Rules of Debate / Process of Debate

Motions: admissibility; suspension of certain Standing Orders

February 23, 2007

Debates, pp. 7242-3

On February 23, 2007, Joe Comartin (Windsor–Tecumseh) rose on a point of order, contending that a motion (Government Business No. 15) that had been moved by Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform) was out of order. The motion sought to suspend certain Standing Orders for the duration of the consideration a bill entitled An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of railway operations, which had yet to be introduced in the House.^[1] Mr. Comartin argued that the House was being asked to accept a piece of legislation which it had not yet seen, that the motion effectively precluded the possibility of the House passing informed amendments to the Bill, that the motion was effectively an attempt to circumvent the Standing Orders and that the consent of a majority of the parties should precede any restriction of debate. He maintained that, since unanimous consent had neither been sought nor obtained to suspend the Standing Orders, the Government could use either Standing Order 57 or 78(3) to limit debate on the Bill. Jay Hill (Secretary of State and Chief Government Whip) argued in reply that the same kind of procedure had been used in the past and had been ruled in order.

The Speaker ruled immediately. He also cited a previous ruling by Mr. Speaker Fraser to the effect that the House may dispense with the application of the rules by unanimous consent or by motion and that the Standing Orders may be suspended by motion for which appropriate notice has been given. He noted that in the case of the disputed motion, notice had been duly given and the motion moved in accordance with the Standing Orders. He stated that the House decides matters by the majority of the Members voting in favour or against them and not by party. He ruled, accordingly, that the motion currently before the House was in order.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: The Chair has heard the very able arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Windsor–Tecumseh in respect of this motion and I must say that I greet his arguments with some skepticism.

I am concerned about his reference to the fact that a majority of the parties in the House have not agreed to something and therefore that something may not be in order. The House decides matters, not by party but by votes, by the number of Members supporting or rejecting a motion. In my view, that is the way the House operates and will continue to operate.

I point out that this motion, which has been moved today and which is now the subject of debate, if acceptable, is one that will be voted on by the Members of the House. Members are free to vote for or against the motion as they see fit and the decision of the House will be taken by the majority of the Members voting either for or against. If the majority vote against, the motion is defeated and we will not proceed in this way. If the majority favour proceeding in this way, then that is exactly what will happen.

I would refer the hon. Member to a ruling made by Mr. Speaker Fraser on December 15, 1988, when a motion for certain changes to the Standing Orders was moved in the House. Mr. Speaker Fraser, quoting an earlier ruling of his which he had made in June 1988, said:

The most fundamental privilege of the House as a whole is to establish rules of procedure for itself and to enforce them. A few rules are laid down in the British North America Act, but the vast majority are resolutions of the House which may be added to, amended, or repealed at the discretion of the House. It follows, therefore, that the House may dispense with the application of any of these rules by unanimous consent on any occasion, or, by motion, may suspend their operation for a specified length of time.

He went on to say:

Standing Orders may be suspended for a particular case without prejudice to their continued validity, for the House possesses the inherent power to destroy the self-imposed barriers and fetters of its own regulations. It may even pass an Order prescribing a course of procedure inconsistent with the Standing Orders.

He continues to say:

Furthermore, there are several precedents for such occurrences in the Canadian House found in the Journals for March 16, 1883, June 1, 1898, April 8, 1948, April 24, 1961, and May 14, 1964. Clearly then both the authorities and our practices allow for our Standing Orders to be suspended or amended by motion on notice.

I note that there has been notice given of this motion. It has been moved in accordance with the Standing Orders and will propose to suspend certain operations of those Standing Orders.

Finally:

Standing Orders are not safeguarded by any special procedure against amendment, repeal or suspension, whether explicitly or by Order contrary to their purport. Ordinary notice only is requisite for the necessary motion: and some Standing Orders have included arrangements for the suspension of their own provisions by a bare vote, without amendment or debate.

In the circumstances, having regard to the motion that has been proposed by the Government House Leader, I must say that it appears to me to suspend the operation of the Standing Orders in relation to a bill that is to be introduced at some future time with a specific title, and that when that bill is introduced, this Special Order will kick in, in relation to that bill.

It seems to me that it is a matter for the House to decide if it wishes to proceed in this way.

I think that the motion is receivable in its present form and is consistent with the authorities I have cited. It is up to the House and not me to decide if the motion is acceptable or not.

In my view, the motion is receivable right now and the House can decide after the debate if it wants to adopt it or not. We will now hear the hon. Minister of Labour for the beginning of the debate.