Financial Procedures / Business of Supply

Opposition motions: admissibility

March 20, 2001

Debates, p. 1875

On March 20, 2001, Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons), rose on a point of order with respect to the admissibility of an opposition motion moved by Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition). The motion sought Government assistance for farm families. The Government House Leader argued that the motion called for the Government to authorize the expenditure of public funds, thus contravening Standing Order 79(1), which requires a royal recommendation to accompany any vote, resolution, address or bill which contains provisions for such expenditures. Other Members spoke to the point of order.^[1]

The Speaker ruled immediately. He made reference to several instances of similar motions being moved in the House, and noted that no procedural arguments as to their admissibility had been presented at the time. The Speaker emphasized that when a motion is put to the House, the Chair reviews its procedural acceptability to ensure that it is within the rules and the precedents of the House. He stated that this was the case with the motion in question and declared the motion to be in order.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: The Chair thanks all hon. Members who have made contributions to this debate, the House Leader for the Official Opposition, the Government House Leader and the Member for Pictou–Antigonish–Guysborough.

I start by citing to hon. Members page 724 of Marleau and Montpetit:

Members in opposition to the government may propose motions for debate on any matter falling within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada, as well as on committee reports concerning Estimates. The Standing Orders give Members a very wide scope in proposing opposition motions on Supply days and, unless the motion is clearly and undoubtedly irregular (e.g., where the procedural aspect is not open to reasonable argument), the Chair does not intervene.

Notwithstanding the very able arguments of the Government House Leader, the Chair has reviewed this motion and I will allow myself to fall into the temptation that the Government House Leader warned me against by citing to the House past practice in respect of this matter.

On October 25, 1999, the hon. Member for Selkirk–Interlake proposed a motion to the House:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government has failed to defend the interest of Canadian farmers from the unfair subsidies and unfair trading practices by foreign countries accordingly, the government should immediately ensure that emergency compensation is delivered to farmers—

On March 2, 2000, the hon. Member for Halifax moved:

That this House calls upon the government to stand up for the Canadian value of universal public health care by announcing within one week of the passage of this motion a substantial and sustained increase in cash transfers for health—

On March 20, 2000, the hon. Member for Calgary–Nose Hill moved:

That this House calls on the Minister of Finance to increase the Canada health and social transfer by $1.5 billion—

There is ample precedent for these kinds of motions to be moved in the House. The Chair, in considering these motions, admittedly heard no argument on the admissibility of the motions. However, in putting any motion to the House, the Chair reviews its procedural acceptability, and unless the Chair feels that the motion is within the rules and the precedents of the House, the Chair will decline to put the motion and may instruct hon. Members that amendments are required, and that consultations are an ongoing feature of submissions of motions and amendments in the House.

As hon. Members know, if they submit an amendment that in the opinion of the staff of the House working under the Speaker’s direction feel is inappropriate or out of order, suggestions are made to improve the wording or change the wording to bring it within the practices of the House.

While the hon. Government House Leader feels it might be falling into temptation on my part to rely on these past practices, the fact is they have been allowed in the past because the Chair took the view that they were in order. It might have been urged otherwise, but I suspect the ruling then would have been the same as it is today, and that is, that this motion is in fact in order. Notwithstanding the very able arguments of the hon. Government House Leader, we will proceed with the debate.