SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 271

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
January 30, 2024 10:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 271 - Jan/30/24
Mr. John Williamson
  • Jan/30/24 10:50:33 a.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, some parliaments ago there was a debate in the chamber over the rights of members to express themselves vis-à-vis their whips. The Speaker at the time ruled clearly that debates from both sides of the chamber had to be made in this room and not in the corridor behind us, so members came to this chamber and made their best arguments to inform the Speaker so the Speaker could make a better ruling. My concern is the practice of the Speaker cutting off concerned points of order on an issue before the House. He is cutting the members out of the process and leaving it up to the Speaker to make a ruling behind closed doors. We would be well served to have a debate over the rules around petitions, and I regret the Speaker's decision. He is going to come back here to say the matter is closed without having heard from members, in good faith, who want to represent their constituents when it comes to petitions. The Speaker would be well advised to hear from MPs who are here trying to work in a good faith effort to advance this House in a way that we—
204 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 271 - Jan/30/24
The Speaker
  • Jan/30/24 5:08:58 p.m.
  • Watch
I think it is important to all members for the Speaker to make a ruling and brief statement regarding questions raised earlier today concerning the interventions during presenting petitions. Standing Order 36(7) is clear. It states, “On the presentation of a petition no debate on or in relation to the same shall be allowed.” In addition, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states at page 1192, and I quote: No debate is permitted during the presentation of petitions. Any comment on the merits of a petition—even a Member's personal agreement or disagreement with the petitioners—has been deemed to constitute a form of debate and is therefore out of order. Members are permitted a brief factual statement, in the course of which they may allude to the petition being duly certified, to its source, to the subject matter of the petition and its prayer, and to the number of signatures it carries. In any event, petitions are not to be read in their entirety and Members presenting them should avoid straying into debate or argument. As they currently stand, the rules of the House do not allow for petitions to be debated. In essence, the role of members in regard to petitions, and it is an important role, is to act as an intermediary between petitioners and the House for the sole purpose of presenting the views of petitioners to Parliament. Thus, members should not comment on petitions they present. While some latitude is occasionally granted, the Chair has generally been quick to call members to order when they veer too strongly into debate. This morning, in the moment, I concluded that the member for Battle River—Crowfoot was out of order because he was engaging in debate when he criticized another member for not presenting the same petition. I have had an opportunity to further review the matter, and I have concluded that this was the correct interpretation. Members are, of course, free to challenge each other during debates, within the established bounds of decorum in the House, but it is inappropriate to criticize individual colleagues while presenting a petition. This is especially true in that there is no opportunity for members to respond to the attacks launched against them. To use the occasion of presenting a petition to question another member’s commitment to their constituents is clearly inappropriate. While the Chair frequently has reminded members of the rules for presenting petitions, when the Chair deems it necessary, it can also admonish a member that persists in breaching the rules and defying the authority of the Chair. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 320 states, and I quote: On occasion, a Member who is called to order by the Speaker may not immediately comply with the Speaker's instructions; in such a case, the Speaker has given the Member time to reflect on his or her position, declining in the meantime to “see” the Member should the latter rise to be recognized. In the past, there have been numerous instances of my predecessors calling members to order if they persisted in debating a matter when it was not permitted. This could reach the point of not recognizing them for the remainder of the sitting or until such time as they complied with the Chair’s direction. This informed my decision when the matter was raised. I also considered the decision made by the Assistant Deputy Speaker on December 12, 2023, when a similar situation arose. When the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies made a similar comment, he was called to order and told this was inappropriate. When he then repeated the same comment, he was asked to apologize. Even if members do not agree with this approach, when the Chair directs a member to withdraw remarks and apologize, the member to whom such a request is directed is bound to do so. Disregarding the authority of the Chair can be considered a disrespect for the House. Should the member for Battle River—Crowfoot apologize, as requested, he would then be recognized by the Chair. I hope this clarifies the matter and I thank all members for their attention.
715 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border