Points of Order

This was a point of order about a government motion to schedule debate on Bill C-22, a bill on police access to data during investigations. A Conservative member asked the Speaker to rule the motion out of order, saying its amendment deadline had already passed and would prevent other members from proposing changes. A Liberal member responded that the House can set its own rules and schedule for debating a bill and that limiting debate does not violate members’ rights. The Bloc Québécois reserved the right to respond to the point of order later. A separate exchange concerned a member bringing cake into the chamber, which another member called a breach of the rules and asked for an apology.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

2 statements

Mark Gerretsen, Kingston and the Islands

Liberal
“The House has the right to set its own rules and schedule for debating this bill. Limiting debate like this does not break our rules or violate members' rights.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the point of order raised by my colleague, respecting the effect of the programming motion related to Bill C‑22 in the context of our collective and individual privileges. I submit that the matter is a question of whether the House has the ability to regulate its proceedings that appear to restrict the privileges of the House. I can state categorically that the House does have the powers to limit and, in some cases, waive its privileges. Page 65 of the fourth edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states: As a collectivity, the House of Commons has privileges that enable its members to fulfill their constitutional duties.... The two most dominant rights or powers are the right of the House to regulate its own internal affairs and the power to discipline. The programming motion that would govern the consideration of Bill C‑22 seeks to achieve to set a procedural process for the disposal of the bill. The House is no stranger to innovative and constructive ways to dispose of business before the House and in committees. During the pandemic, the House adopted motions that would have normally been seen as a restriction on the privileges of members and the House more generally. Indeed, the exclusive power of the House to regulate internal affairs is the cornerstone of the architecture of parliamentary privilege. The ability to regulate and control its own debates, agenda and proceedings relating to the legislative and deliberative functions is one of the most important privileges that the Constitution bestows upon Parliament. I submit that the exercise of these powers is central to the matter before the House. The House can give direction to committees, which are creatures of the House. The House can decide, by a majority of the voices, to structure the legislative process for any given bill. This is precisely the case with the proposal before the House. Therefore, I conclude that the matter is clearly within the House’s powers to regulate its internal affairs in respect of the legislative agenda.

Mark Gerretsen, Kingston and the Islands

Liberal
“The member brought cake into the House, which breaks our rules. I want them to apologize for disrespecting the House.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is more than just out of order. The member has brought cake into the House of Commons, which is incredibly disrespectful of the rules of this House. I would suggest that the member apologize to the House for disrespecting it in this way.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 137

  1. Government Orders Combatting Hate Act 9 statements
  2. Government Orders Combatting Hate Act 91 statements
  3. Oral Questions The Economy 12 statements
  4. Oral Questions Democratic Institutions 4 statements
  5. Oral Questions Privacy 2 statements
  6. Oral Questions Access to Information 2 statements
  7. Oral Questions Democratic Institutions 2 statements
  8. Oral Questions National Defence 2 statements
  9. Oral Questions International Trade 2 statements
  10. Oral Questions Emergency Management 2 statements
  11. Oral Questions Housing 4 statements
  12. Oral Questions Public Safety 5 statements
  13. Oral Questions Health 2 statements
  14. Oral Questions Agriculture and Agri-Food 4 statements
  15. Oral Questions The Environment 2 statements
  16. Oral Questions Infrastructure 2 statements
  17. Oral Questions Fisheries and Oceans 2 statements
  18. Oral Questions Post-Secondary Education 3 statements
  19. Oral Questions Veterans Affairs 2 statements
  20. Oral Questions Health 2 statements
  21. Oral Questions Privacy 2 statements
  22. Oral Questions Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship 2 statements
  23. Oral Questions Public Service of Canada 2 statements
  24. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 4 statements
  25. Oral Questions Government Accountability 2 statements
  26. Oral Questions Grocery Industry 2 statements
  27. Oral Questions Taxation 2 statements
  28. Oral Questions Canada Revenue Agency 2 statements
  29. Oral Questions Canadian Identity and Culture 2 statements
  30. Oral Questions Firearms 3 statements
  31. Oral Questions Presence in Gallery 2 statements
  32. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 2 statements
  33. Oral Questions Points of Order 4 statements
  34. Government Orders Combatting Hate Act 14 statements
  35. Oral Questions The Environment 2 statements
  36. Oral Questions Persons with Disabilities 2 statements
  37. Government Orders Government Business No. 11—Proceedings on Bill C-26 29 statements
  38. Oral Questions Housing 2 statements
  39. Private Members' Business National Framework on Sickle Cell Disease Act 7 statements
  40. Government Orders Government Business No. 11—Proceedings on Bill C‑26 22 statements
  41. Government Orders An Act to Authorize Certain Payments to be Made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund 56 statements
  42. Government Orders Points of Order 2 statements