The Chair would like to make a statement on the participation in Private Members' Business of the member for Terrebonne and on the sponsorship of Bill C-241, an act to establish a national strategy respecting flood and drought forecasting.
Following a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on February 13, 2026, the election of the member for Terrebonne was declared null and her seat subsequently declared vacant. Members may be interested to know that, in the early years of Confederation, such decisions on controverted elections were made by a committee of the House instead of the courts. A by-election was held on April 13, 2026, and it resulted in the same member being re-elected to the House of Commons. This, in turn, raises unusual questions regarding her participation in Private Members' Business.
The current procedures surrounding Private Members' Business have been in place for nearly 25 years. The Private Members' Business process, broadly speaking, is straightforward. Following a draw, the list for the consideration of Private Members' Business is established at the beginning of each new Parliament. The names of members are added in sequence to the order of precedence on the Order Paper, based on their rank in the list, starting with the first 30 names, and afterwards by groups of 15. Members whose names are placed on the Order Paper then have the unique opportunity to have one, and only one, of their items considered by the House. This contrasts with an earlier practice, when there were multiple draws of bills and motions, meaning the same member could end up having more than one opportunity.
Most members are familiar with our current process. That said, exceptional circumstances, like the one before us, sometimes occur and may not be fully covered by the existing rules or precedents.
Standing Order 87(1)(a)(iii) stipulates that members who become eligible during the course of a Parliament, in this instance through a by-election, are added to the bottom of the list for the consideration of Private Members' Business. In cases where more than one member is elected the same day, a mini-draw is held to determine the order in which they will be added to the list.
A key principle of Private Members' Business is that over the course of a full Parliament, as many members as possible be afforded the possibility to participate. This flows from a proposal in the 66th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented in the House on June 12, 2002.
The situation involving the member for Terrebonne is unique, as she has already participated in the draw establishing the list for consideration for the current Parliament and has seen her name added to the order of precedence. Furthermore, she has already acted as a sponsor of a bill, Bill C-241, which was adopted at second reading and referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development on December 3, 2025.
I am sure the lobbies will be most interested in this, because I do have a Yiddish proverb, as I always do. It goes like this: Shikt di refueh far der make. Basically, it means, “He sends the remedy in advance of the plague.”
Here is my remedy. Given that she has already had an opportunity to sponsor an item, one that is still working its way through the legislative process, the Chair is of the view that allowing the member for Terrebonne to be added a second time to the list for the consideration of Private Members' Business would go against the principle behind the procedure and House affairs committee's proposal of 2002. Her name will therefore not be part of the upcoming mini-draw along those of the new members for University—Rosedale and Scarborough Southwest.
In cases where members have items before the House when their seats become vacant, the practice is normally to remove their names as sponsors. This is appropriate in the case of a death or resignation, as the original sponsors can realistically no longer play any role in moving the item forward. In these situations, a process exists, through Standing Order 94, to dispose of items once it is apparent that there is no member able to move them. Alternatively, the House may also decide to choose a new sponsor and allow the item to continue.
In the current context, however, the original sponsor of the item has now returned to the House. It is worth noting that the bill has been in committee during the entire period of her absence, meaning there have been no occasions where a sponsor would have been required to move a motion in the House.
To be a sponsor has procedural meaning, as the sponsor is expected to move their item when it is called, for instance. It also has operational meaning as, typically, sponsors are the default managers of business. They draft items, put them on notice, and have some say in their scheduling. The work of a sponsor can begin before they are sworn in, and can continue after a bill is passed by the House.
It seems obvious that the member for Terrebonne has performed these responsibilities in regard to Bill C‑241 before the Supreme Court decision. As prior proceedings have not been nullified by the said decision, and the member was reelected to the House in the by-election held on April 13, 2026, it is the view of the Chair that the member should continue to carry out her duties as sponsor of the bill.
This will allow the House to consider and dispose of the bill in accordance with the process and principles for Private Members' Business.
I thank all members for their attention.