Financial Procedures / Business of Supply
Legislative phase: main estimates; effect of motion to restore Vote
Debates, pp. 7030-1
Context
On June 9, 2003, John Reynolds (West Vancouver–Sunshine Coast) rose on a point of order with respect to a motion on the Notice Paper seeking to restore Vote 25 (VIA Rail) under Transport in the amount of $266,201,000. Mr. Reynolds pointed out that the Standing Committee on Transport had reduced this Vote by $9 million. He argued that the wording of the motion to restore might leave Members with the impression that a vote against it would have the effect of reducing the budget by the total amount of the Vote, an amount much greater than the $9 million reduction sought by the Standing Committee on Transport. Mr. Reynolds concluded that he wanted to clarify the impact of voting for or against the restoration motion.
Resolution
The Speaker delivered his ruling immediately. He stated that the motion to restore Vote 25 under Transport appeared to conform exactly to previous practice in the House and, consequently, ruled that the point of order was not well founded.
Decision of the Chair
The Speaker: I do not think I need to hear from the hon. Government House Leader in this case. I am sure all hon. Members appreciate the hon. Member for West Vancouver–Sunshine Coast’s appreciation for the difficulties faced by the Chief Government Whip in communications with her colleagues, because of course he has had experience as a Whip himself and he knows how difficult that can be. Unfortunately, the Speaker has not had that experience but perhaps we can clarify the matter.
The hon. Member seems to suggest that there is some confusion in the wording of the motion, and that somehow it is suggesting that if the motion were not concurred in, VIA Rail would lose more money than has been suggested in the report from the Transport Committee that was tabled last week.
I point out to the hon. Member for West Vancouver–Sunshine Coast that on at least two previous occasions, June 22, 1973 and December 10, 1979, motions similar to the one that is now before the House were proposed by the then President of the Treasury Board. Those Votes were apparently concurred in by the House subsequently when Estimates were restored.
Accordingly, while I am sure the Chief Government Whip appreciates very much the helpful suggestions from the hon. Member, the practice that has been adopted in this case appears to conform exactly with previous practice in the House. I refer him to the Notice Paper for June 26, 1973, where there was a similar motion to restore a vote to its full amount, and a similar one on Friday, December 14, 1979, where there were a number of motions purporting to do exactly the same thing, where the wording is almost identical to the one before the House.
Accordingly, I find the point of order is not well taken. However, as I say, I am sure the advice he has offered is very much appreciated by the Chief Government Whip. I know the Government House Leader, as a former Whip, would appreciate it had he been in her position.