Financial Procedures / Business of Supply

Opposition motions: admissibility; adoption of a bill at all stages

November 16, 2009

Debates, pp. 6790-1

On October 27, 2009, Jay Hill (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) rose on a point of order to challenge the admissibility of an opposition motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay–Superior North). The motion proposed to deal with all stages of Bill C-311, Climate Change Accountability Act after only a few hours of debate, which the Government House Leader maintained could not be done without unanimous consent. After interventions by other Members, the Speaker ruled the motion out of order, adding that he would return with a more fully considered ruling in the matter.^[1]

On November 16, 2009, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He reminded Members that recent amendments to the rules dealing with opposition motions offered an especially stringent regime: first, the rules provided what amounted to an automatic closure mechanism since the motion comes to a vote at the end of the day, thus guaranteeing a decision on the motion; and second, no amendment to the motion is possible without the consent of the mover. He explained that opposition motions on supply days were never envisaged to fast-track bills or as an alternative to the legislative process and that the motion, as worded, failed to provide Members with any opportunity to debate the Bill itself, in effect short-circuiting the legislative process. For these reasons, he ruled the motion out of order.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: Order, please, if the House will grant some indulgence.

On Tuesday, October 27, the hon. Government House Leader rose on a point of order concerning the admissibility of an opposition motion placed on notice on October 26, in the name of the hon. Member for Thunder Bay–Superior North. The hon. Member for Vancouver East intervened on the matter, as did the hon. Member for Wascana. So that the work of the House could proceed without delay, I immediately stated that the motion was out of order and I promised to return to the House at a later date with a fully considered ruling.

I would now like to put before the House the reasons for my decision that day.

For the benefit of the House, the motion printed in the Notice Paper read as follows:

That Bill C-311, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change, be deemed reported from committee without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read a third time and passed.

In explaining why he felt the motion was out of order, the Government House Leader’s main argument was that what this motion was proposing to do could be done only by unanimous consent.

He added that in his view the best the House can do to expedite legislation, without the unanimous consent of the House, is to offer a motion that considers each stage separately with a separate vote. Otherwise, he argued, a situation would arise in which any opposition party could put forward a similarly draconian motion on any private Member’s bill and have it expedited through the legislative process.

For her part, the House Leader for the NDP stressed the wide latitude given to opposition parties on supply days to propose motions of their choosing.

In support of this argument, she quoted from House of Commons Procedure and Practice at page 724:

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.

The House will remember that on March 21, 2007, in a situation analogous to the one before us, I ruled out of order an opposition motion submitted by the Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce–Lachine. In that case, the motion in question sought to expedite the consideration and adoption of several Government bills in a manner similar to the motion of the hon. Member for Thunder Bay–Superior North.

As I pointed out in a subsequent ruling on March 29, 2007, past interventions from the Chair regarding opposition motions have been rare, restricted to cases in which a motion is “clearly and undoubtedly irregular”. I also explained that there is nothing whatsoever in the relevant procedural authorities to suggest that opposition motions on supply days were ever conceived of as a means of fast-tracking bills already present elsewhere on the Order paper. House of Commons Procedure and Practice stresses, at page 701, that a key principle underlying the business of supply is that the House, and by extension the opposition via motions proposed on allotted days, has:

—the right to have its grievances addressed before it considers and approves the financial requirements of the Crown.

As I stated in 2007, (Debates, March 29, 2007, p. 8138) it is evident from their historical background that opposition motions on supply days were never envisaged as an alternative to the legislative process:

The very high threshold of unanimous consent creates a pivotal safeguard in ensuring that every measure before the House receives full and prudent consideration. What is being proposed not only does away with that safeguard, it takes advantage of the stringent regime governing supply days. In that regard, for example, it is important to note the precedence accorded to opposition motions over all government supply motions on allotted days.

Furthermore, recent amendments to the rules dealing with such motions offer an especially stringent regime: first, the rules provide what amounts to an automatic closure mechanism since the motion comes to a vote at the end of the day, thus guaranteeing a decision on the motion; and second, no amendment to the motion is possible without the consent of the mover.

In stark contrast, any motion which could be brought forward by the Government to expedite consideration of a bill would be debatable and amendable, and the imposition of time allocation or closure would necessitate a separate question from the motion proposing adoption of the bill at a particular stage or stages in the legislative process.

In addition, as mentioned in my initial comments when ruling the motion out of order, as worded, the motion fails to provide Members any opportunity to debate the Bill itself, in effect short-circuiting the legislative process. The Chair is mindful of the wide latitude available to the opposition with regard to supply motions, but as your Speaker, it is my duty to ensure that matters placed before the House are in keeping with our rules. The reasons outlined above make it clear why the motion of the hon. Member for Thunder Bay–Superior North was ruled out of order.

In conclusion, I would ask hon. Members to bear in mind today’s ruling and the ruling of March 29, 2007, when they are preparing future opposition motions. The Chair will continue to give the traditional latitude to the sponsors of motions to be debated during supply proceedings, but the Chair counts on the cooperation of the sponsors to respect, and not go beyond, traditional limits for such motions.

I thank the House for its attention in this matter.