TranslatePolitics.ca

Recent debates

8 latest topics

06-18 Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act 57 statements 06-18 Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act 19 statements 06-18 Arab Heritage Month Act 5 statements 06-18 The Economy 15 statements 06-18 Government Priorities 2 statements 06-18 Government Priorities 2 statements 06-18 Housing 12 statements 06-18 The Environment 2 statements

Government Orders

Points of Order

2026-06-16 Sitting 137 Showing 1–2 of 2

A debate about a motion to limit debate on other bills. The opposition called the motion anti-democratic and an abuse of power by the government.

Official Hansard ↗

Claude DeBellefeuille

Bloc Québécois 9:00 p.m.

“I want the chair to stop the government from setting a retroactive rule that benefits its members and prevents us from amending a bill. If we let the government use procedure this way once, it will keep doing it.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the point of order raised earlier by the member for York—Durham. What we have before us today is not just a programming motion, it is a dangerous precedent, an abuse of the procedural power of the majority. Government Business No. 13 introduces a retroactive deadline for amendments to be tabled in committee, which is, to my knowledge, unprecedented and highly inconsistent with the very spirit of our rules. Let us be clear: A rule that sets a deadline that has already passed is not an organizational tool. It is a trap. When a government uses such a mechanism to close down debate, it is not managing the business of the House; it is taking it away. The power to schedule work exists to allow for expedited consideration of bills in accordance with the Standing Orders, not to deprive members of their fundamental right to amend, discuss and improve a piece of legislation. Some government members seem to have had the opportunity to table their amendments before the deadline, when the deadline was not known to all the other members. This is serious. That gave those members an unfair advantage over members of the opposition. This procedural imbalance is unacceptable. In a House where every member is supposed to have the same rights, I would say that is unacceptable. Parliamentary procedure is not a weapon at the government's disposal; it is the framework that protects all members of Parliament, notably against the tyranny of the majority. This sort of manoeuvre does not constitute good parliamentary administration; it is an abuse of procedure. Previous rulings by the Chair are relevant here because they highlight a fundamental point: The House cannot, on the pretext of efficiency, run roughshod over the legislative stages. The Chair must protect not only the form but also the integrity of the process. When a motion actually prevents members from carrying out their duties, the Chair must declare it inadmissible. Otherwise, we open the door to a precedent whereby the government will henceforth be able to set retroactive rules, reserve benefits for its own members and then close the door to any correction. We cannot mince words here. This is not merely a procedural innovation; it is an abuse of process. It is an attempt to circumvent the normal parliamentary scrutiny of an important bill—very important, in fact. This is precisely the sort of situation that the Chair must prevent if it is to preserve the credibility of this institution.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Elizabeth May

Green 9:05 p.m.

“I agree with that member's complaint. I want everyone to know I agree with her. She is usually right. I'm very grateful to her.”

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates