House of commons.

• Author: Monnin, Marisa
• Position: Legislative Reports

The First Session of the Forty-Second Parliament continued through the early months of 2017. The information below covers the period from January 21, 2017, to April 6, 2017.

Financial Procedures

On March 7, 2017 at the request of the Minister of Finance, Bill Momeau (Toronto Centre), an Order of the Day was designated for the consideration of a Ways and Means motion for a budget presentation. On March 22, 2017, Mr. Morneau moved "[t]hat this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government" and presented the budget speech. Following the usual four days of debate, the motion was agreed to on April 5, 2017.

Legislation

On March 8, 2017, the House unanimously adopted a motion to give second reading to Bill C-337, An Act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code, requiring sexual assault training for judges, standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, Rona Ambrose (Sturgeon River-Parkland), and to refer the bill to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. On March 9, 2017, by unanimous consent, the bill was referred to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

On March 8, 2017, the Speaker made a statement concerning the selection of amendements at report stage of Bill C-22, An Act to establish the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts. Exceptionally, certain amendments which could have been put forward in committee were selected for debate at report stage as a result of a recent Supreme Court decision. The changes proposed in the amendments arose out of the court decision in question, which was rendered on November 25, 2016, four days before the start of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

Points of Order and Questions of Privilege

Points of Order

On February 15, 2017, the Speaker Geoff Regan ruled on two similar points of orders raised by Pierre Poilievre (Carleton) and Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard) in December 2016 and February 2017, respectively. Mr. Poilievre and Mr. Kmiec argued that the answers they received to their written questions lacked specific information which had been requested. Mr. Poilievre claimed that the Government had suppressed information and therefore asked the Speaker to compel the Government to provide it. In his ruling, the Speaker noted the limitations on the role of the Speaker with respect to the content of answers to written questions, specifying that he does not have the authority to...