Financial Procedures / Business of Supply

Opposition motions: admissibility; similar to recommendation contained in a committee report

October 31, 2002

Debates, pp. 1149-50

On October 31, 2002, a motion to concur in the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs was moved. Debate began but was interrupted by Statements by Members and thus was deemed adjourned.^[1] Later in the sitting, Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) rose on a point of order to state that the supply motion, concerning the election of committee Chairs and Vice-Chairs by secret ballot, chosen for debate that day by the Official Opposition, was identical to a recommendation included in the Second Report. The Government House Leader argued that it was contrary to the rule of anticipation to have a motion anticipate a matter which was standing on the Order Paper for further discussion, and that the opposition motion was therefore inadmissible. The Speaker heard from other Members on the matter.^[2]

The Speaker delivered his ruling immediately. He declared that the rule of anticipation was no longer strictly applied in Canada, and that a very wide latitude had always been extended in relation to opposition day motions. Accordingly, he ruled the opposition motion in order.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: First, the Chair wants to thank all hon. Members for their assistance on this important issue.

I want to say first that yesterday the Government House Leader raised a point of order expressing concern at the idea of the Speaker reading, pursuant to Standing Order 81(14)(a), notice of more than one motion to be debated on a designated supply day. I want to make sure the House is aware that I have taken this matter under advisement and will deliver at least advice to the House on that matter, since one has now been withdrawn, at a later date.

With respect to the issue that has been raised with regard to the admissibility of the opposition motion that has been proposed for the supply day today, what is left of it, I draw attention to the ruling of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux on March 6, 1973 where he said:

The Standing Order, as the hon. Member said, gives the opposition very wide scope in proposing motions. That is one of the reasons why, since the inception of this particular Standing Order in 1968, not a single opposition motion has ever been ruled out of order. On a number of occasions the Chair expressed doubts as to whether an opposition motion would not bring forward for the consideration of the House a matter on which a decision had already been taken in the course of the then current session. However, in all cases the mover was given the benefit of the doubt.

I must say that a search was done today but we were not able to find a motion that had been ruled out of order. There may have been one or two, but we just have not located any. That assists the Chair in making its ruling today. The fact is it appears that a very wide latitude has always been extended to the opposition in respect of these matters. I am sure that recognition will be extended by the Speaker now and in the future.

The Government House Leader however made reference to page 477 of Marleau and Montpetit, particularly to the rule of anticipation. I would like to quote a little from page 476 of Marleau and Montpetit in respect of this rule of anticipation. It states:

The moving of a motion was formerly subject to the ancient “rule of anticipation” which is no longer strictly observed. According to this rule, which applied to other proceedings as well as motions, a motion could not anticipate a matter which was standing on the Order paper for further discussion, whether as a bill or a motion, and which was contained in a more effective form of proceeding.

In other words, if there is a motion, as we now have, standing on the Order Paper to concur in a committee report, the argument that the House Leader is advancing, as I understand it, is that this rule of anticipation would prevent another motion that is the same or similar from being moved.

The next paragraph states:

While the rule of anticipation is part of the Standing Orders in the British House of Commons, it has never been so in the Canadian House of Commons. Furthermore, references to attempts made to apply this British rule to Canadian practice are not very conclusive.

In the circumstances, since they are not conclusive, it is difficult for the Chair to accept the argument put forward by the Government House Leader that the opposition’s right to move this motion should somehow be restricted by this rule of anticipation.

It further states:

The rule is dependent on the principle which forbids the same question from being raised twice within the same session. It does not apply, however, to similar or identical motions or bills which appear on the Notice Paper prior to debate. The rule of anticipation becomes operative only when one of two similar motions on the Order Paper is actually proceeded with. For example, two bills similar in substance will be allowed to stand on the Order Paper but only one may be moved and disposed of. If the first bill is withdrawn, the second may be proceeded with.

I could go on. What we are faced with here is a motion to concur in a committee report, the Committee Report’s purport of which is similar to the motion that the opposition proposes to put to the House today. The Chair is being asked to say that because the words of the opposition motion are similar to the words in the Committee Report, concurrence in which has been moved, I must conclude that the two are therefore the same and the second ought to be ruled out of order or at least inadmissible at this time because of this rule of anticipation.

The Chair is very reluctant to do this because in the Chair’s view the opposition has the right to move whatever motion it chooses to on an opposition day. As has been pointed out in argument, to allow the Government to argue this would mean that any time there was an awkward opposition motion that the Government chose not to want to debate, it could bring in a committee report, then move concurrence and thereby preclude the debate from taking place.

I am sure that was not the intent of the Standing Order. It certainly was not the intent of the Modernization Committee when it said that notice had to be given a day in advance which allows this kind of, if I can call it so, game to be played.

Accordingly, I must in my view find that the opposition motion is in order. I say that notwithstanding the very generous offer on the part of the Government House Leader to allow the one that had been withdrawn to be brought back and reinstated for debate should my ruling be contrary. I recognize his great generosity in this regard, as I am sure do all Members of the opposition and for that we are all very grateful.

In the circumstances I find the motion that has been proposed in order and I intend now to put it to the House.