44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 18, 2024 11:00AM
- Mar/18/24 8:17:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I think it is important that we recognize that it was on March 1 that the House made an order indicating that we would be having the vote today at 7:15 p.m., an hour ago. Every member understood before the recess that the vote would be taking place this evening.
The other issue I have is this: Take a look at the purpose of opposition days and at the process we have witnessed today. There is no new element being introduced to the motion, and I will expand on that right away. What is important is to recognize the process that has gotten us to this point.
The NDP introduced a motion. There was a great deal of debate on it. There were all sorts of crossover discussions taking place, and at the end of the day, the government House leader moved an amendment. That amendment, which is completely within scope, was accepted by the member for Edmonton Strathcona. The Speaker reread the amendment and then ruled that it was, in fact, in order, as has been done previously on many different opposition days.
I take exception when members opposite try to give the false impression that it is out of scope. Let me give a very specific example. When they stood on the point of order to try to filibuster a vote, they made reference to the fact that the Gaza issue is a very important aspect of the amendment. Let us go to what the motion actually says about Gaza and ask how they could imply that the amendment would in any way be out of scope.
I would refer people to part (viii): “the forcible transfer and violent attacks on Palestinians in the West Bank have significantly increased in recent months”. How could they say that an amendment dealing with the West Bank is, in fact, out of scope, when it is actually in the motion that has been presented?
We can go further, to part (g): “ban extremist settlers”. Again, how could we not identify that this is also a part of Gaza?
I go to part (h): “advocate for an end to the decades-long occupation of Palestinian territories and work toward a two-state solution”.
I would argue against the very premise. After the Speaker agreed everything was in order, and the vote was just about to occur, a member stood up and brought up an issue, saying that the amendment is not within scope. In fact it is, and Gaza is actually mentioned, if members had listened to the Minister of Foreign Affairs when she made her presentation to the House, and to where other members even make reference to both Gaza and the West Bank.
I would suggest not only that it is within the scope but also that we have an order from March 1 saying that the vote should occur today at 7:15 p.m. I would suggest that we get on with it and vote.
510 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/18/24 8:21:55 p.m.
- Watch
A number of people want to get up about this, and I want to ask all of them to be very judicious and very short in their questions with respect to the point of order before us.
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/18/24 8:22:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have three points.
First of all, to add to the point of order that has been made about decorum, the reality is that what happened here on a major issue of foreign policy is that the Liberals came in with a substantive amendment that would change seven out of nine components of the original motion, including changing the unilateral recognition of Palestine to something else, on the back of a napkin, and told the NDP what to do.
Point two is that anybody voting by app tonight will not have had a chance to see this, so there are going to be people at home who will not have seen it.
The last component is language. This is one of the most substantive amendments that has been tabled in the House on a major point of foreign policy. Our peer nations are watching this. They are going to think this Parliament is a complete joke, because the government is coming in at the end and table-dropping the motion and expecting Parliament to vote on it.
This sends a poor message to our peer nations, and the amendment should be ruled out of order.
197 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/18/24 8:23:20 p.m.
- Watch
We have a few more comments; keep them very short.
10 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/18/24 8:23:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will just refer to Chapter 12 of our procedure book by Bosc and Gagnon, the 2017 edition, which says, “An amendment is out of order, procedurally, if...it is completely contrary to the main motion and would produce the same result as the defeat of the main motion”.
I draw your attention again to the original motion in paragraph (i), which is on the official recognition of the state of Palestine, and then go to what the amendment says. I will go back to the very last part of paragraph (n), which says, “maintain Canada's position that Israel has a right to exist”.
Defeating the original motion, the motion that was debated all day long in the House, would have our position go back to what is the official position of the Government of Canada and has been for the last couple of decades. The amendment is out of order procedurally and should be ruled as such by you as Chair.
169 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/18/24 8:24:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am new in this place, but my colleague mentioned that the NDP member consented to the amendment, as if that had any kind of relevancy. It is the same member who on multiple occasions has said that a private member's accepting an amendment that has been ruled out of order is irrelevant in that circumstance. He will have to tell me how it makes sense in that case and not in this one.
77 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/18/24 8:24:59 p.m.
- Watch
I wish it were within my power to hold the vote tomorrow, because I do recognize that it is a substantive change to the motion. However, it is not within my power, because there has been a motion in the House, so I am ordered to have the vote immediately unless someone wants to ask for unanimous consent to have a vote tomorrow at a specific time.
67 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/18/24 8:25:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, given what you have just said, and after having some discussion among members of various parties, I am sure there will be agreement to allow members to do their due diligence.
If we are going to take this seriously, if we are going to show Canadians and the world that foreign policy is not done on the back of a napkin with two negotiators and without any kind of consultation, I ask for unanimous consent to defer the vote until tomorrow.
Some hon. members: No.
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/18/24 8:26:09 p.m.
- Watch
We will go to Chapter 12. This has been quoted a number of times already today:
An amendment must be relevant to the motion it seeks to amend. It must not stray from the main motion but must aim to refine its meaning and intent. An amendment should take the form of a motion to: leave out certain words in order to add other words; leave out certain words; or insert or add other words to the main motion.
An amendment should be so framed that, if agreed to, it will leave the main motion intelligible and internally consistent.
An amendment is out of order, procedurally, if: it is irrelevant to the main motion...; it raises a question substantially the same as one which the House has decided in the same session or conflicts with an amendment already agreed to; [or] it is completely contrary to the main motion and would produce the same result as the defeat of the main motion.
I do not have a lot of procedure to go with on this one.
176 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/18/24 8:27:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, you just literally referenced the point that my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman and I made about when the amendment is so different. The original motion would call for a unilateral recognition; the revised motion would call for a negotiated one. Those are two diametrically opposed aspects of the motion. This is not a question of refining the main motion; this is a massively substantive change to the original motion that would rise to the level of defeating the main motion.
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/18/24 8:27:56 p.m.
- Watch
Let me quote a little more: “...any part of the amendment is out of order, or it originates with the mover of the main motion.”
The challenge we had here tonight is that we had a motion that was substantial, one that was agreed to by the mover of the motion, so I am not left with a lot of leeway to rule it out of order.
Unfortunately, it being 8:28 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
The question is on the amendment. May I dispense?
Some hon. members: No.
[Chair read text of amendment to House]
If a member participating in person wishes that the amendment be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/18/24 8:35:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded division, please.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/18/24 8:35:30 p.m.
- Watch
4 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/18/24 9:26:07 p.m.
- Watch
I declare the amendment carried.
5 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/18/24 9:26:07 p.m.
- Watch
The next question is on the main motion, as amended.
May I dispense?
Some hon. members: No.
[Chair read text of motion as amended to House]
The Deputy Speaker: If a member participating in person wishes that the motion, as amended, be adopted or adopted on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/18/24 9:31:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, for this historic vote, we would like a recorded vote, please.
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/18/24 9:42:39 p.m.
- Watch
I declare the motion, as amended, carried.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Pursuant to order made earlier today, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C‑59.
The question is on the amendment. May I dispense?
Some hon. members: No.
[Chair read text of amendment to House]
51 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/18/24 9:55:36 p.m.
- Watch
I declare the amendment defeated.
The next question is on the main motion.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69.1, the question is on clauses 1 to 136, 138 to 143, 168 to 196, 209 to 216 and 278 to 317 regarding measures appearing in the 2023 budget.
47 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/18/24 10:08:12 p.m.
- Watch
I declare these clauses carried.
The next question is on clauses 137, 144 and 231 to 272 regarding measures related to affordability.
22 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
