Financial Procedures / Business of Supply

Allotted days: apportionment between parties

November 13, 2007

Debates, pp. 775-6

On November 13, 2007, Pierre Paquette (Joliette) rose on a point of order with regard to the allocation of the supply day designated for that day. The prorogation of the First Session of the Thirty-Ninth Parliament had resulted in fewer total sitting days than anticipated by the House of Commons calendar, and there was accordingly a reduction in the number of supply days. This had led to a disagreement between the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party as to who was entitled to that day’s supply day motion. Mr. Paquette noted that both parties had put motions on notice. Citing the Standing Orders and House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 2000, referring to the relative standing of the two parties in the House, and summarizing the distribution of allotted days, he asked the Speaker to allocate the day to the Bloc Québécois. Libby Davies (Vancouver East) then responded, pointing out that the two parties had been unable to agree on the distribution of opposition days for the supply period ending December 10, 2007, and argued that the day should be allocated to the New Democratic Party.^[1]

Having received correspondence on the issue and having heard the arguments, the Speaker ruled immediately. He explained the process for the selection and allocation of allotted days among the parties and ruled that November 13, the fourth day in the current period, should be allotted to the Bloc Québécois on the grounds that the days allotted to each party should reflect its representation in the House. He added, however, that the House has never seen fit to elaborate the grounds on which the Chair might exercise such discretion and, as his predecessors had done, he invited the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to make recommendations to clarify these issues.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: Order, please. The Chair obviously was aware this argument might take place, because correspondence had been sent outlining the arguments of the two parties that have made submissions and of others. I have had an opportunity to read that correspondence. I would like to thank the Members who intervened in the matter and thank those who sent the letters. I am quite prepared to make a ruling now on the apportionment of the remaining allotted days for the supply period ending on December 10, 2007.

The number of supply days and how they are distributed throughout the year are set out in Standing Order 81(10)(a), which states:

In any calendar year, seven sitting days shall be allotted to the Business of Supply for the period ending not later than December 10; seven additional days shall be allotted to the Business of Supply in the period ending not later than March 26; and eight additional days shall be allotted to the Business of Supply in the period ending not later than June 23; provided that the number of sitting days so allotted may be altered pursuant to paragraph (b) or (c) of this section. These twenty-two days are to be designated as allotted days. In any calendar year, no more than one fifth of all the allotted days shall fall on a Wednesday and no more than one fifth thereof shall fall on a Friday.

As is the practice at the beginning of each Parliament, an agreement was reached among the opposition parties concerning the apportionment of the 22 allotted days for the calendar year. However, in 2007, prorogation intervened, so some three weeks of sittings otherwise projected by the House of Commons calendar were not held. As a result, given that the House did not begin sitting until October 16, pursuant to Standing Order 81(10)(b) the number of supply days for the supply period ending December 10 was reduced from seven to five.

As the House has heard this morning, this reduction in the number of allotted days has resulted in the parties in opposition to the Government being unable to reach an agreement concerning how those days should be apportioned in this supply period. Specifically, there is disagreement about whose motion should be debated today.

The Speaker’s role in the apportionment of supply days is addressed directly in Standing Order 81(14)(b), which states:

When notice has been given of two or more motions by Members in opposition to the government for consideration on an allotted day, the Speaker shall have power to select which of the proposed motions shall have precedence in that sitting.

Furthermore, as has been mentioned in the arguments made today, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, p. 725, states:

Generally, in making their decision, Speakers will take into consideration the following: representation of the parties in the House; the distribution of sponsorship to date; fair play towards small parties; the date of notice; the sponsor of the motion; the subject matter; whether or not the motion is votable; and what has happened, by agreement among the parties, in the immediate past Supply periods.

In the vast majority of cases, of course, the opposition parties are able to reach an agreement as to which party will bring forward the motion to be debated in the House on a particular supply day. The number of cases in which the parties have not been able to agree is so small it is only rarely that the Speaker has been called upon to adjudicate such a dispute, fulfilling the obligation set out in the Standing Orders.

Past Speakers have noted that little guidance is provided concerning how the Speaker should exercise his discretion in carrying out those responsibilities. Even though factors to be taken into consideration are listed in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, the resolution of any particular case will depend, as it usually does in most procedural difficulties that the House encounters, on the particular circumstances which confront the House.

By way of example, let us consider the factor of votability cited in Marleau and Montpetit. It might be argued that votability ceases to have much significance when the Speaker adjudicates a dispute, given that [in]^[2] 2005 amendments to the Standing Orders made all opposition motions automatically votable.

However, in any dispute, one factor always plays a major role. As Speaker Francis stated in a ruling given on May 31, 1984, at page 4223 of Debates:

The Chair’s selection must be based on the representations of the Parties in the House… 

At the time of that ruling, there were only two parties in opposition; today there are three. However, the representation of the various opposition parties remains the primary consideration in ensuring procedural fairness to all opposition parties, large and small.

As we have already reviewed, the Standing Orders explicitly set out the number of allotted days and their distribution among the three supply periods on the basis of the calendar year. In this Parliament, as in the past, the agreement among the parties on apportionment of those days was based on the proportional representation of each opposition party and calculated using the traditional numerical rounding conventions. Translated into practical terms, this meant that of the 22 supply days, the Official Opposition got 12, the Bloc Québécois 6, and the NDP 4. However, prorogation saw the total number of supply days for this calendar year go from 22 to 20.

Any intervention by the Chair at this stage must, of course, take into account the apportionment that has already occurred during the two preceding supply periods.

An examination of the Journals of the House for the first two supply periods—ending in March and June respectively—shows that the Official Opposition has so far received eight allotted days, the Bloc Québécois four and the New Democratic Party three.

It seems only reasonable, then, that in the situation before us the Chair make its decision on the number of supply days to be allocated to each party in these new circumstances on the same basis as that used in reaching the original agreement among the parties. The number of days allotted to each party should reflect that party’s representation in the House. By using the same method of calculation the parties used to arrive at their original agreement, the Chair has determined that the apportionment for the revised total of 20 days works out as follows: 11 for the Official Opposition, 6 for the Bloc Québécois, and 3 for the NDP.

While the Chair recognizes that this distribution is only approximate with respect to the relative numbers of each opposition party, it provides the closest approximation possible to their representation. Furthermore, let me stress again that this conclusion is based on the very same calculation used by the parties in reaching their original agreement.

I suppose it might be argued that had it been known at the beginning of the year that there would only be 20 allotted days, the parties, among themselves, might have reached a different agreement concerning the apportionment of allotted days for the 2007 calendar year, or for one or more of the supply periods in it, but for the Speaker that remains speculation. The Chair must address the specific situation in which the House finds itself today and must, of course, take into account what has occurred so far this year.

In this current and last supply period, the Official Opposition has so far had two allotted days, for a total of 10 this year; the Bloc Québécois has had one allotted day, for a total of five in 2007.

It is therefore my ruling that today, November 13, 2007, the fourth day in the current period, shall be allotted to the Bloc Québécois. The fifth day, when it is designated, shall be allotted to the Official Opposition.

I remind the House that the guidance provided by the Standing Orders and our practice is of limited assistance to the Speaker in adjudicating this kind of dispute. The application of a mathematical formula may seem to be a crude method for a Speaker to use, one that does not take sufficient account of more subtle aspects of the problem. I believe that the Speaker’s discretion in these matters is limited, especially given that the House itself has never seen fit to elaborate on the grounds on which the Chair might exercise such discretion. I do no more than repeat the request of my predecessors when I say that the Chair would welcome any recommendations from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that might clarify these issues for the future.

I thank hon. Members for their attention.