SoVote

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan (Calgary Forest Lawn, CPC)

Jun/2/23 10:03:12 a.m.
Watch

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.

510 words

Ruling

Context: House Hansard - 205 - Jun/2/23

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan

Jun/2/23 10:10:44 a.m.
Watch

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—

143 words

Context: House Hansard - 205 - Jun/2/23

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan

Jun/2/23 10:14:46 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will conclude in two minutes—

9 words

Context: House Hansard - 205 - Jun/2/23

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan

Jun/2/23 10:15:17 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47

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—

238 words

C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023

Context: House Hansard - 205 - Jun/2/23

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan

Jun/2/23 12:20:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise to seek unanimous consent, following question period, to table witness testimony from the finance committee from May 17— Some hon. members: No.

27 words

Context: House Hansard - 205 - Jun/2/23

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan

Jun/2/23 12:26:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, during question period there was a lot of discussion on inflation. In light of that, I am seeking unanimous consent to table the monetary policy report by the Bank of Canada dated April 2023, specifically the part highlighted as “Fiscal measures adding to the growth of domestic demand”, which proves that government spending drove up inflation.

60 words