Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 61 - 75 of 1727
View Niki Ashton Profile
NDP (MB)
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been consultations among the parties and if you seek it, I hope that you will find consent for the following motion: That in light of the uncovering of unmarked graves at residential schools, the House call on the government to establish an independent commission with the resources to establish standards and provide oversight in the searches of records, in ground searches and investigations in accordance with the wishes of communities, as well as invite international experts including the International Commission on Missing Persons to work with first nations, Inuit and Métis communities to bring their children home.
View Peter Schiefke Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Peter Schiefke Profile
2021-06-18 12:09 [p.8777]
Madam Speaker, immediately following the conclusion of my S.O. 31, I received a message from AV services and translation saying that unfortunately because of my mike they were unable to properly translate my S.O. 31, half of which was done in French and half in English. I therefore am requesting kindly that I be able to redo my S.O. 31.
View Charlie Angus Profile
NDP (ON)
View Charlie Angus Profile
2021-06-18 12:10 [p.8778]
Madam Speaker, I just wanted to clarify. I did not quite hear it, but it was the Liberal Party that turned down the support for indigenous people in finding the bodies—
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)
That is not a point of order.
On another point of order, the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Madam Speaker, the precedent was set, as you will recall, a few years ago. We had unanimous consent to put the motion. That was accepted. Then you asked for unanimous consent to adopt the motion. That was declined. What that means is because the motion was accepted, we now have to have a parliamentary vote on that. You can check the precedents back to 2015, but that is indeed the case. When the House allows the presentation of a motion, then subsequent to that, if unanimous consent for adoption of the motion is denied, it does mean that we then go to a vote.
The member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski moving the motion, having had the House accept the presentation of the motion, we would normally go to a vote. I would suggest though you might want to ask for unanimous consent to adopt again because that would very clearly the second time around avoid a vote. I think you would probably find unanimous consent, but if consent is not given for adoption, we have to proceed to a vote on it.
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)
On the point of order from the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby, I want to remind him on the procedure that is before the House when tabling these types of motion under a point of order. My first intervention was asking whether someone was against the hon. member moving the motion to please say nay and there were no nays on moving the motion. Then the following step is asking if the House has heard the terms of the motion and whether or not they agree with the motion, which is all those opposed to the motion, will please say nay, and it was not carried.
Therefore, it is not a point of debate at this point.
The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby has another point of order.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Madam Speaker, just on this point of order, I would ask the Table to very clearly check the precedent from 2015. The Speaker ruled at that time, and that is the precedent and the jurisprudence, that when the motion is allowed to be moved unanimously and then the adoption of the motion is denied, then the House proceeds to a vote on adoption of the motion. That is the clear precedent. I will give the Table time to look at the precedent, but it has been clearly set and I would ask you, through the Table, to look at that precedent and then come back with an ulterior ruling.
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)
I appreciate the additional information that the hon. member has provided. We will certainly look into this some more and will get back to the House briefly, if need be.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2021-06-18 12:15 [p.8778]
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, as we have known with the virtual Parliament, when a member, for technical reasons, was not able to complete their S.O. 31, the Speaker has had the ability to indicate to the member to start again. When that does not occur, for whatever reasons, members have stood up and explained themselves.
This is something that is beyond the member's control and there might have been some confusion. The member was not asking to repeat because of something that he had said; he was asking to repeat the S.O. 31 because there was a technical problem. In the past, we have always granted leave for that, so I just want to make sure the members understood it was not the member, it was a technical problem from the system.
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)
The hon. member is correct. After reviewing the request, I will grant the hon. member's request to redo his S.O. 31.
View Sean Fraser Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Sean Fraser Profile
2021-06-18 12:17 [p.8778]
Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to the same point of order. You seem to have granted what is an appropriate remedy.
I would only point out that it may actually impinge on a question of privilege if, due to problems with translation, a member is unable to give their statement. However, I believe you have granted the appropriate remedy, so thank you.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, I, too, await with great interest the question of privilege from my colleague from Timmins—James Bay. However, we have not yet resolved the issue that was raised earlier on the motion that was moved by the member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the member sought and received unanimous consent to move her motion, and then when the Speaker asked whether that motion could be adopted, the request was denied. I cited at the time a precedent dating back and asked the table to look into this. I have found the precedent. It is a ruling by former Deputy Speaker Comartin, on June 12, 2014.
On June 12, 2014, the member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Philip Toone, moved a similar motion and there was unanimous consent to present the motion. Then when the Speaker asked if there was unanimous consent to adopt the motion, that was denied. At that time, there was a series of procedural questions, which I will not go into, but essentially Deputy Speaker Comartin ruled very clearly that in a case when consent was provided for moving the motion and then consent was denied for adoption of the motion, the member then had the right to move the motion, debate was not precluded and ultimately the House was called upon to vote on that question.
I think that the government member who denied adoption may have done that by mistake and the first opportunity should be to allow the motion to be adopted by unanimous consent. However, if it is not adopted by unanimous consent, the precedent is very clear.
This is a rare occurrence, and the last Speaker ruling that we have is very clear that because consent was given for moving the motion, the motion is now on the floor and adoption can either be done by unanimous consent or by a vote. I think all members would probably agree that it is much simpler just to adopt it by unanimous consent. Again, the precedent is very clear and I would ask you to uphold that ruling, Mr. Speaker.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2021-06-18 12:47 [p.8785]
On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, the issue and the problem I would have with what is being suggested is that, when the Speaker made the original ruling, we have no idea whether the member who said no is still in the chamber. There was a ruling. I would be very reluctant to ask, once again, for unanimous consent, given that the time and the dynamic have changed considerably since then, and there was already a ruling.
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2021-06-18 12:48 [p.8785]
I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his additional comments, and thank the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby, who always frames his arguments in a well-informed way. I have the utmost of appreciation to my predecessor as well, Mr. Comartin, who I greatly admired in the House. He was a great chair occupant.
For the familiarity of the House, there is a two-step process for a unanimous consent motion. The first part is indeed to seek consent for the member to move the motion, thereby waiving the usual notice requirement to put the motion before the House. Then, as members all know, if the waiving of the notice is accepted, the member can propose the motion for the consideration of the House. However, the unanimous consent motion process was only ever intended to be for taking an immediate decision in the House, and can in no way interrupt the daily proceedings of the House. This is why all of the rules say that for members to properly consider business, debate and take votes on questions, they must be put before the House in an orderly manner.
The unanimous consent process is an immediate reflection of the House. It is an up or down, yea or nay. It is two steps. If the second step does not succeed, in other words, if the second time around the House says no, it does not want to accept the motion that has been proposed, then that is the end of it.
Admittedly, the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby has found a precedent, an absolutely valid one, and there have been three other occasions when the same decision has been put before the Speaker. However, we have decided, in keeping with the comments that I just reflected upon, that unanimous consent requires an immediate decision to be taken, and if there is a no on either of the two steps, the matter is finished until such time as another member may wish to propose it in a different way or indeed use other rubrics of the House to bring it before the House. That is where we stand on this.
Now we will go to the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.
View Christine Normandin Profile
BQ (QC)
Results: 61 - 75 of 1727 | Page: 5 of 116

|<
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data