Mr. Jay Hill
I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker, on the same question that was raised and for further clarification of where we are coming from here. In the bill there is an enacting clause which says “Her Majesty by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and the House of Commons”.
How can challenging the advice from the other place be out of order when it is in the enacting clause? Not only is the Senate mentioned in the enacting clause of the bill, but the bill was introduced in the Senate and it is the Senate that is asking the House of Commons to consider it.
When a bill is under time allocation it is appropriate to debate the use of time allocation. Time allocation has nothing to do with the principle of the bill. Yet it is fair game to debate it because time allocation was used to advance the bill through parliament.
In this case the government is using the Senate to introduce bills to advance its legislation through parliament. For this reason it should be in order to debate this procedure as it is in order to debate time allocation. How can it be relevant to debate some procedures and not relevant to debate others?
Citation 459(1) of Beauchesne's sixth edition states:
Relevance is not easy to define. In borderline cases the Member should be given the benefit of the doubt—
The case for debating the use of the Senate to introduce legislation must be allowed. You may have some personal doubts, Madam Speaker, but I would suggest that you give the member who is addressing the bill the benefit of the doubt.
Subtopic: Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985