Rules of Debate / Process of Debate

Motions: admissibility due to length and content of preamble

February 15, 2008

Debates, pp. 3173-4

On February 11, 2008, Libby Davies (Vancouver East) rose on a point of order with regard to Government Motion No. 4 on the Notice Paper which concerned the Canadian mission in Afghanistan. Ms. Davies argued that the motion was not a proper motion as it contained a lengthy and argumentative preamble and conditions that were beyond the control of the House. She asked that the Government rewrite it as per the usual standards and practices and, failing that, that the Speaker rule it out of order. After hearing from other Members, the Speaker took the matter under advisement.^[1]

On February 15, 2008, the Speaker delivered his ruling. Referring to several precedents and to a ruling by Mr. Speaker Michener, he declared that the motion could not be ruled out of order based on its length, the presence of a preamble, or the inclusion of conditions. He concluded by suggesting that the issue of preambles in motions was one that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs might wish to consider.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on Monday, February 11, 2008 by the hon. House Leader for the New Democratic Party concerning the admissibility of Government Motion No. 4 standing on the Order paper in the name of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform.

I would like to thank the House Leader for the New Democratic Party for raising this matter, as well as the hon. Member for Mississauga South and the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for their contributions on the issue.

The House Leader of the New Democratic Party argued that the preamble of Government Motion No. 4 amounted to a series of arguments that are really debating points. This, she said, is contrary to the practices of this House, which do not allow for motions to be in the form of a speech or to include argumentative clauses.

In support of her argument, she quoted Beauchesne, 6th edition, citation 565, as well as House of Commons Procedure and Practice, p. 449, which states:

A motion should not contain any objectionable or irregular wording. It should not be argumentative or written in the style of a speech.

In addition, she expressed concern about the procedural viability of the motion due to its length and the fact that it includes conditions that are outside the House’s control.

For these reasons, the House Leader for the New Democratic Party requested that the Government either withdraw Motion No. 4 and replace it with a motion reworded such that the offending parts are removed, or failing any indication on the part of the Government that it would do so, that the Chair rule this motion inadmissible and allow the Government to present a new one.

The Member for Mississauga South agreed that the preamble to the motion was tantamount to argument which, instead, should be raised during the course of debate. He added that in his experience preambles are discouraged and contended that allowing debate to proceed on this motion in its current form would set a precedent that could lead to some degree of confusion with respect to the procedural acceptability of motions placed on notice in future. In his submission, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House pointed out that in fact there have been examples of motions that were very broad in scope and that on that basis, the motion in question is procedurally appropriate.

In some respects, the House is not unfamiliar with the arguments raised in this case as the whole notion of the procedural acceptability of motions which contain preambles has been raised several times in the past. A survey of relevant precedents, as well as of relevant rulings, reveals that the House has debated numerous motions that were accompanied by a preamble.

While the precedents reach far back into our parliamentary history—the Parliamentary Secretary correctly referred to a fairly recent example regarding distinct society which occurred on December 6, 1995—in the last session alone there were two supply day motions that are especially pertinent to the present discussion. The first, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Bourassa, dealt with Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan and was debated on April 19, 2007. The second, on the same subject, was, as the hon. Parliamentary Secretary pointed out on Thursday, February 14, 2008, sponsored by the hon. Member for Toronto–Danforth and was debated on April 26, 2007. Both these motions contained a preamble of considerable length made up of several clauses not unlike those contained in Government Motion No. 4. Their procedural acceptability was not contested. This is consistent with the ruling given by Mr. Speaker Michener on January 16, 1961, on page 1074 of Debates where he indicated that “it is amply established that a preamble is in accordance with our practice”.

In that same ruling, Mr. Speaker Michener also dealt conclusively, although with some reluctance, with the issue of length when he went on to say:

The use of the preamble can lead to absurd lengths. By way of example I have only to cite one instance which I found in 1899 of a motion the preamble of which covers 21 pages of the Journals. It is, I might say, a procedural monstrosity, but there it is as a precedent.

Clearly, the procedural acceptability of motions is not gauged by their length.

With regard to the inclusion of conditions in motions, it is perhaps useful for the Chair to remind the House that it is not the Speaker’s role to judge the effectiveness of proposals brought forward for debate.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice states at page 448:

A resolution of the House makes a declaration of opinion or purpose; it does not have the effect of requiring that any action be taken—nor is it binding. The House has frequently brought forth resolutions in order to show support for some action.

The Chair is therefore not in a position to conclude that the inclusion of conditions in the motion currently in question renders it inadmissible. Rather, they are simply an additional aspect of the issue contained in the motion that hon. Members will need to consider as they debate and, ultimately, decide.

Under the circumstances, I must conclude, therefore, that Government Motion No. 4 is admissible and may be proposed to the House in its current form.

That being said, the point raised by the hon. Member for Mississauga South regarding his experience that preambles in motions are discouraged is one into which I will enquire further. In the meantime, this is certainly an issue the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs may wish to look into with a view, ultimately, to making recommendations.

I thank the House Leader of the New Democratic Party for bringing this matter forward and to the attention of the House.

There was no subsequent report from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on the question of preambles in motions.