Financial Procedures / Business of Supply

Opposition motions: votable motions; allocation

March 11 and 12, 2002

Debates, p. 9481 and pp. 9547-8

On March 11, 2002, the Speaker informed the House that the opposition motion to be considered on Tuesday, March 12, 2002, pursuant to Standing Order 81(14), would be that on national security standing on the Order Paper in the name of Peter MacKay (Pictou–Antigonish–Guysborough). The Speaker added that the motion would be votable. Randy White (Langley–Abbotsford) rose on a point of order and stated that the motion should be non-votable, given that the Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative Coalition (PC/DR) Coalition had already exhausted their allotment of votable motions.^[1] (According to the allotment negotiated by the parties, the Coalition was entitled to two opposition motions, one of which was votable.) The Speaker took the matter under advisement.

Later that day, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He noted what appeared to be disagreement about the allocation of votable motions among the parties. He invited the opposition House Leaders to resolve the matter and proposed that, if there was no resolution, he would have the House proceed with the consideration of the motion as it then appeared on the Order Paper, as a votable motion. After hearing further from Mr. White and Mr. MacKay, the Speaker stated that he would decline to intervene in the debate and again, invited the House Leaders to meet in order to attempt to reach an agreement.^[2]

The following day, March 12, 2002, Michel Gauthier (Roberval) rose on a point of order, asking the Speaker to reconsider his decision. After hearing from several other Members, the Speaker again took the matter under advisement.^[3]

Later in the sitting of March 12, 2002, the Speaker delivered his second ruling on the matter. He noted that although the Standing Orders empower the Speaker to resolve disputes over which opposition party’s motion is to be considered on a given day, they were silent on the Speaker’s authority to designate a motion as votable. Accordingly, he advised the House that he would not accept the designation of any motion as votable until such time as a written agreement regarding the allocation of opposition days and of votable motions was received by the Chair.

(Editor’s Note: Both decisions on this matter are reproduced below.)

Decisions of the Chair

Monday, March 11

The Speaker: Before we resume debate, I want to give a ruling with regard to the point of order raised this morning by the hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition with regard to the status of the motion to be debated during the opposition day tomorrow.

The hon. Member for Langley–Abbotsford contends that the motion should be non-votable. I have now looked into the matter and it appears that there is disagreement about the allocation of votable motions among the various parties in opposition.

I wish to refer all hon. Members to Standing Order 81(16) which reads in part as follows:

—Not more than fourteen opposition motions in total shall be motions that shall come to a vote during the three supply periods provided pursuant to section (10) of this Standing Order.

I do not think I need to read the rest of it. I refer hon. Members to Marleau and Montpetit. It is quite clear about the guidance that is given to the Chair in these matters when it states at page 726:

—The allocation of the 14 votable motions is worked out in an informal agreement among the opposition parties.

In the absence of such an agreement, Marleau and Montpetit does not suggest that the Chair provide a resolution.

I refer you to page 726, and I quote:

—However, except in a situation where the limit of allowable votable motions in a Supply period or in any year has been reached, it is not within the competence of the Chair to rule whether or not a particular motion should be votable.

I would therefore invite the opposition House Leaders to discuss the matter as soon as possible since this item of business is before the House tomorrow. I would hope that they will be able to resolve the dispute that has arisen and inform the Chair of that resolution. Failing such an agreement, I would propose to proceed with the consideration of tomorrow’s motion as it now appears, that is, as a votable motion.

Tuesday, March 12

The Speaker: Order, please. I am now ready to rule with regard to the point of order raised this morning by the hon. House Leader of the Bloc Québécois relating to a decision made yesterday concerning the votable status of the PC/DR motion to be debated today.

I want to thank the hon. Member for Roberval, the hon. Member for Winnipeg–Transcona, the hon. Member for Langley–Abbotsford, the hon. Member for Pictou–Antigonish–Guysborough, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader and other hon. Members who contributed to the discussion.

I have carefully reviewed the interventions of hon. Members and the procedural authorities that govern our deliberations. I would like first to review the current situation in which the House finds itself.

Standing Order 81 lays down the rules for consideration of the business of supply. I need not remind the House of all the provisions in the 22 sections of the Standing Order. Let us simply look at those sections that need concern us.

Standing Order 81(10)(a) states, in part, “twenty-one days are to be designated as allotted days”.

Standing Order 81(16) provides that: Not more than 14 opposition motions in total shall be motions that shall come to a vote—

There are, as we can see, two aspects to any allotted day: first, a motion is put forward by the opposition party; and second, the motion may be designated votable.

The Standing Orders clearly provide for the Speaker to resolve any disputes arising about the first aspect, namely which opposition party’s motion is to be considered on a given day. Standing Order 81(14)(c) 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.

By contrast, should a dispute arise on the second aspect, namely designation of the motion as votable, the Standing Orders are silent.

Our practice provides guidance in these matters. Marleau and Montpetit states at page 726:

The allocation of the 14 votable motions is worked out in an informal agreement among the opposition parties.

In their remarks earlier today, some hon. Members have suggested that by the ruling yesterday the Chair intervened in a matter in which it had no place and, by implication, had unfairly sided with one of the parties to the dispute. I trust that the House will agree that the Chair never intended to do any such thing and sees matters from an entirely different perspective.

Yesterday the Chair was asked to decide whether the PC/DR motion was properly designated a votable motion. Given no authority by the Standing Orders to judge the matter, except insofar as to determine whether the maximum number of votable days had been used, the Chair would ordinarily turn, as indeed I did, to see what was provided in the usual informal agreement among the parties. It is to be noted that no agreement signed by all parties was ever given to the Chair. It now transpires, as the exchanges this morning amply demonstrate, that the very existence of such an agreement is in dispute.

In the circumstances, I decided yesterday that I could not intervene to reverse the designation of the motion as votable given to the Chair by the sponsoring opposition party when the motion was put on notice, in keeping with the usual practice in these matters.

I could not find any authority for so doing since only 8 of 14 votable motions have been used to date and so I declared that, unless a contrary agreement were reached by the House Leaders, the motion would go forward, as requested by the sponsor, as a votable motion. This morning, I find that this decision is interpreted as exactly the kind of intervention I sought to avoid.

I can find little comfort in the choices that the House Leaders presented to me this morning. If the Chair persists in the view that it has no authority to refuse a sponsor putting forward a votable motion before the full 14 votable motions have been used, it may be viewed as being complicit in what some have characterized as parliamentary mischief that violates an informal agreement. If the Chair is persuaded by the interventions of three of the four opposition Leaders to abide by an informal agreement from which the fourth dissents, it may be viewed as interference by the Chair and the prerogatives of the House Leaders by the interpretation and enforcement of their agreements.

The circumstances underlying the exchanges this morning leave the Chair in a difficult position. I do not think the interests of the House will be well served if the Speaker is drawn into disputes among parties. I would therefore again urge the hon. House Leaders to resume constructive dialogue in the management of the business of the House.

I understand that they will be meeting this afternoon. I would ask that the matter of the allocation of opposition days and the matter of the allocation of votable motions be addressed anew. I hope that they will reach agreement on these matters and that they will inform me of their conclusions in writing, duly signed by all opposition House Leaders.

In the meantime it seems to me that it would be most prudent for the Chair not to accept the designation of any motion as votable either today or until such time as I have received an agreement.

The following day, March 13, 2002, Mr. White sought and obtained unanimous consent to adopt a motion stating the party allotment of opposition motions on allotted days and their votable status.^[4]