House of Commons Hansard #111 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was point.

Topics

Bill C-10—Time Allocation MotionBroadcasting ActGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

As I told hon. members, I will come back to the House to explain.

Bill C-10—Time Allocation MotionBroadcasting ActGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB

Madam Speaker, it is not your job to do the government's bidding but to work so that we have a functional House that we all agree on and that we move forward.

When we end up in areas of the Standing Orders that are not regularly used, we typically would see an explanation before we move forward. I have heard from many of my colleagues who have said that they have concerns with this. They have spent the night preparing their arguments as to why this should be in order or not in order, and to have that just run over is not doing the job of the Speaker.

Bill C-10—Time Allocation MotionBroadcasting ActGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that your position can be difficult at times. Today is a certain expression of that, but we have points of concern that have been raised about members' rights. I agree 100% that decorum is important, but decorum comes from having a process.

When we have a motion of the government that clearly has not been used in this type of format for many decades, there are legitimate questions about the lessening of our rights as members to debate and discuss important issues. This bill also deals with the Canadian Charter of Rights. I am very surprised that the Liberal party is trying to push forward a process that not only clearly violates our rights as members to fully debate these things. This material legislation may also affect the Canadians we represent.

I ask you to come back with an extensive ruling on this practice so that it does not set a precedent for future governments that will point to today and this abuse of our ability to discuss this issue at report stage. I hope we also agree that when the government is proposing changes to the Broadcast Act that infringe upon those rights, you should have a clear process in a minority Parliament that would clearly build the goodwill of all members. This cuts off debate without having proper process, without giving justification that this is not infringing upon our rights and without having the ability to debate. These are section 2(b) freedom of expression rights that are clearly laid out in the Charter.

I am surprised that the Liberal government is attempting to push through such a large-scale change at report stage without having a clean process. I know that decorum is central to your work because you are in charge of making sure of the business of this place, but I have seen today that, unfortunately, it is not there. It is not your fault, but it is your obligation to members who are concerned about our privileges here. We must know the process is clean. I hope you will listen to this intervention. I hope that the government will reconsider the way it is conducting itself. I do not even want to get into the other parties. I am surprised that after so many interventions protesting the use of time allocation, the NDP would tie themselves to a process that hurts this institution and sets precedent for future governments.

There is a lot on your plate, I understand. I hope that we can start focusing on making good laws and wise decisions. I would hope, Madam Speaker, that you would utilize the table officers to their fullest, and that you would suspend this hearing so that you could go through this and bring back the justifications that have been asked for by members with respect to this process today.

We cannot go back to our constituents and say the process was not clean. This is Canada. We believe in democratic governance, and that involves—

Bill C-10—Time Allocation MotionBroadcasting ActGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

We are getting into the debate of a point of order. I take the hon. member's comments.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

Bill C-10—Time Allocation MotionBroadcasting ActGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, I will—

Bill C-10—Time Allocation MotionBroadcasting ActGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Bill C-10—Time Allocation MotionBroadcasting ActGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

I do not know who is rising on points of order in the hybrid setting and who is rising on points of order in the House.

The hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South.

Bill C-10—Time Allocation MotionBroadcasting ActGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Conservative

Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON

Madam Speaker, I wanted to raise a point on behalf of the Green Party. Oftentimes they do not get the opportunity to speak. They have been polite and quiet while waiting. They have been up there. I could see on my screen that they were among the first. They are always some of the most respectful party members from one of the most passionate parties. Even though I disagree with them on a lot, I want to hear their voices, just like I want to hear all Canadians' voices.

I think it is incredibly important that we hear voices across this country, on the Internet and in—

Bill C-10—Time Allocation MotionBroadcasting ActGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

I thank the hon. member for pointing that out to me. I will get to a member of the Green Party soon enough.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

Bill C-10—Time Allocation MotionBroadcasting ActGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, on the point of order, the sticking point on this has been what constitutes a day, so I want to read a precedent into the record so you can reflect on it when you ultimately come back to the House.

The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, when he was Speaker, determined that a sitting day was equivalent to an average of 4.7 hours, or approximately five hours. He made this ruling following a point of order that was raised when the government moved a time allocation motion in hours, not days. This is from the Debates of June 12, 2012, pages 9231 to 9236, and on June 18, 2012, pages 9680 to 9681.

Bill C-10—Time Allocation MotionBroadcasting ActGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Madam Speaker, I am not going to get into the thrust of this, except to ask the Conservative members who are calling you a disgrace to stop doing so and apologize. As we go down this rough road, we can at least have some self-respect and decorum.

Bill C-10—Time Allocation MotionBroadcasting ActGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

I appreciate the hon. member's words.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

Bill C-10—Time Allocation MotionBroadcasting ActGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, I would like some guidance. I appreciate the assistance from colleagues.

I had made a point of order, which you rejected. My hand was up for the purpose of putting a question to the minister. I do not believe that the current motion before us is legitimate, by the way, but I am prepared to put questions to the minister, to ask why he is prepared now to put closure on a committee, a process we have not seen in several decades.

Do I ask a question of the minister now or speak to a point of order?

Bill C-10—Time Allocation MotionBroadcasting ActGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

We are are a point of order.

The hon. member for Lethbridge.

Bill C-10—Time Allocation MotionBroadcasting ActGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB

Madam Speaker, I am looking for some clarification, because it has been a bit of a shemozzle.

We raised some points of order, a member got cut off partway through his point order, the Speaker insisted on then going into the 30 minutes for questions and comments. Now we are back to points of order, which I appreciate. I am curious if the clock was stopped during those 30 minutes, to resume once the points of order have been heard.

Bill C-10—Time Allocation MotionBroadcasting ActGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

Yes, it was stopped.

Bill C-10—Time Allocation MotionBroadcasting ActGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB

Madam Speaker, I wanted to ensure that speaking time is protected.

I have another point of order, but I will allow you to go to others first.

Bill C-10—Time Allocation MotionBroadcasting ActGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hate to throw more onto the docket, but I have been informed that New Democrats are not supporting this and I named them earlier as having been partnered with the government. I want to apologize to those NDP members and thank them for telling me I was misinformed.

Bill C-10—Time Allocation MotionBroadcasting ActGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

That is appreciated.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the leader of the government in the House.

Bill C-10—Time Allocation MotionBroadcasting ActGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, I do want to raise what I believe is a point of order. In listening to what has been taking place over the last half hour, it brings me back to a time when there was an issue with decorum in the chamber during a budget debate. It was the behaviour of members of the official opposition, who were banging their desks, ultimately storming out of the chamber. The Speaker at the time made a ruling. Official opposition members did not support it and they ended up walking out of the chamber.

You have made a decision, Madam Speaker, and you were prepared to allow the debate to continue. The difference between your position and the other incident that I referenced is that we are in a hybrid system. I counted at least four or five Conservative members speaking when you called for decorum, and rightfully so. However, we need to put in place something that allows individuals to hear the questions and answers when there is inappropriate behaviour virtually. If it were in the chamber, you would have the Sergeant-at-Arms remove the person, but you do not have that tool virtually.

I raise that as something that can be taken into consideration, but at some point, the House needs to deal—

Bill C-10—Time Allocation MotionBroadcasting ActGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

Agreed.

The hon. member for Portage—Lisgar.

Bill C-10—Time Allocation MotionBroadcasting ActGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

Madam Speaker, I have to correct my hon. Liberal colleague from Manitoba. I do recall when we, in opposition, pounded the desks and did not let the then finance minister, Bill Morneau, deliver a budget. It was not because the Speaker had delivered a ruling; it was because we did not believe Bill Morneau was fit to be finance minister after all his ethical lapses. I recall that quite well.

Respectfully, the issue here is that this is such a rare manoeuver for the government to take and there needs to be confidence that it is indeed in order. I understand that you believe it is order, Madam Speaker, but you have also indicated a number of times over the last half hour that you do not have the answers as to why you believe it to be in order. We trust you are confident you will get those answers. Why not suspend the House and speak with your officials, those who are assisting you? That is absolutely reasonable. Then you can come back when you feel confident you indeed have the answers and you can make your point, and have the confidence of everyone that it is in order.

Because it is a rare issue coming before us, my suggestion and my request would be that you suspend the House. Madam Speaker.

Bill C-10—Time Allocation MotionBroadcasting ActGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Conservative

Scott Aitchison Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Madam Speaker, I am looking for clarification.

The Deputy Speaker ruled on June 12, 2012, which has already been mentioned, that points of order raised during time allocation debate did not count against the 30 minutes provided for the debate. I want to be absolutely clear that this is in fact the case here, that the points of order being raised right now will not count against the 30 minutes of debate on the issue.

Bill C-10—Time Allocation MotionBroadcasting ActGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

The clock has been stopped, as I indicated previously.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

Bill C-10—Time Allocation MotionBroadcasting ActGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Madam Speaker, I want to raise two points to follow up from the discussion on the points of order. First, the member for Kingston and the Islands is using stickers on his computer as a prop, but I will let you deal with that separately.

In response to the points of order raised by the member for Kingston and the Islands, he spoke about precedents set by the admittedly very wise, thoughtful and effective previous Speaker, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, who said that time allocation for a day applied to a certain number of hours. That was based on the House. The precedent he cited the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle ruling on was not with respect to the length of a sitting day at committee; it was with respect to the sitting day in the House. The member for Kingston and the Islands is, as we have come to expect, incorrectly citing a precedent.

What we do not have is clarity on what constitutes a sitting day for the purposes of a committee. One of the reasons this is relevant is because committees sit for a much longer day. The sitting day of a committee effectively begins at 8:45 in the morning, which is the time when committees can start sitting. I am part of a committee that routinely sits until 9:30 at night and sometimes later in this time zone and even later if a member is on the east coast.

On the question of a sitting day, the framework used by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle for establishing the length of a sitting day is based on how long the House sits, which is, on average, for a period of about five hours. However, if we take into consideration how long committees sit, it is actually more than 12 hours. That is the available sitting day for parliamentary committees. It is a different length of sitting day.

The member, in the motion, as well as in the arguments made by the member for Kingston and the Islands, is applying the sitting day of the House to a committee, but there are, in fact, different bodies with different lengths of days. The procedure that was used by the Speaker at that time was to say what constituted a sitting day in normal times in the context of that body, which was five hours for the House. Therefore, that is what is meant by a sitting day in the House.

If we were to apply the identical procedure to committees, using more correctly the precedent that was put forward by the Speaker, we would say that in a sitting day, the committees of the House function between 8:45 a.m. and 9:30 p.m., so that is 12 hours and 45 minutes. It would be a more correct application of that procedure to say that based on the ruling made by that member, it was a 12-hour, 45-minute period of time. That would be the correct application of the precedent that has been previously set by the Speaker, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, building off and correcting the points made by the member, who has stickers on his laptop, which violates the rules on props.

I wanted to also return briefly to my previous point of order. It was with respect to the issue of members' rights and privileges with respect to moving amendments at committees and the fact that I have a number of amendments of which I have given notice, for which I have support at the committee, that are in order and that have strong stakeholder support, but I may not now be able to move because the motion would prevent me from doing so.

I want to underline that we are dealing with, and maybe more, at least two distinct questions of order with respect to this motion. One was originally raised by the member for Lethbridge around the length of the day. The other was raised by myself with respect to the issue of amendments at committees. Those are separate issues that do require separate rulings with respect to whether this particular motion is in order. When I first raised that, Madam Speaker, you said you would come back to that. We certainly have not heard anything with respect to a ruling on that second question. Therefore, the House does need to hear certainly with respect to that.

We have many issues, but these two in particular require rulings, especially the second one. We have had no indication of whether the Chair intends to rule on it. I agree with the suggestions of our deputy leader that this is one of those matters in which we need to have the clear information and data as well as the precise ruling coming from the Speaker. There is a lot of precedent in the House for when governments, or other parties or other members try to do things that are unprecedented, things that are controversial, that we have an opportunity for arguments to be heard and made.

Frankly, it is much more common for members to have the opportunity to come back to the House with arguments. There may be members who would like to reflect over the weekend on the particulars of the motion and make arguments to the House on those issues.

We actually did not see this motion until it was initially moved in the House. We had notice last night that the government intended to move a motion with respect to time allocation in committees. However, we did not know whether it was going to be for five hours or the 12 hours and 45 minutes I have mused about. We also did not know whether members would have the opportunity to move amendments or not.

It is very important that, reasonably, on a groundbreaking issue like this, which is just so important for the freedoms of parliamentarians and Canadians, that members be given the opportunity to come back to the House and share arguments, and for members who may not have been following the proceedings precisely, to note that motion and to bring arguments as well.

This is the way the House has always operated on these kinds of matters. It is important that we proceed in that way as well. The rights and privileges of this House and of its members, wherever they sit, need to be protected. Members are right to zealously defend their privileges. The principle of order in the House is based on the consent of members.

The Speaker is not imposed on the House by some external body. The Speaker is not directly elected or appointed by a monarch. The Speaker has had this beautiful, crucial role since the beginning of Parliament, which is as the voice of the House, as the servant of the House. The Speaker cannot seek to impose a particular interpretation of the rules that defies, clearly, the consensus of members.

If that attempt happens, if there is ever a way in which it seems like there is a risk of the Speaker's role moving away from those historic traditions, members have to stand up and defend the prerogatives of this House, the prerogatives of members and the appropriate relationship that is supposed to exist between the members of this House and the Chair.

Madam Speaker, we do so with eminent respect for your office and for the challenges in discharging it. There are many challenges. In fact, many early speakers of the House were executed by the monarch, which reflects the willingness of those speakers to serve the House—