• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

CANADA House of Commons Debates VOLUME 141 Ï NUMBER 117 Ï 1st SESSION Ï 39th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Friday, February 23, 2007 Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) Also available on the Parliament of Canada Web Site at the following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca 7241 HOUSE OF COMMONS Friday, February 23, 2007 The House met at 10 a.m. the earliest, and I am expecting, quite frankly, that it is now going to be Tuesday. We have a responsibility as legislators not to deal with Prayers hypothetical legislation and therefore the motion should not be receivable until the bill to which it refers has at least been tabled in the House and parliamentarians have had the opportunity to see the GOVERNMENT ORDERS legislation in full. Ï (1005) The government has, and I acknowledge this, provided each of the [English] opposition parties with a summary of the legislation. It is helpful, but it is only a summary. It would be irresponsible for members of the RAILWAY OPERATIONS LEGISLATION House to accept the summary in substitution for the full language of Hon. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (for the Leader of the Govern- the legislation. ment in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform) moved: Another problem with the motion is that it will have the effect of effectively precluding the possibility of members being able to That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, a bill in the name of the Minister of Labour, entitled An Act to provide for the resumption and propose informed amendments to the legislation because the motion continuation of railway operations, shall be disposed of as follows: (a) commencing would require that the bill proceed directly to first reading, second when the said bill is read a first time and concluding when the said bill is read a third reading and then into committee of the whole without adjournment time, the House shall not adjourn except pursuant to a motion proposed by a Minister except as moved by a member of the cabinet, by a minister. of the Crown, and no Private Members' Business shall be taken up; (b) the said bill may be read twice or thrice in one sitting; (c) after being read a second time, the said bill shall be referred to a Committee of the Whole; and (d) during consideration of It is not even clear if a printed copy of the bill will be available for the said bill, no division shall be deferred. all members by the time the government proceeds with report stage Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I under Motion No. 15. The inadmissibility of amendments at report rise on a point of order this morning to challenge the receivability of stage, because the motion refers the bill to committee of the whole the motion. The goal of the motion is to suspend the Standing Orders even before the House has seen the bill or debated second reading, and allow for the imposition of a severe form of closure on a bill at makes it even more difficult for members to be able to formulate all stages before the bill has been introduced. We have not seen the informed amendments and have them accepted in the committee. bill. Generally, the drafting of amendments, and again, Mr. Speaker, While I believe that under unanimous consent such a procedure you are well aware of this, takes days. It is not at all clear that such would be acceptable, that is not the current situation. The drafting assistance will even be available to members for a bill which government is aware that it would not get unanimous consent from the government intends to ram through in a single sitting day of the ourselves or another party. House. It is obvious we do not have that agreement and this bill is quite onerous. It would legislate a group of workers on a legal strike back I submit that the motion is being proposed to procedurally allow to work. The latitude that might be available to the government if the government to do indirectly what it cannot do directly and that there was unanimous consent, or a majority of the parties agreeing to violates a long held principle in this place. The government has to be proceed in this fashion, should not be available with half the subject to the rules outlined in the Standing Orders. If it wishes to recognized parties in the House being in opposition to the motion. propose changes to the Standing Orders then there are well established ways to do that. I have three reasons why the motion is not receivable. To begin with, the motion is asking the House to accept a piece of legislation Mr. Speaker, we know that you have been a long standing for first reading which the House has not yet seen. The bill referred protector of the Standing Orders, both in terms of what your general to in the motion is still on notice, having first appeared on the notice role is in the House and more specifically when it comes to this type paper yesterday and the House will not see the bill until Monday at of manoeuvring by a government to avoid those Standing Orders. 7242 COMMONS DEBATES February 23, 2007 Government Orders On the specific violations of this principle on the scope of the Ï (1010) curtailment of debate which is proposed in the motion, our Standing Hon. Jay Hill (Secretary of State and Chief Government Orders have remedies available to the government if it believes that Whip, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I categorically reject the intervention by legislation must be passed expeditiously. the hon. member. After introducing the bill it can invoke the procedures in Standing There is precedent for the exact same procedure that we are laying Order 57, or closure, on any specific stage of the bill. What it is out in the House this morning. In fact, as you will undoubtedly trying to do here is to do all three stages, or at least two stages, at one know, on March 22, 1999, a former Liberal government utilized the time before we have even seen the bill. exact procedure that we have modeled the beginnings of the debate this morning. It was ruled in order then and I have every confidence I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that under closure only one stage can that you will find everything similarly in order today. be placed under the closure rules at a time. Again, it is trying to do all stages from first reading and printing of the bill to be considered As well, the hon. member seemed to indicate that there would be in the same sitting, and possibly, unless a minister rises to ask for it, some curtailment of debate. That is not the case, as you well know. without adjournment. That is entirely in the hands of the government The House can sit as long as it wants in order to pass this bill once and it is a nice neat way in its attempt to get around the rules. we actually introduce it in the House and begin the debate. Mr. Speaker, I want to raise what I think is perhaps an even Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, I actually looked at that stronger argument as to why you should find this motion not precedent that the government whip has just made reference to. receivable. There are provisions within Standing Order 78 that deal It was Mr. Boudria who was the government whip for the Liberals with exactly the type of situation we have here. This is an attempt on in 1999. That precedent did not have a ruling. It was submitted. No the part of the government to get around Standing Order 78. one objected to it because at the time Standing Order 78 would have As I know you are aware, the use of Standing Order 78, in fact been complied with because three of the five parties in the specifically Standing Order 78.(1), is available to the government House at that time were in support of both the bill and this type of a when there is unanimity between the parties on the need for time motion. allocation. Similarly, Standing Order 78.(2) is available when a Therefore it is not a precedent. There has been in fact no ruling on majority of parties have agreed on the need to allocate time on a bill. it. It has been used only once in the history and no one challenged it at that time. There are two sections which allow for allocation of more than one stage at a time, but the situation here is that there are two of four I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, to rule on it at this point and find parties, ourselves and the Bloc, not supporting this motion or the along the arguments that I made that in fact it is an attempt on the idea of the legislation. Therefore, these two sections are unavailable part of the government to manoeuvre its way around the Standing to the government. Orders. It is therefore obvious that Motion No. 15 is an attempt to cast Ï (1015) aside these rules in this place. The government is doing this because The Speaker: The Chair has heard the very able arguments put our rules forbid the imposition of closure or time allocation on forward by the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh in respect of multiple stages of a bill without the consent of a majority of parties this motion and I must say that I greet his arguments with some in this House.

Load more

  94

Copy Link