The Legislative Process / Stages

Reinstatement of Government bills from previous session

February 6, 2004

Debates, pp. 250-1

On February 6, 2004, shortly after the beginning of the Third Session of the Thirty-Seventh Parliament, Jacques Saada (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform) moved that Government bills from the previous session be deemed in the Third Session to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation.^[1] Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton–Melville) rose on a point of order, making reference to what he characterized as claims by the Prime Minister (Paul Martin) that he had formed a “new Government”. He argued that, in view of this, it was out of order for the Government to reinstate bills introduced by a previous Government. Other Members contributed to the discussion.^[2]

The Speaker ruled immediately. He stated that he could find nothing in the rules or practices of the House to preclude the reinstatement of bills by way of a motion setting out a mechanism for doing so. He pointed out that Members could move amendments to exclude specific bills from the application of the mechanism. He added that this was not a new Parliament, but the Third Session of the same Parliament. Accordingly, he declared the motion to be in order.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: The motion before the House, as I read earlier, and I will read it again, states:

… if the Speaker is satisfied that the said bill is in the same form as the House of Commons had agreed to at prorogation, notwithstanding Standing Order 71, the said bill shall be deemed in the current session to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation—

So it has to be in the same form that it was in the previous session in order for this Order to apply to the bill. Otherwise, all bills are introduced, read the first time and ordered for debate at the next sitting of the House.

Reinstatement of business from one session to the next is not uncommon in our practice, and indeed in our parliamentary experience there have been a number of occasions where bills and other forms of business, including motions, from one session have been brought forward to another session, either by unanimous consent or by way of a Government motion moved after notice, such as the one we have moved before us today.

The question before us is not whether business can be reinstated from one session to another but whether this motion under Government Business No. 2, which provides a mechanism whereby bills from the Second Session may be reinstated to this session, is procedurally in order.

It seems to me that the ruling rendered on February 19, 1996, is particularly helpful in this instance, so I will borrow freely from that discussion in making the point I want to make.

Mr. Speaker Fraser noted in his ruling of May 29, 1991, that he could find nothing in our rules or practices to preclude the reinstatement of bills by way of motion. He therefore permitted debate to proceed on the Government motion that had been moved, and he was concerned that Members would be afforded an adequate opportunity to express their assent or dissent on each item to be reinstated. He therefore ruled that separate questions should be put on each bill to be reinstated.

But that motion, I think, was a different one. Honourable Members here today have expressed some concern about their inability to vote on each of the bills, particularly the various ones that could be reinstated under this motion.

I must point out something important. First of all, if the bill comes back at the stage it was at before, for example report stage or third reading, it will be voted on at that stage. That is completely normal and that is how it will be done.

If, however, the bill in question was passed during the last session, it will be sent directly to the Senate. There will be no vote on it here in the House.

But hon. Members can move amendments to the Government motion to exclude specific bills that might go straight to the Senate under this rubric and then have a vote on the amendment, thereby in effect having a vote on that particular bill.

So I do feel that there is significant protection for hon. Members in terms of being allowed to vote on various bills. The motion sets up a mechanism for allowing bills to come before the House. In my view, therefore, it is in order and I think the motion should proceed.

(Editor’s Note: Mr. Breitkreuz rose at this point to reiterate his argument that this was a new Government.)

The Speaker: It is not a new Parliament; this is the hitch. We are in the Third Session of the same Parliament, so even if the hon. Member were Prime Minister it seems to me this kind of motion would be one he could put to the House and cherry pick, as they say, bills from the previous session and slip them in under this rubric.

It is something that has happened before. I do not know whether it has happened with a change of Government, but it certainly is one that has happened in the same Parliament. That is why I did not address the matter.

(Editor’s Note: Deborah Grey (Edmonton North) rose to argue that a prorogation effectively “kills” legislation and that it could not be brought back.)

The Speaker: I would love to go on at length with the hon. Member for Edmonton North on this subject, but Mr. Speaker Fraser made a ruling then and it became an authority. We do things in the House on the basis of authority.

Even if I were to have argued the other side of the case in those days, the Speaker made a ruling and now we act in compliance with that ruling. It would not be for me to overrule the ruling of someone as distinguished as Mr. Speaker Fraser, who I know the hon. Member for Edmonton North remembers with great affection.

It is time now to proceed, however, to Statements by Members.