The Daily Program / Routine Proceedings

Motions: Standing Order 56.1; disposition of Government bills

May 13, 2005

Debates, pp. 5973-4

On May 13, 2005, Jay Hill (Prince George–Peace River) rose on a point of order with respect to a motion for which Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) had unsuccessfully sought unanimous consent earlier in the day, and which he then moved again pursuant to Standing Order 56.1. The motion provided that all questions necessary for the disposal of the second reading stage of Bill C-43, Budget Implementation Act, 2005, and of Bill C-48, An Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments, should be put to the House and decided forthwith and successively, without further debate, amendment or deferral at the expiry of the time for consideration of Government Orders on Thursday, May 19, 2005. Mr. Hill argued that Standing Order 56.1 was unconstitutional as it allowed the adoption of a motion with fewer than 25 Members objecting, rather than with a majority of voices as provided for in section 49 of the Constitution Act, 1867. He also argued that the motion was ineligible to be moved pursuant to Standing Order 56.1, referring to a previous ruling by the Speaker in which he had expressed concern about the expanded use of the Standing Order to arrive at decisions on substantive motions. Mauril Bélanger (Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Minister responsible for Official Languages, Minister responsible for Democratic Reform and Associate Minister of National Defence) also spoke to the point of order.^[1]

The Speaker ruled immediately. He stated that in his ruling from September 18, 2001, he had expressed reservations about the use of Standing Order 56.1 as a means to limit time for debate and invited a committee to respond to that concern. Since no response had been forthcoming, the Speaker felt unable to rule this motion out of order, particularly since the time allocated to dispose of the Bills in question was more generous than that provided under closure or time allocation. In relation to the argument on the constitutionality of the Standing Order, the Speaker stated that the House is master of its own proceedings and that it can decide matters of internal procedure on its own initiative, as it had done when a majority in the House had decided to delegate powers for certain purposes to groups of 25 or more Members. Accordingly, he ruled the motion in order.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I have considered the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Prince George–Peace River in relation to the motion under Standing Order 56.1 put forward by the Government House Leader.

I refer hon. Members to Standing Order 56.1 which reads as follows:

In relation to any routine motion for the presentation of which unanimous consent is required and has been denied, a Minister of the Crown may request during Routine Proceedings that the Speaker propose the said question to the House.

For the purposes of this Standing Order, “routine motion” shall be understood to mean any motion, made upon Routine Proceedings, which may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings, the establishing of the powers of its committees, the correctness of its records or the fixing of its sitting days or the times of its meeting or adjournment.

Given those quite general words, I note the motion put forward by the Government House Leader provides for an end to debate on two bills to be next Thursday.

As the hon. Member for Prince George–Peace River points out, I had previously given a ruling that expressed some concern about the use of this Standing Order as a means to avoid using time allocation or closure or some other limit on time for debate, and I invited committee response. None has been forthcoming since the ruling which he referred to in 2001.

Therefore, in the circumstances, having expressed reservations and having got no feedback from the committee to the House on this point, which then the House might have dealt with it if the House shared my concern, I do not feel it is for me to rule out of order a motion that appears to be in compliance with the Standing Order, as had happened before and I made no ruling saying that it was out of order. I expressed concerns, but allowed the motion to proceed at that time. I believe having had nothing back, I can only allow this one to proceed at this time, particularly so when the time allocated here is much more generous than would be the case under closure or under time allocation because of the minimum times that are permitted. Accordingly the motion appears to be in order.

I have to deal of course with this other argument about section 49 of the Constitution. I note that this Standing Order has been in force for some time. It has been used in the House for a number of years. I point out that the Constitution, while I am not here to interpret that, says that questions arising in the House of Commons should be decided by a majority of voices other than that of the Speaker, et cetera.

I believe those are questions of substance. It is quite clear that the use of Standing Order 56.1, while allowing the House then to determine things in relation to its affairs that are not substantive matters, that is passing laws, may be done by using this technique. The passage of bills in the House, the passage of motions in relation to bills are clearly questions that require a majority of the House. There is nothing in the provision here or in our Standing Orders that would allow a bill to go through the House that had not received the support of a majority of voices in the House, as defined in section 49 of the Constitution Act.

While there may be arguments to be made in other places, I believe the House is master of its own proceedings. It has chosen to adopt this Standing Order as a basis for proceeding in respect of House business and has specified in the words of the Standing Order the things that can be done under it. I find the motion fits under it. While the wording of the Constitution would appear to fly in the face of this, in my view it would apply to questions of substance that are decided by the House, not matters of internal procedure, which the House can decide on its own initiative and which it clearly did when it set up this Standing Order by virtue of its adoption in the House with a majority of the Members voting for it, because that is how the Standing Order got into place.

If a majority chose to delegate powers for certain purposes to a group of 25 or more Members, I believe it was within the power of the House to make that kind of delegation. Accordingly I intend to put the motion to the House.

The Speaker then put the question on the motion. More than 25 Members having risen to object, the motion, pursuant to Standing Order 56.1(3), was deemed withdrawn.^[2]