Financial Procedures / Business of Supply

Opposition motions: admissibility of subsequent motions

November 25, 2002

Debates, pp. 1823-9

On November 25, 2002, Stephen Harper (Leader of the Official Opposition) rose on a point of order to challenge the admissibility of a motion on the Order paper calling on the Government to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.^[1] Mr. Harper argued that the motion was inadmissible because it was not in compliance with an opposition motion adopted by the House on October 29, 2002. Upon adoption, this motion had, he claimed, become an Order of the House, directing it to take certain actions before ratifying the Protocol.^[2] Other Members also participated in the discussion.

Later that sitting, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He declared that the motion adopted on October 29, 2002 was permissive in that it used the word “should” with respect to the implementation plan, and was therefore not binding on the Government. He added that the requirements of the motion had in any case been met as an implementation plan had been tabled in the House and that, though there might be arguments about whether this plan was sufficient, it was not for the Speaker to judge the quality of material tabled in the House. Accordingly, he ruled the motion in order.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: Once again the hon. Leader of the Opposition has raised an interesting point concerning the supply motion adopted on October 29 earlier this year. The motion has been quoted by both hon. Members of the opposition who have spoken on this matter and I thank them for their submissions.

However I point out that the motion reads that before the Kyoto Protocol is ratified by the House there should be an implementation plan. It does not say there shall be, or there must be, or there has to be. This motion is permissive. It suggests that there ought to be, that somehow we should have this. That is the first point that must be made to the House.

The second point is that we do have an implementation plan that was tabled last Thursday in the House by the Minister. I know there are disagreements about whether it is good or sufficient in accordance with the terms of the motion that was adopted on October 29, but it is hardly for the Speaker to express a view on the quality of the material that the Minister submitted to the House. However something was indeed submitted.

If the Speaker is wrong in his interpretation of the use of the word should in the motion, there is still the argument, in my view a valid one, that some kind of document, being an implementation plan of some sort, has been tabled in the House. Whether it is going to be good enough for everybody is of course a matter of considerable argument, I have no doubt, and one that no doubt we are going to hear about during the course of the argument on the motion that is coming before the House, which has been put to the House today by the Minister of the Environment.

In the circumstances, I do not think it is for the Chair to rule that the Government cannot proceed because of an alleged violation of this motion adopted on October 29, which in my view expresses an ought. Even if I am wrong that interpretation has been complied with in my view by the tabling that was made by the Minister last Thursday. Accordingly, I do not find the point of order well raised and I intend to proceed to put the motion to the House.

Immediately after this ruling was delivered, the Leader of the Official Opposition rose on a subsequent point of order stating the motion should instead be ruled out of order as it contravened international law as well as established Canadian practices and rules for the ratification of treaties by asking the Government to ratify a treaty prior to the approval of implementation legislation by the House.^[3]