The Daily Program / Routine Proceedings

Motions: concurrence in committee reports; number of motions per sitting

March 12, 2009

Debates, p. 1634

On March 12, 2009, Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons), rose on a point of order in response to a motion to concur in a committee report moved by Wayne Marston (Hamilton East–Stoney Creek). Mr. Lukiwski argued that Standing Order 66(3) limits the number of motions for concurrence in committee reports to one per sitting day. Since Paul Szabo (Mississauga South) had, earlier that day, sought and received unanimous consent to concur in a committee report,^[1] Mr. Lukiwski argued that it was not possible to debate the motion before the House. Other Members, including Mr. Szabo, also spoke to the matter.

The Speaker ruled immediately. He stated that the first report had been adopted by unanimous consent, by which the House meant that it was adopted notwithstanding any Standing Order. He ruled that the motion before the House was therefore in order and could proceed.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: The Parliamentary Secretary does raise a point but the first motion for concurrence was passed by unanimous consent, so there was not a second one moved in that sense. We had unanimous consent to allow the motion to go through.

Hon. Jay Hill: It was still moved, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: It was still moved but it was done with the unanimous consent of the House. This point has never been raised before, in my experience, as a reason for not allowing these other motions to proceed. The rule, as I understood it, was to prevent two motions for concurrence, so that one could not move one and then have a three-hour debate, if I am not mistaken, and then move a second one. That is the hitch.

In that sense, I think the Parliamentary Secretary is correct but when one is done by unanimous consent and without debate, I am not sure the Standing Order was intended to deal with that situation.

Mr. Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, while I respect your interpretation of the Standing Orders, the Standing Orders merely state that not more than one concurrence motion can be moved on any sitting day. It does not talk about unanimous consent nor does not talk about any other factors. It merely states, quite literally, that not more than one concurrence motion can be moved on any sitting day.

I would suggest, quite respectfully, that the concurrence motion of the hon. Member who was just speaking is out of order with the intent of the Standing Orders by which we all must abide in this House.

The Speaker: I can sympathize with the hon. Member’s argument but it is a new one. It has never been advanced before, to my knowledge, under this Standing Order. It would mean that if we had five concurrence motions in one day for consent, the Chair would need to refuse to allow them to be moved. That is the effect of the hon. Member’s argument.

I do not believe that is the case. I think if the House does something by unanimous consent, it does not count. When the House gives its unanimous consent, I think it means that, notwithstanding any Standing Order, we are doing this. For that reason, I think the motion before us is likely in order, despite the very able argument of the hon. Parliamentary Secretary.