The House and Its Members / Miscellaneous

Concurrence in a committee report: considering the same question twice

May 5, 2005

Debates, pp. 5725-7

On May 2, 2005, Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) rose on a point of order to challenge the admissibility of an amendment moved on April 22, 2005, by Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition), to the motion to concur in the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Finance regarding pre-budget consultations. The Deputy Speaker (Chuck Strahl) had found the amendment in order.^[1] The amendment would have had the effect of recommitting the Report, with an instruction to amend it to include a recommendation that the Government resign for refusing to accept some of the Report’s key recommendations and for refusing to implement budgetary changes. Mr. Valeri argued that the amendment was procedurally inconsistent with the process set out in Standing Order 83.1, that the amendment included a question that the House had already decided upon, and that provisional Standing Order 66 pertaining to concurrence in committee reports was not designed to vote on ancillary issues through amendments. After hearing from other Members, the Speaker took the matter under advisement.^[2]

On May 5, 2005, the Speaker delivered his ruling addressing the three objections raised by the Minister. In dealing with the issue of the Finance Committee’s mandate to undertake pre-budget consultations under the provisions of Standing Order 83.1 and the Minister’s argument that the Committee’s authority to report on the budgetary policy of the Government is tied directly to the budgetary cycle and that its mandate lapses once the Government presents its budget, the Speaker stated that unlike a special committee which would have to be reconstituted to reconsider its final report, as a standing committee it could receive an instruction from the House to reconsider any of its reports. Therefore, he did not find the amendment inconsistent with the process set out in Standing Order 83.1. As to the matter of deciding a question twice, the Speaker noted that the House had dealt with three separate motions in relation to the Finance Committee and the budget: a motion to take note of a report; a motion to approve the budgetary policy of the Government; and a motion to concur in a report. For this reason, he declared that he could not agree with the Government House Leader that the House was deciding the same question twice. In addressing the Government House Leader’s third objection that changes to Standing Order 66 relating to the concurrence in committee reports were not designed “to allow ancillary issues to be voted on through amendments”, the Speaker reminded the House that the Minister had acknowledged that the amendment to refer the Report back to the Committee with instructions was in order. He also noted that Standing Order 66 merely provided a mechanism by which the House could take decisions on motions to concur in committee reports, and by extension any amendments moved thereto. He concluded by pointing out that it is not up to the Chair to judge the substance of any motion, but rather to ascertain that the proper procedures for the presentation of a motion had been respected, adding that he could not find any procedural grounds to declare the amendment defective. Accordingly, he ruled that the amendment was in order.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on May 2 by the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons regarding the admissibility of the amendment to the motion to concur in the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Finance.

I would like to thank the hon. Minister for raising this matter and the hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition, the hon. House Leader for the Bloc Québécois, the hon. Members for Glengarry–Prescott–Russell and Calgary Southeast for their contributions to the discussion.

Let me begin by giving the background to this question. On April 22, the hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition moved a motion to concur in the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Finance. This Report deals with the pre-budget consultations of the Finance Committee under the provisions of Standing Order 83.1.

During debate on the concurrence motion, the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition moved the following amendment:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “that” and substituting the following:

The Third Report of the Standing Committee on Finance, presented on December 20, 2004, be not now concurred in, but that it be recommitted to the Standing Committee on Finance with instruction that it amend the same so as to recommend that the Government resign over refusing to accept some of the committee’s key recommendations and to implement the budgetary changes that Canadians need.

The Deputy Speaker found the amendment to be in order and proposed the question, so debate continued on the amendment. The hon. Government House Leader in presenting his point of order laid out very well the process for dealing with amendments to motions to concur in committee reports. As the Minister correctly noted, our practice has been to allow the House to give a permissive or mandatory instruction to a committee to amend the text of a report.

The hon. Government House Leader went on to raise three main objections.

First, he expressed concern that the amendment went beyond the mandate of the Finance Committee as set down in Standing Order 83.1. He argued that the Finance Committee’s authority to report on the budgetary policy of the Government pursuant to Standing Order 83.1 is tied directly to the Government’s budgetary cycle and that its mandate lapses once the Government presents its budget.

This point was also stressed by the hon. Member for Glengarry–Prescott–Russell. The Minister stated that the amendment is beyond the timetable established in the Standing Order, in effect extending the Committee’s Order of Reference for this Report. He concluded that, at a minimum, the amendment should have stated, “Notwithstanding Standing Order 83.1”.

Second, the Minister argued that the amendment is out of order in that it is putting a question to the House that has already been decided. He noted that there had been two days of debate on the content of the Third Report of the Finance Committee presented December 20, 2004, and that no motion to concur in the Report had been proposed prior to the budget presentation on February 23.

Stressing that the budget had been adopted on March 9, he asserted that the amendment to the concurrence motion instructs the Finance Committee to condemn the Government for not accepting its recommendations respecting its budgetary policy, when in fact the House has already approved the Government’s budgetary policy. He argued that the amendment in effect asks the House to decide the same question twice.

As his third objection, the Minister raised concerns that the changes to the Standing Orders relating to concurrence in committee reports were not designed “to allow ancillary issues to be voted on through amendments”.

In speaking to the matter, the hon. Opposition House Leader noted that the amendment had been ruled admissible by the Deputy Speaker on April 22 and that the motion and the amendment had been debated for one hour and 19 minutes. The hon. Opposition House Leader rejected the notion that the Finance Committee’s mandate had lapsed and claimed that the motion of instruction was indeed admissible as it relates to the committee’s Order of Reference.

The hon. House Leader for the Bloc Québécois supported the arguments put by the hon. Opposition House Leader. He also asserted that this Report was no different than any other committee report, contrary to what the hon. Government House Leader had argued. He further reminded the House that, notwithstanding the March 9 vote approving the budgetary policy of the Government in general and given recent events, the budget appeared to be a work in progress. He concluded that asking the Committee to reconsider the Report was therefore admissible.

The Member for Calgary Southeast further elaborated on the procedures for concurrence in committee reports.

As Members are well aware, the procedures surrounding motions to concur in committee reports have generated a great deal of attention in these past few weeks. I have considered carefully all the arguments presented and I am now prepared to deal with the various points that were raised.

The hon. Government House Leader questioned whether the Standing Committee on Finance’s Order of Reference pursuant to Standing Order 83.1 extended beyond the presentation of any report or reports concerning the budgetary policy of the Government.

Standing Order 83.1 reads as follows:

Commencing on the first sitting day in September of each year, the Standing Committee on Finance shall be authorized to consider and make reports upon proposals regarding the budgetary policy of the government. Any report or reports thereon may be made no later than the tenth sitting day before the last normal sitting day in December, as set forth in Standing Order 28(2).

While the Standing Order sets down the time frame for presenting a report on the budgetary policy of the Government, it is silent as to whether or when a motion to concur in such a report can be moved.

Standing Order 66(2) provides the mechanism for concurring in committee reports. This Standing Order does not prohibit the moving of concurrence in reports presented pursuant to Standing Order 83.1 nor does it stipulate a time frame during which such concurrence can be moved.

While a review of our precedents reveals that our usual practice has been to consider the content of pre-budget consultation results via take-note debates, in 2001 the House did debate concurrence in such a report.

On November 1 and 7 of that year, the House debated the Government motion “That this House take note of ongoing pre-budget consultations”. On November 26, the Standing Committee on Finance presented its Tenth Report (Pre-Budget Consultations). On December 10, the budget speech was delivered; it was debated on December 11 and 12.

On December 13, concurrence was moved in the Tenth Report of the Finance Committee and debated that day. Then, under our old procedure, the motion was transferred to Government Orders. The budget was debated again on January 28 and on January 29, 2002, when it was adopted.

This example differs from the current situation in that the motion was debated before the budget was actually adopted. However, I cite the example only to point out that, at the time, no objections were raised as to the acceptability of moving a motion to concur in the Committee’s Report made under Standing Order 83.1, as some are arguing in the current situation.

As to the Minister’s concern that the Report could not be referred back to the Finance Committee because its mandate specifically pursuant to Standing Order 83.1 had expired, I would suggest that, unlike a special committee, which would have to be reconstituted in order to reconsider its final report, the Standing Committee on Finance continues in existence and can receive an instruction from the House to reconsider any of its reports. Therefore, I do not agree with the argument that the amendment had to include the words “Notwithstanding Standing Order 83.1”.

The second issue that the hon. Government House Leader raised was the matter of deciding a question twice. He was concerned that since the budgetary policy had already been debated and adopted, there was no need to concur in a committee report which essentially deals also with the budgetary policy.

The hon. House Leader for the Bloc Québécois has reminded the House of recent developments which point to continuing discussion on the substance of the budget. My own interpretation of the proceedings that have taken place to date in this regard must remain purely procedural. Seen from that perspective, it seems to me that the House has been asked to consider three separate questions.

First, there was a take-note debate on January 31 and February 1 of this year. The motion before the House at that time was, “That this House take note of the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Finance”. As Members will recall, no decision was taken on the motion.

Second, there was the budget debate, which occurred on February 24, and March 7, 8 and 9. The motion before the House on those days was, “That this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the Government”.

Third, debate on the motion, “That the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Finance, presented on Monday, December 20, 2004, be concurred in”, began on April 22.

As I see it, the House has been asked to take a decision on three different questions: a motion to take note of a report; a motion to approve the budgetary policy of the Government; and a motion to concur in a report. These are three different motions with three different outcomes. Therefore, I cannot agree with the hon. Government House Leader that the House is deciding the same question twice.

The final issue raised by the Minister has to do with the nature or intent of the amendment. He argued that the provisional Standing Order relating to concurrence in committee reports was not designed “to allow ancillary issues to be voted on through amendments”.

Standing Order 66 merely provides a mechanism by which the House can take a decision on motions to concur in committee reports and by extension any amendment moved thereto. In his presentation, the Minister acknowledged that an amendment to refer a report back to a committee with an instruction is in order. The Chair can find no procedural grounds on which the amendment can be found defective.

Indeed, in reviewing the precedent from June 22, 1926, which was referred to by the Official Opposition House Leader and the hon. Member for Glengarry–Prescott–Russell, and which can be found in the Journals at pages 461 and 462 for 1926, an amendment containing assertions clearly damaging to the Government of the day was successfully moved to a motion for concurrence in the report of a special committee. I find this example to be not markedly different from the one the House is faced with now.

It is not up to the Speaker to judge the substance of any motion; rather, the Chair must determine whether our procedures have been respected in the presentation of a motion to the House. If the Chair rules an amendment to be in order, then the fate of the amendment and the motion to concur in the report is in the hands of the House.

After considering the arguments presented in this case, I must agree with the Deputy Speaker and rule that the amendment is in order.

Again, I wish to thank the hon. Government House Leader for bringing this matter to the attention of the House.

On May 16, 2005, the House adopted a Special Order deeming the debate on the motion to concur in the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Finance to have taken place and a recorded division demanded and deferred until May 18, 2005.^[3] The next day, the deferred division was further deferred until May 31, 2005.^[4] On May 30, 2005, the House ordered that the amendment of Mr. Harper to the motion to concur in the Report be deemed negatived on division and that the motion to concur in the Report be deemed carried on division.^[5]