The Legislative Process / Stages

Consideration in committee: motions of instruction; empowering a committee to divide a bill and imposing deadline for reporting one of the two new bills back to the House

October 29, 2009

Debates, pp. 6357-8

On October 8, 2009, James Bezan (Selkirk–Interlake) presented the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, requesting an extension of 30 sitting days to consider Bill C-311, Climate Change Accountability Act.^[1] Later that day, Libby Davies (Vancouver East) moved a motion of instruction conferring upon the Committee the power to divide the Bill into two Bills, Bill C-311A and Bill C-311B, and the obligation to report Bill C-311A back to the House by a specific date.^[2] Later during the same sitting, Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) rose on a point of order to challenge the admissibility of the motion. He argued that the motion should be ruled out of order because it introduced time allocation at the committee stage and was accordingly no longer permissive. Furthermore, the inclusion of the deadline had the effect of overriding existing reporting requirements for private Members’ bills already set out in the Standing Orders, and the motion included two separate proposals which, he maintained, required two separate motions.^[3] After hearing from other Members,^[4] the Speaker took the matter under advisement.

On October 29, 2009, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He stated that past practice and procedural authorities recognized a motion to give a committee the power to divide a bill as permissive. Further, he maintained that the deadline and other procedural directions included in the motion would apply only if the Committee chose to divide the Bill, in the full knowledge of the consequences. As to the potential for a conflict with the Standing Orders governing Private Members’ Business, the Speaker said that since the House could impose an earlier reporting date than that which is set out in the rules, the House could also adopt a motion of instruction with a reporting deadline. Finally, he stated that he did not find that the motion contained more than one proposal as the portion with the reporting deadline was contingent on the main proposition, namely the permissive instruction to divide the Bill. Accordingly, he ruled the motion in order.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader on October 8, 2009, regarding the admissibility of the motion of instruction moved on the same day by the hon. Member for Vancouver East.

I thank the hon. Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Vancouver East, and the hon. Member for Skeena–Bulkley Valley for their interventions on this matter.

The Parliamentary Secretary argued that the motion of instruction listed on the Order paper as Government Business No. 6 is out of order because, in his view, it attempts to time allocate a bill and, as such, is no longer permissive.

He added that the inclusion of a deadline in the motion of instruction had the effect of overriding existing reporting requirements for private Members’ bills already contained in the Standing Orders.

He also asserted that the motion contains two separate proposals and should, therefore, require two separate motions.

In speaking to the Parliamentary Secretary’s point of order, the hon. Member for Vancouver East pointed out that the Committee may decide whether or not to exercise the powers given to it by the House, thus rendering the motion permissive.

For his part, the hon. Member for Skeena–Bulkley Valley pointed out that there was a precedent for such a motion of instruction, referring to a motion that was debated on May 30, 2005.

As stated on page 641 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, and I quote:

Motions of instruction respecting bills are permissive rather than mandatory. It is left to the committee to decide whether or not to exercise the powers given to it by the House…

Once a bill has been referred to a committee, the House may give the committee an instruction by way of a motion which authorizes it to do what it otherwise could not do, such as, for example, examining a portion of a bill and reporting it separately, examining certain items in particular, dividing a bill into more than one bill, consolidating two or more bills into one bill, or expanding or narrowing the scope or application of a bill.

In the matter raised by the Parliamentary Secretary, the Chair must determine whether the wording of the motion of instruction is permissive or mandatory.

The first and main part of the motion is to give the Committee the power to divide the Bill. This is recognized as permissive by past practice and procedural authorities. I can see nothing in the motion of instruction that orders the Committee to do anything specific with Bill C-311. The deadline and other procedural actions contained in the motion apply only if the Committee takes the step to create Bill C-311A, in the full knowledge of the consequences that would ensue.

As I read the motion, the Committee can still choose to report Bill C-311 in the same way as it would any other private Member’s bill.

Members are aware that the Standing Orders stipulate that a private Member’s bill must be reported back to the House before the end of 60 sitting days, or, with the approval of the House, following an extension of 30 sitting days. Otherwise, the bill is deemed reported back without amendment.

It has been argued, in this case, that the inclusion of a deadline in the motion of instruction comes into conflict with the provisions of Standing Order 97.1(1), thus rendering the motion out of order.

However, in the view of the Chair, it is not unreasonable to envisage a scenario where the House, for whatever reason, would want a committee to report a bill back prior to the reporting deadline set out in Standing Order 97.1(1).

So, there is nothing, in my understanding of that Standing Order, or in the procedural authorities, that would preclude the House from adopting a motion of instruction that included a reporting deadline.

The example referred to by the hon. Member for Skeena–Bulkley Valley is particularly instructive on this point. That motion of instruction, debated in the House on May 30, 2005 (Journals, p. 800) stated in part: “that Bill C-43A be reported back to the House no later than two sitting days after the adoption of this motion”. It provided a deadline remarkably similar to that contained in the motion of instruction moved by the Member for Vancouver East.

In the view of the Chair, just as in the 2005 example, the inclusion of a deadline in the motion of instruction for Bill C-311 does not infringe on the Committee’s discretion to exercise the power to divide the Bill, nor with its discretion to amend the Bill.

Finally, the Chair is not persuaded by the Parliamentary Secretary’s argument that the motion contains more than one proposal and that it should be divided into two separate motions. A close reading of the motion shows that the portion regarding the reporting deadline is contingent on the main proposition; namely, the permissive instruction to divide the Bill.

Accordingly, for all the reasons outlined, the Chair must conclude that the motion is in order.

I thank hon. Members for their interventions on this matter.