6887","static/chunks/6887-ccdfe176d8e60771.js","2958","static/chunks/2958-5bde9c6d896654a5.js","793","static/chunks/793-d1eb689d9edee967.js","5521","static/chunks/app/politicians/statements/%5Bid%5D/page-7e0f3867022802a1.js"],"Divider"] 45:T714,

Mr. Speaker, the substance of both motions is identical. The substance is to divide the bill into two bills, the first consisting of clause 2 to 7 and 27, and the other bill containing all the rest of the provisions.

Regardless of how one describes the rest of the provisions, the consequence of the two motions is identical. Two separate bills, one which has clauses 2 to 7 and 27, and one which is the balance of the other clauses.

The words describing them, that they are different, is really of no consequence. The fact is, it is an identical motion in terms of what it is asking this House to do.

In terms of the reference to the British practice, the hon. member may not be familiar with the fact that in our rules, our processes, and our procedures, it is often the case that we have reference to the mother Parliament. It is indeed the parent of all our rules and all our followings. It is a common practice to follow those proceedings.

However, we are not simply doing that. We are actually going much farther than that, following no less an authority than O'Brien and Bosc, which says when the rule becomes operative in our House, and that is:

...only when one of two similar motions on the Order Paper is actually proceeded with.... if the first has already been proposed to the House and has become an Order of the Day.

That is exactly what has happened in this case. That is exactly why this motion is out of o

Peter Van Loan

Transcript

Routine Proceedings

Discussions (0)