Debates of Nov. 7th, 2023

Oral Questions

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I would like to thank the member for Elmwood—Transcona for raising this issue. It is an important issue to clarify for all members who are here.

When a member of Parliament, an individual, is referred to with a mock title, a mock name or a mock riding name, that is considered unparliamentary. When referring to a party or to the group, as much as I personally do not find it very helpful, it has been the tradition of this place to allow those comments, which are not being directed towards an individual member, to be considered acceptable in the House.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind all members, in order to ensure that there is decorum in the House, as well as to show fundamental respect to all parties, which are composed of members, to please exercise great restraint when referring to a group of folks in a tone that could be interpreted as mocking.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am seeking your clarification on the same point of order. I believe that the member for Elmwood—Transcona spoke to mock names and also to the use of terms such as “coalition”. For example, today, there was talk of a “Liberal-Bloc coalition” when they voted together. Yesterday, the NDP voted with the Conservatives. Is that a new “coalition”, and are we going to be allowed to use the word “coalition” when two parties simply vote the same way?

I would appreciate your clarification, Mr. Speaker.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I would like to thank the member for Kitchener Centre. As a matter of fact, this issue was raised by the member for New Westminster—Burnaby last week. The Chair is currently considering this matter, and I will be coming back to members in the days to follow.

I am going to recognize the member for Lakeland, but I would ask her to try to make her point of order very brief so that we can move on to the business of the House.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to do this efficiently.

As you deliberate on what we can and cannot say here, and on what kind of topics we can or cannot ask about, I just have a question about if, in the process of all of that, you could also consider questions that are clearly on provincial policies or provincial governments, or that are partisan and are clearly about topics that are not government policy. I assume all of that will be going into your deliberations and that you will get back to all of us on that too.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Would the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay please take a seat? I will recognize him in due order.

I would like to thank the member for Lakeland for raising this issue. That is part of my reflections, but I can mention that it is a long tradition in the House that sometimes questions might take the form of a hybrid method.

From time to time, Speakers have tried to curtail this. I know that my predecessor from Regina—Qu'Appelle tried to do this as well, to get people to not ask questions that start off in one direction and then, at the last minute, switch into a matter of government administration. This is something that is being considered. I will get back to all members, as I have promised to get back to the member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on a point of order.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your reflection on that. In question period, if you check Hansard, the minister for environment claimed he was a Liberal and a socialist. I would like to ask him to withdraw those comments as they are deeply offensive.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

It is always good to have a bit of levity, but that is not a point of order.

The House resumed from November 6 consideration of Bill C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

National Security Review of Investments Modernization Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

It being 3:30 p.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, November 6, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motion at report stage of Bill C-34.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 2.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #442

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I declare Motion No. 1 carried. I therefore declare Motion No. 2 carried.

The next question is on Motion No. 3.

The question is as follows. May I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

[Chair read text of motion to House]

(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #443

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I declare Motion No. 3 lost.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in at report stage with further amendments.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded vote, please.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #444

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I declare the motion carried.

Oral Questions

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to add my voice to the point of order raised on Thursday, November 2, and Friday, November 3, by the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, respecting our rules and practices, that questions posed by members during Oral Questions must be within the administrative responsibilities of the government or of the individual minister addressed in the question.

Let me start by stating that I agree with the member for New Westminster—Burnaby on this point.

The member has raised excellent precedents to support his argument and I would like to summarize these precedents and add my own perspective to the matter before the House.

The member raised rulings from the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle when he was Speaker. I will submit that the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle has been consistent in his approach on this matter when he was in the Chair and more recently.

On January 28, 2014, the Speaker ruled with respect to this matter:

...as Speaker Milliken stated in a ruling on June 14, 2010...“...the use of [...] preambles to questions to attack other members does not provide those targeted with an opportunity to respond or deal directly with such attacks.” Thus, unless a link to the administrative responsibilities of the government can be established early in the question to justify them, such questions can be and indeed have been ruled out of order by successive Speakers....

...we have witnessed a growing trend: we hear preambles to questions that go on at some length to criticize the position, statements, or actions of other parties....

What we have, therefore, is an example of a hybrid question, one in which the preamble is on a subject that has nothing to do with the administrative responsibility of the government but which concludes in the final five or ten seconds with a query that in a technical sense manages to relate to the government's administrative responsibilities....

..it would be helpful if the link to the administrative responsibility of the government were made as quickly as possible.

I would now like to address the question of consistency on the matter by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, raised earlier in my submission.

I draw the attention of the House to the question raised during Oral Questions on Wednesday, June 21, at 3:10 p.m., by the member for Kings—Hants, respecting the Conservative Party.

As you and all members of the House can see from the video of this question at 3:11 p.m., the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle was standing beside the Speaker in heightened agitation, pointing his finger and admonishing the Speaker that this was an inadmissible question.

I agree with the member on the facts but certainly not on the approach. In this case, the Speaker did rule that the question from the member for Kings—Hants did not qualify as a question.

Following Oral Questions that day, the Speaker ruled at 3:28 p.m. and stated:

This is not to explain my answers but so everyone here will know why I said it was not a valid question.

The point I was looking at is on page 509 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which states, “ask a question that is within the administrative responsibility of the government or of the individual Minister addressed.”...

The reason I did that is there was a long preamble that really had nothing to do with administration....

That is the reason I said it was not a valid question. When members are putting their questions together, I ask both sides to put something together that has to do with administration and, if they can, to make my life easier, to make it clear that it has to do with administration right from the beginning.

In conclusion, there are many clear precedents to support that questions during Oral Questions must be within the administrative responsibilities of government. There is no doubt on this matter. We must all abide by these rules if we have any hope of restoring the dignity of this place and better comport ourselves in this august House of Commons.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I would like to thank the hon. Chief Government Whip for his intervention. I would also like to thank everyone who participated and added their comments on this matter. I will take all of that under advisement and come back to the House with my comments.