Debates of June 2nd, 2023

Request to Consider Motions in Amendment

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order to present my arguments for why you should select my motions and other motions that might not normally be selected. I use the word “normally” because the circumstances of the process at committee were not normal at all.

It is important to understand why we are here today, pleading with the Speaker to select amendments at the report stage. O'Brien and Bosc, at page 784, state:

It is up to the Speaker to decide which amendments will be considered at report stage. The Speaker rules not on whether the purport of the amendment or its substance is worthy of debate, but rather on whether the amendment is procedurally acceptable within the framework of the rules established for the admissibility of amendments presented at report stage.

At report stage, a bill is examined as a whole and not clause by clause as is the case at committee stage. Generally, the rules relating to the admissibility of amendments presented at committee stage also apply to motions in amendment at report stage. However, certain rules apply only to report stage. For instance, since 1968 when the rules relating to report stage came into force, a motion in amendment to delete a clause from a bill has always been considered by the Chair to be in order, even if such a motion would alter or go against the principle of the bill as approved at second reading, and a motion to amend a number of clauses of a bill has been considered out of order.

At report stage, the Speaker has ruled out of order a motion in amendment that: infringed upon the financial initiative of the Crown; proposed to alter an agreement that was within the prerogatives of the Crown; proposed to amend a statute or a section of a statute not amended by the bill; and proposed to alter the title of a bill when no substantial changes had been made to the bill that would have necessitated a change in the title.

I do have motions on notice to delete clauses, but I have other substantive motions. None of them are in this category concerning the prerogative of the Crown or the title.

Bosc and Gagnon, at pages 786 and 787, address the point I want to make today. They say:

As a general principle, the Speaker seeks to forestall debate on the floor of the House which is simply a repetition of the debate in committee. Normally, the Speaker will not select a motion in amendment previously ruled out of order in committee, unless the reason for that ruling was the requirement for a royal recommendation or that the amendment moved in committee had proposed the deletion of an entire clause of the bill. Furthermore, the Speaker will normally select only those motions in amendment that could not have been presented in committee. In such cases, Members can send a written submission to the Speaker explaining why it was not possible to present these motions in committee.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. What the member is referring to is outside of normal process. The member should have corresponded with the Speaker's office to express his concern, as opposed to trying to anticipate what a Speaker's ruling might be. The Speaker, from what I understand, is very close to making a ruling. To interject at this point in time is highly inappropriate. The member should have been in correspondence with the Speaker's office prior to doing what he is doing currently. I would suggest to the member that he wait until there is a Speaker's ruling before he tries to anticipate what the Speaker is going to say.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, in response to the point of order from the member for Winnipeg North, I would just state that the intervention by the member for Calgary Forest Lawn is in anticipation of such a ruling. It would not be appropriate for an individual member to try to persuade a Speaker in a private forum beforehand, when a decision is about to be made. It might be inappropriate to try to go in that direction. I do think that the member for Calgary Forest Lawn is laying out the point in advance of the Speaker's making a ruling on this important matter.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, just logically, I am confused by the arguments from the member for Winnipeg North. He is saying that the Speaker is, in his view, about to make a ruling, and, therefore, that the member should wait to hear the Speaker's ruling before making arguments that would be material to the Speaker's ruling. It seems to be quite logical that members would want to make arguments to the Speaker prior to the Speaker's ruling, in order to inform the Speaker in their deliberations about what ruling they are going to make.

The Standing Orders are also explicit about the fact that oral arguments may be part of the deliberations around which amendments are put forward. Standing Order 76 describes not only the procedure whereby members may write to the Speaker, but also the procedure whereby members may address or be called upon to address the Speaker with oral arguments. It is fairly rare that we are in the situation where this is necessary, but insofar as the situation is necessary, the procedure being followed by my colleague, the member for Calgary Forest Lawn, is clearly anticipated by the Standing Orders.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We also have the hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South. Is it on this same point of order, or is it a different point of order?

[Philip Lawrence]

It is a different point of order.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That is perfect. Based on past practice, as the parliamentary secretary has mentioned, it is customary for the member of Parliament who wishes to raise issues such as this one to be in touch with the Speaker first, before bringing it to the House. I will just let the hon. member for Calgary Forest Lawn briefly finish up his point of order, and we will then go from there.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, as described at page 954 of Bosc and Gagnon, normally, “responsibilities of parliamentary committees are to review in detail and improve bills and existing legislation, and to monitor the activities of the machinery of government and its executive branch by conducting reviews of and inquiries into government programs and policies, reviews of past and planned expenditures, and reviews of non-judicial appointments.”

The committee ran out of time to review in detail, and since not all of the amendments and subamendments could be considered within the time allotted to the closure motion adopted by the committee, some proposals to improve the bill could not be considered. Therefore, the committee did not do its job, and a repeat of debate in committee does not apply here. It is unfortunate that the committee could not have concluded its work properly—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry. I have another point of order.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the rule is very clear: Members are supposed to write to the Speaker in advance, not rise on a point of order on the issue. I believe the member should not be allowed to continue with the point of order, because he has not followed due process.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I would just note for the member for Winnipeg North that you, Madam Speaker, made a decision to allow the member for Calgary Forest Lawn to conclude his remarks. That was the decision that the Chair made, and to see the member for Winnipeg North try to challenge the Chair on that matter is unfortunate.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I did not indicate for the hon. member to conclude his report; I asked him to wrap it up. Therefore, if he could, I would ask him to wrap it up as I indicated.

The hon. parliamentary secretary is correct that the hon. member should have been in touch with the Speaker on this matter ahead of time and that once a decision is made, that is when the discussion could be put forward.

Therefore, I would ask the member to wrap it up in two minutes.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do think it is material to the requirements here that the government made a last-minute change to the schedule with respect to the calling of Bill C-47. Members became aware of it for the first time in the Thursday question, which was very late in the day yesterday.

I understand that it is common for members to write to the Speaker in advance, and that is ideal, but it is ideal under circumstances in which members have sufficient time. As I am going to raise in a question of privilege shortly, there was a mad scramble, which limited the rights of members in terms of submitting amendments. Therefore, some degree of recognition of that fact is important in this case, in light of the fact that the government is trying to limit the ability of members to move amendments and make arguments by these last-minute changes to the schedule. I hope that is part of the consideration as well.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The report was tabled on Wednesday, and, as customary, the decision to move forward with the bill could be at any time. Hon. members know that once a report is tabled, it can move forward at any time. Therefore, I have heard enough of the arguments before the House right now.

I would ask the hon. member to wrap it up in two minutes, and then we are going to be moving forward with the orders of the day.

The hon. member for Calgary Forest Lawn.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will conclude in two minutes—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South has a point of order.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I certainly respect any ruling you might make, but I did have my hand up prior to your saying that we would go to orders of the day after this. I would like my point of order heard before we—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will be going to your point of order.

The hon. member for Calgary Forest Lawn.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, the problems first began when the minister of finance refused to appear for two hours. It is a long-standing practice that ministers of the Crown appear at committees and answer basic questions about the business of government, especially when they are dropping a $60-billion fuel onto the inflation fire they started.

I acknowledge that there are several ministers who do appear regularly at committees; however, the minister of finance had refused three separate invitations to appear, before her last-minute appearance on May 16, which is an important piece to this issue before the House today. Had she committed in writing to appearing for two hours, the events that unfolded at the Standing Committee on Finance would not have happened. It is because of the minister's refusal to appear that the normal business of the finance committee during its study of a budget bill were unable to occur, and that, instead, a closure motion was adopted, leaving little opportunity for committee members to submit amendments to Bill C-47.

I now rise in this place to ask you, Madam Speaker, to allow these amendments to continue forward as part of report stage on Bill C-47 as I believe they are within the national interest and would enhance the legislation.

To make clear which amendments I am referencing, the first one is report stage amendment reference 12475209, which proposes to amend clause—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am going to cut the hon. member off there. Those are arguments that need to be made, and the hon. member has not heard the decision yet.

I will end this point of order here, and I will take under advisement the information the member has already provided, until such time as I render a decision. Then the hon. member will be able to comment on it if he wants to. However, to bypass the procedure and to argue on something he anticipates is either being put forward or not being put forward is not the proper process.

The hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South has a point of order.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order before you make your decision on how to group report stage motions on Bill C-47, budget implementation act 2023, no. 1.

Before I get to the specifics of my request, let me say at the outset of my appeal to the Chair how disappointing it is that the debate on the budget has been shut down at every stage of the legislative process so far. In its rush, the government has, perhaps inadvertently, limited the ability of the finance committee to properly consider amendments, which may impact your decision in determining how to group motions for the debate at report stage and which substantive motions will be allowed to stand.

To remind the Chair, the budget tabled in the House on March 28—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have a point of order on your point of order.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, this is highly irregular, and it defies a process that has been well established, not only with this government—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Point of order.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

One moment please.

We have already started hearing part of what this is, but we have not heard what the point of order is that the hon. parliamentary secretary is saying.

I will allow the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan a point of order once we have heard the basics of this point of order.