House of Commons Hansard #301 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was point.

Topics

Extension of Sitting HoursGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Order. I would ask the House to come back to order. I will take one point of order.

The hon. member for Carleton, a brief point of order.

Extension of Sitting HoursGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

Mr. Speaker, it would have been a lot briefer if I had been allowed to finish it the first time.

Earlier today, the member was rising on a point of order with respect to the procedures of the government in its presentation of the estimates. Those estimates are currently before the House. In your multiple interruptions of his point, Mr. Speaker, you stated that the matter was not—

Extension of Sitting HoursGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I would ask the member to make his comments concisely, and obviously with respect to rulings of the Speaker.

The hon. member for Carleton.

Extension of Sitting HoursGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

Mr. Speaker, you indicated that the matter was not before the House. The matter is before a parliamentary committee, the government operations committee, which is a creature of the House of Commons. The matter has been presented. The estimates were literally tabled in the House of Commons, right here across from me, by the President of the Treasury Board. In other words, the matter is very much live, and it is very much appropriate for the member to raise a point of order with respect of it.

I know that member probably has some policy objections to items in those estimates, but I did not hear him make any of those objections. He was focused exclusively on the procedural element and on the Standing Orders and the traditions and conventions that date back hundreds of years when he was making his case.

Therefore, it is not accurate to suggest that he was engaging in debate. There was no debate whatsoever about the policy substance of the estimates. His point was exclusively about whether those estimates provided enough information for Parliament to carry out its legitimate duty in executing the power of the purse.

The most fundamental rule of public finance in our parliamentary system is that the government cannot spend what Parliament does not approve. The member was making a point of order specifically on whether the presentation of the estimates, which gives authorization for any non-statutory spending, was done in the proper form. That is very much a point of order.

We are talking about the expenditure of $7 billion. The hon. member chose a quiet Friday, out of respect for the work of Parliament, to raise this issue. It seems to me that he has taken the least disruptive possible approach to making his procedural case on this point. He was in the process of making that case prior to the Chair entering Parliament into orders of the day. We, as parliamentarians, should hear this argument, and we should hear it in its entirety.

It is not reasonable to expect he could make that—

Extension of Sitting HoursGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I thank the hon. member for Carleton. I think he is aware that it is at the Speaker's discretion, when the Speaker feels the Speaker has heard enough. He will also know I have made a ruling that I have heard enough on the subject and that I will come back to the House, if necessary.

I want to point out to him what is said at page 338 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which states, “Under the Standing Orders, a brief presentation of arguments on the point of order is possible at the Speaker's discretion.” There are many precedents where a Speaker has indicated he has heard enough in terms of the arguments.

Members may have various reasons for trying to take up time or make arguments, and that may be, but the point is that I have made a ruling. As the member for Carleton probably knows, the Chair cannot be challenged except through a motion. Now, that may come at some point, or not, but the point is that the member appears to be challenging a ruling of the Chair. Perhaps he does not intend to do that, but that is the impression I am getting. Of course, that is not appropriate.

I have heard enough, as I have indicated, so we will continue with debate.

The hon. government House leader.

Extension of Sitting HoursGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Liberal

Bardish Chagger Liberal Waterloo, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will to continue. Bill C-76, the elections modernization act, would strengthen—

Extension of Sitting HoursGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona indicates he has a separate point of order on a different subject.

Extension of Sitting HoursGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

NDP

Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, this point of order is with respect to the timing of raising points of order about the estimates. You rightly have presented some arguments about general points of order, but I would like to put on the record another passage from a previous Speaker who addressed the issue—

Extension of Sitting HoursGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Order. The member for Elmwood—Transcona must understand that I am not presenting arguments. The Speaker makes a ruling. I have made a ruling. He again appears to be challenging the ruling. I regret that he does not like the ruling, but the only manner to challenge a ruling is through a motion. The Speaker is not challenged in this fashion. It is the custom in the House that one person stands at a time, and I would ask him to take his seat as is required by the Standing Orders.

Extension of Sitting HoursGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

NDP

Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

I will not take my seat until I'm heard.

Extension of Sitting HoursGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

If he wishes to be heard, he may not be heard for some time. It may be difficult to recognize him if he does not take his seat and come to order.

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona will come to order.

Extension of Sitting HoursGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

NDP

Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

It's my right to be heard.

Extension of Sitting HoursGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Extension of Sitting HoursGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

The member for Elmwood—Transcona will come to order.

Extension of Sitting HoursGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

NDP

Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

You have not heard me.

Extension of Sitting HoursGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

We me may not hear from the member for a while if he continues like this.

The opposition House leader on a point of order.

Extension of Sitting HoursGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

Mr. Speaker, we do need some clarification on this in that we had not gone to orders of the day. We were dealing with the member for Elmwood—Transcona's point of order, which you cut him off. Then I brought in my intervention. Then the member for Carleton rose on a separate point of order. You did not recognize him, for whatever reason, and then you moved to orders of the day. Then clearly you came back and stopped orders of the day and went back to the member for Carleton's point of order, which should have actually been heard before orders of the day.

I understand there was a lot happening here, but procedurally we do need some clarification on how he should have been recognized and been allowed to speak before we went to orders of the day. Instead. Mr. Speaker, you went to orders of the day, and now we have a bit of a situation on our hands that will need to be rectified.

Extension of Sitting HoursGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I thank the opposition House leader for her point of order. As I said previously, and it is very well established, that it is at the discretion of the Speaker to determine when he or she feels he or she has heard enough of an argument.

As it turned out, in fact, the point of order from the hon. member for Carleton was in my view on the same topic. Whether or not a member declares personally that orders of the day have or have not started is beside the point. Orders of the day had been called. It has commenced. I had called for debate. We are under way.

Members may not like that, I recognize that, but the hon. government House leader now has the floor. I have heard enough as I have indicated.

Extension of Sitting HoursGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Extension of Sitting HoursGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

The hon. member for Carleton says he has a separate point of order. I anticipate he will make very clear the topic of the point of order very briefly so I can determine that it is in fact a separate point of order.

Extension of Sitting HoursGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

Mr. Speaker, the topic of the point of order is the points of order of members of Parliament. In fact, there were many of them made in rapid succession about 10 minutes ago, immediately before we appeared to have accidentally and perhaps erroneously fallen into orders of the day. There were about 15 members who were seeking to make those points of order. I ask that they be allowed to be recognized. It is the custom that whenever a member makes a point of order, that point is recognized by the Chair.

In fairness to the Chair, there was a lot of sound at the time, and it is understandable that it might not have been clear exactly which members at which moments were making their points. However, now that I have brought the matter to the Speaker's attention, I ask that he give the other members who had been making points of order at that time the opportunity to make those points, because if they are not given the opportunity, there may well be procedural matters that were not brought to the Speaker's attention that could only be brought to his attention if the members making them were given the floor and recognized, as is their right as members of Parliament.

No one could expect any Speaker to be cognizant of everything that goes on in a chamber this size, with 300-plus individuals in it. As a result, it is perfectly reasonable that the Speaker rely on members of the House to bring procedural challenges to the attention of the Speaker. That is why, when members raise points of order throughout debate, as they have done for decades or centuries, it has not been seen as an insult to the Speaker; far from it. It is merely a recognition that it is impossible for any one Speaker to see every single procedural difficulty that might have occurred.

Therefore, I am asking the Speaker to allow the members who were clearly observant to problems of procedure and order to rise now and raise those points with the Speaker, and that he have the opportunity to rule on each of those points of order so that the House can dispense with all of the concerns that members of Parliament have brought to the Speaker's attention.

Moments ago, we had a discussion that the New Democratic member for Elmwood—Transcona was raising a point of order on one subject and then felt compelled to raise points of order on other subjects. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we respect your decision that you do not want to hear more at this moment about the issue of vote 40, but I do believe that the member for Elmwood—Transcona had other concerns, other points of order, that he attempted to bring to your attention. Again, it was very loud in the House at that moment, so it is possible that the Speaker did not hear the member making those points of order, but he did so about 25 times, to my inexact count, and it would be appropriate to allow him to rise on his separate points of order in order to raise them, and that other members who raised points of order at the exact same time be given the opportunity to raise them with you, Mr. Speaker, as well.

Extension of Sitting HoursGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

NDP

Hélène Laverdière NDP Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. If I heard you correctly, you read the motion that we will shortly be discussing in English only. There was no French interpretation at that time. I think it is the right of all the francophone members of the House to be able to hear the text of the motion they are going to debate in their own language. I would like to know how you intend to rectify this situation.

Extension of Sitting HoursGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Liberal

Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, as an effort to improve my French, I always keep my translation either on “floor” or on “French”. This morning I had it on “French”. I can confirm that I did not notice a time when there was not French translation. I will say that it was quite loud in here and I could understand why the hon. member might not have heard it, but as far as I was concerned from this side of things, I certainly heard it on translation.

Extension of Sitting HoursGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I would like to thank the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie and the the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer.

There does not seem to be a consensus as to whether the motion could in fact be heard. The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie can consult today's Order Paper. If she requires assistance, I am willing to read the motion in French as well.

The hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga has a point of order on a different matter.

Extension of Sitting HoursGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Conservative

Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON

Mr. Speaker, on this particular point of order, it was impossible to hear what was being said. In fact, I heard clearly in my earpiece the interpreter saying “inaudible”, indicating that they were not hearing, and so how could they possibly have interpreted for the rest of us?