2005 Spring Sitting

PROCEDURAL REPORT 2005 SPRING SITTING YUKON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY FIRST SESS1ON 31ST LEGISLATURE March 24, 2005-May 17, 2005 Speaker: The Hon. Ted Staffen PROCEDURAL REPORT 2005 SPRING SITTING YUKON LEGiSLATIVE ASSEMBLY FIRST SESSION 31ST LEGISLATURE March 24, 2005-May 17, 2005 Speaker: The Hon. Ted Staffen Table of Contents Preface 3 Introduction 5 Procedural Issues 7 Absence of Member, reference to 7 Adjournment, Of the Assembly 7 Of Debate S Of the Legislative Sitting 8 Amendment, moving an g Assent 9 Bills, Introduction and First Reading, Motion for, defeated 9 Out of Order 9 Charge against another member 10 Committee of the Whole. Debate, commencement of 12 Progress, Motion to report 12 Division, required 13 Documents. Requirement for Tabling 13 Required Tabling 14 Government Business, calling of 14 Members, Recognition of 15 References to 16 Members of the public, Behaviour in the Chamber 16 References to 18 Moment of silence 19 Money Message 19 Motions. Irregular 20 Order and Decorum, extraneous comments 20 Petitions, Presenting 21 Received 22 Response by Minister 22 Point of Order, Raising 22 Resolving 23 Presiding Officers, Announcements by 23 Documents tabled by 24 Impartiality of 24 Participation in debate 25 References to, in debate 25 Private Members Business 25 Privilege, Question of 26 Release of Budget Information 26 Insulting Language 34 Accusation Against A Member 37 The Timing of Government Business 38 Question Period, Length of 40 Extraneous comments (‘add-ons’) 40 Quorum Count 43 . Quotation, Use of in debate 43 Relevance 44 In debate 44 In Committee of the Whole 44 Sitting days, number of 47 Termination of the Sitting, as per Standing Orders 48 Termination of Committee of the Whole 48 Third Reading of bills 48 Unanimous consent 49 For a recess 49 For the Continuation of a Member’s speech 50 To deem all content of a bill read and agreed to 50 To deem all lines in a vote cleared or carried as required 50 To return to the Daily Routine 51 To waive notice requirement 51 Unparliamentary Language 51 Charging a Member with uttering a deliberate falsehood 52 Imputing false or unavowed motives 54 Abusive or insulting language 59 Offending the practices and precedents of the Assembly 62 Urgent and Pressing Necessity, Motion of 64 Written Questions 64 Statistical Summary 67 Table 1: Sitting Days 67 Table 2: Allocation of Sitting Time 67 Table 3: Documents Tabled 67 Table 4: Daily Routine 67 Table 5: Documents Tabled pursuant to Standing Order 38(1) 68 Table 6: Bills 68 Table 7: Time devoted to individual bills 69 Table 8: Appropriation Bills, Committee of the Whole debate by department 69 Table 9: Motions 70 Table 10: Time devoted to debate on motions 70 Table 11: Irregular Motions Withdrawn from the Order Paper 71 Table 12: Statistical Review of Question Period 71 Table 13: Questions posed in Question Period by Caucus 72 Table 14: Divisions 72 Index 73 References 77 9 Preface “Padiamentcay procedure... isa! once the “means” used to circumscribe the use ofpower and a “process” that legitimizes the exercise of and opposition to power. This report documents procedural events of note that occurred during the 2005 Spring Sifting of the First Session of the 31st Yukon Legislative Assembly. It is meant to augment the Standing Orders ofthe Yukon Legislative Assembly and other procedural authorities by detailing how rules of procedure and established parliamentary practice were applied to specific incidents that arose during this Sitting. It is hoped that this report will help readers gain a deeper understanding of parliamentary procedure and practice in the Yukon Legislative Assembly. The idea for the Procedural Report is derived from the House of Commons Procedural Digest. The Procedural Digest is issued weekly when the House of Commons is sifting and deals with events in chronological order. However this Procedural Report takes a different approach. The report covers the entire Sitting and deals with procedural events thematically, as certain events (seeking unanimous consent to expedite business, incidents of unparliamentary language, for example) tend to recur over the course of a Sitting. By approaching events thematically the report illustrates which kinds of incidents dominated proceedings and also the broader context of the issues involved in rulings and statements made by the Presiding Officers. Context is also providing by frequent reference to the Standing Orders of the Yukon Legislative Assembly and procedural authorities, particularly, House of Commons Procedure and Practice and Beauchesne ‘s Rules & Fonns ofthe House of Commons ofCanada. Floyd W. McCormick, Ph.D. Deputy Clerk Yukon Legislative Assembly Robert Marleau and Camille Montpetit (editors), House of Conimnomis Procedure and Practice, (Montréal: Chenelière and Toronto: McGraw-Hill, 2000) page 209. •1 .3 4 Introduction The 2005 Spring Sitting of the Yukon Legislative Assembly saw four questions of privilege raised. The most procedurally interesting of these occurred on the first sitting day, March 24, 2005. At issue was the release, by the government, of budget information prior to the tabling of the budget in the Assembly (see the entry ‘Privilege, Question of). This case bore similarities to one that arose in Ontario in 2003. The details of the Ontario case were laid out extensively by the member who raised the question of privilege, Pat Duncan (Porter Creek South, Liberal). This case, and the similarities and differences between it and the current situation in Yukon were at the core of the Speaker’s ruling, delivered on April 7, 2005. The Speaker, Hon. Ted Staffen, ruled that there was no prima Jack case of breach of privilege in this instance. Of enduring significance, however, was the Speaker’s instruction that, in future, government news releases that deal with the spending of funds not yet appropriated by the legislature should mention that the spending contemplated is subject to the approval of the Assembly. This, he said would, “ensure that the Assembly’s authority is respected, its dignity is protected and the public is properly informed.” On May II, 2005 the official opposition house leader, Gary McRobb (Kiuane. NDP) brought the House’s attention to the fact that an individual in the public gallery was in possession of a recording device (see the entry ‘Members of the Public, Behaviour in the Chamber’). This is contrary to the Assembly’s rules. After speaking with the individual involved the Speaker reported to the House that a recording device was indeed present, but had not been used in the Chamber. In his statement to the House the Speaker brought members’ attention to the fact that, although there are rules regarding behaviour in the public gallery, they are not posted where members of the public could read them. Further. the 1-louse does not have security personnel in the gallery to enforce these rules. The Speaker suggested that the House may wish to review its security arrangements. On May 17, 2005 the Assembly defeated a bill at first reading (see the entry ‘Bills, Introduction and First Reading, Motion for, defeated’). This is a rare occurrence. Not only was the bill defeated at first reading it was subsequently ailed out of order by the Speaker (see the entry ‘Bill, Out of Order’). While these events are interesting in and of themselves, their enduring impact can be found in the Speakers ruling later that day. At that time he stipulated that “any bills brought to the House will have to be reviewed before a motion for introduction and first reading is allowed to be put to the Flouse.” While the procedural issues catalogued in this report are usually the product of conflict, it is worth noting that the 2005 Spring Sitting also witnessed a number of instances where Members exhibited not only agreement, but unanimity. Most of these matters were procedural and are detailed in the entry ‘Unanimous consent.’ Standing Order 14.3 — Unanimous consent to waive rules — was used to call a recess in proceedings, for a member to continue his speech at a later time, to return to an item in the Daily Routine, to deem all content of a bill read and agreed to (twice), and to deem all lines in a vote cleared or carried, as required (13 times). There was also some agreement on substantive issues. Of the 14 recorded divisions taken during the 2005 Spring Sitting live showed unanimous agreement of all members present for the vote. (see the Table Divisions’ in the Statistical Summary). Agreement was achieved on two bills at second reading, two bills at third reading, and one government private member’s motion. 5 6 Procedural Issues Absence of Member, reference to House ofCommons Procedure and Practice advises It is unacceptable to allude to the presence or absence of a Member or Minister in the Chamber. The Speaker has traditionally discouraged Members from signalling the absence of another Member from the House because “there are many places that Members have to be in order to carry out all the obligations that go with their office.”2 On April 7, 2005 during general debate on Bill No. 15, First Appropriation, Act, 2005-06, Todd Hardy (Whitehorse Centre, NDP) said, “I got the message from the Acting Minister of Finance, I think, while the Finance minister is away.” Brad Cathers (Lake Laberge, Yukon Party) rose on a point of order saying, “I believe it’s out of order to refer to the absence of a member from the Assembly, and I would ask you to direct the leader of the official opposition to retract that remark.” Gary McRobb (Kluane, NDP) responded to the point of order saying, ‘1 think this matter transcends House rules. There is a valid point that the Yukon government should be putting up the real Finance minister to speak to the budget, not the acting Finance minister.” In fact nothing transcends the rules and practices of the Assembly in this regard.

Load more