has raised.

The House will suspend.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 10:22 p.m.)

(The House resumed at 10:46 p.m.)

Sitting Resumed

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

The House is back in session.

The hon. House leader for the official opposition wants to respond to the point of order.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today the Chair gave a ruling on the comments we made a few weeks ago regarding section 56.1. That also happened very fast.

The suggestion that the House should consider translation time and actually wait for the translation would really change things for the government, which enjoys launching surprise procedural attacks.

In the history of this House, no caucus has ever had as many Quebec members and Francophone members as the NDP caucus, yet there has been no translation rule of this kind over the last three years.

I am surprised that the government would want the House to wait for the translation, given its regular attempts to launch surprise procedural attacks.

This will really change the way we operate in the House. Nonetheless, we believe the situation is quite clear: the question was put and members did understand it well. A vote now needs to be taken.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

We have looked at the tape. Three of the table staff looked at the tape. The process was the normal process. In fact, there was no speeding of it. I recall myself that I did look down the government side to see if anybody was going to be objecting to the intent, and there no one did, and the tape confirms that. The time sequence is no different from what we have in all the other motions.

I therefore call on the member to present his motion. The debate is over.

The hon. member for Essex on a question of privilege.

Official Languages

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Chair, it is my privilege to be able to have the service in this House in my language, which is English. My testimony in this House was that I did not hear the words “unanimous consent”. The only word I heard was “consent”. My instinct was to say “no”, and say it twice. That was my intervention before the House leader even came in to make the question about it. I heard in the earpiece the word “consent”. I did not hear it in French. I could not hear what was said there. That is my testimony. I am entitled to wait for the translation to make my point.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

To the member for Essex, if he is going to pursue a question of privilege, he knows that the rules require him to give—

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, he has to raise it at the earliest possible opportunity—

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

He has to put it in writing an hour before it is raised in this House.

Order. The hon. government House leader.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to have regard to Standing Order 48(1), which says:

Whenever any matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immediately.

That is what the Standing Order says. That is what you face right now. You have an obligation to hear the hon. member, who feels his privileges have been breached, especially when it affects a proceeding that is before us.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

Order. I recognize that the question of privilege has been raised in a timely fashion. Written is not required in these circumstances. On the other hand, we have looked at the tapes, the sequence is there, and there is nothing on the tape that indicates there was any negative in opposition to unanimous consent.

I therefore call on the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine to move his motion.