43rd PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION House of Commons Debates Official Report (Hansard) Volume 150 No. 111 Friday, June 4, 2021 Speaker: The Honourable Anthony Rota CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) 7957 HOUSE OF COMMONS Friday, June 4, 2021 The House met at 10 a.m. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): One at a time, please. I was just told we cannot challenge a ruling that has been made Prayer already. The instruction for committee is perfectly legitimate. An hon. member: Point of order. GOVERNMENT ORDERS The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): ● (1000) Since I have not read the motion yet and it has not been brought forth to the chamber, I am going to read the motion first and then [Translation] we will listen to the points of order. BROADCASTING ACT [Chair read text of the motion to the House] BILL C-10—TIME ALLOCATION MOTION Hon. Mona Fortier (Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Ms. Rachael Harder: Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of Associate Minister of Finance, Lib.) moved: order in order to challenge the admissibility of that time allocation motion because it does not satisfy the requirements of Standing Or‐ That, in relation to Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, not more than five fur‐ der 78(3) and the usual practices of this House. Please allow me to ther hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the committee stage of the bill; explain further. and that, at the expiry of the time provided in this order, any proceedings before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on the said bill shall be interrupted, if Standing Order 78(3) contemplates a minister proposing a mo‐ required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively without tion “for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days or further debate or amendment. hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings...provided that the time allotted...is not to be less than one sitting day”. Of [English] course, it goes without saying that the House has sitting days with Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Madam predictable schedules and whatnot, but not at our committees. How Speaker, I rise on a point of order. should this rule apply to committees then? I would respectfully sub‐ mit that it is through the allocation of hours and past practices back I understand we are now applying the will of the full House to me up. the operations of the work of a committee. This is unusual, and I understand we have the powers to do it, if it is placed before us as a A canvassing of records of the House show that in the 50 plus motion of instruction. years Standing Order 78(3) has been in our rule book, it has only What I just heard the hon. minister say does not appear to me to been invoked three times before when a bill was referred to a com‐ be a motion of instruction. I would like a ruling from the Chair to mittee, other than a committee of the whole. Ironically, all three assist us to be sure the motion put before us is actually in a proper times were when the Chrétien Liberals were trying to shut down form— Bloc Québécois resistance. The shoe seems to be on the other foot this morning. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): Yes, I have just confirmed it is a motion of time allocation that is Firstly, on April 25, 1996, the House passed a time allocation perfectly legitimate. motion concerning the human resources committee's study of Bill Ms. Rachael Harder (Lethbridge, CPC): Madam Speaker, I C-12, the Employment Insurance Act. Referring to page 260 of the am rising on a point of order in order to challenge this ruling, the Journals shows that “not more than 10 further hours shall be allot‐ admissibility of the time allocation that has been moved by the gov‐ ted”. ernment, because it does— The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): Secondly, on February 24, 2000, the House passed a time alloca‐ The hon. member cannot challenge a ruling. tion motion concerning a legislative committee's study of Bill C-20, known as “the clarity act”. Looking at page 1018 of the Journals Some hon. members: Point of order. shows that “not more than ten further hours shall be allotted”. 7958 COMMONS DEBATES June 4, 2021 Government Orders Most recently, on September 19, 2000, the House passed a time However, he made a mistake moments later when he said that the allocation motion concerning the justice committee's study of Bill rules do not specify the amount of time typically allotted for this C-3, the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Page 1928 of the Journals re‐ practice. veals that “not more than ten further hours shall be allotted”. I will quote Standing Order 78(3), which contemplates a minister In all three cases, the House, when invoking Standing Order proposing a motion. 78(3), allocated 10 hours for committee study. Now because this motion has allocated fewer than 10 hours, I would respectfully sub‐ It states: mit that it is not consistent with the usual practice of the House and ...for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days or hours for the consid‐ must therefore be ruled out of order. eration and disposal of proceedings...provided that the time allotted...is not...less than one sitting day.... ● (1005) Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP): The member is quite wrong to say that there is not an allotted pe‐ Madam Speaker, I would concur with my colleague from Leth‐ riod. I see he is getting very agitated with me quoting the facts— bridge that the practice and the tradition of the use of Standing Or‐ The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): der 78(3) is no more than one further sitting day. It does not appear The interpretation so far has been that five hours is the equivalent to us, with the five hours that is proposed in the motion, that it of a sitting day and there are other examples, as I have been told by meets the test of what has been clear parliamentary practice. the table officers, of five hours of debate on motions. It also raises another question and given that this is such a rare tool to be used, which has not been used in over two decades and I think I have ruled on this and we should move along. was not used under the former Harper government, it does raise fur‐ The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. ther questions such as what the allocation of amendments would be during the report stage of the bill. Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Madam Speaker, I just want to ensure the record reflects that in my point of order when I said an amount of With those considerations in mind, we certainly raise broad con‐ time I was indeed referring to hours. I am aware that it references cerns about the form and the proposal that has been brought for‐ days. ward with this motion this morning. Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Madam The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): Speaker, I have listened to the interjections from the Conservatives The hon. member for Carleton. and the member for New Westminster—Burnaby. I would submit Hon. Pierre Poilievre: Madam Speaker, you said the table offi‐ that, despite the fact that previous usage of this particular procedure cers have given all of these examples. You have not shared any of may have allocated a certain amount of time, the procedure does the examples; you just stated a ruling without providing any evi‐ not indicate how much time needs to be used specifically. dence. You are asking us just to assume that what you are saying is in the— Furthermore, since the members are referencing that this is something that has not been used many times, if they do not feel as The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): I though this should be one of our standing orders, then they should absolutely have a problem with the doubting of my word and the bring forward suggestions on how to amend the standing orders. In word of the table officers. There are examples. We have business— the interim, it is one of our standing orders. It is a rule that we have. Hon. Pierre Poilievre: Share them. The fact that it has not been used often certainly is not an excuse to suggest that it cannot be used. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): I The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): We am not directed by the member to share or not. If you are interest‐ do not want to turn this into a debate. I have the standing order in ed, the table officers will provide the examples. front of me and it makes this motion perfectly legitimate. I will The hon. member for Carleton. read it. Hon. Pierre Poilievre: Madam Speaker, if the Chair in fact has It states: evidence, then the Chair would share the evidence, but so far the ...a motion during proceedings under Government Orders, for the purpose of al‐ Chair has shared no evidence. The Chair is not meant to simply lotting a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of help the government ram through legislation by breaking the Stand‐ proceedings at that stage; ing Orders.