Rules of Debate / Process of Debate

Motions: admissibility; suspension of certain Standing Orders; timetabling passage of a bill

December 3, 2009

Debates, pp. 7580-1

On December 3, 2009, Bill Siksay (Burnaby–Douglas) rose on a point of order with respect to the admissibility of Government Motion No. 8. The motion provided for the disposition at all stages of a bill entitled An Act to Amend the Excise Tax and, since the Bill had not yet been introduced, Mr. Siksay argued that it was impossible for Members to determine whether such a motion was necessary and that the motion should therefore be ruled out of order. Jay Hill (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) contended that the motion was in order as all the necessary procedures had been followed, and alleged that Mr. Siksay’s point of order had been a dilatory tactic. For his part, Joe Comartin (Windsor–Tecumseh) argued that the motion was also an end run around Standing Order 28(3) and a way to undermine the authority of the Speaker to recall the House. The Speaker decided to allow the motion to be moved and then to make a ruling on its admissibility.^[1]

The Speaker delivered his ruling immediately after the motion was moved. He reminded Members that they were masters of their own proceedings and that the rules allowed for changes to the Standing Orders, both temporarily and permanently. He stated that he could not find the motion out of order simply because it ran contrary to the usual manner in which the business of the House was conducted. He concluded that the Members would judge the value of the motion by voting for or against it.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: With respect to the point of order that was raised, it has been suggested that the motion that I just read is out of order because it is not in conformity with the practices of the House.

The House is master of its own procedure. The Standing Orders of the House, which are our rules, are adopted by the House and are used by it and the Chair as the rules of the House. However, the House is free to adopt a Special Order on any occasion that it wishes to do so, which can change those rules either permanently or on a temporary basis, or in respect of a single bill, or in respect of a special committee, or any other purpose.

Members of the House are free to agree upon and make changes in the rules of our practice, which we do frequently, often by unanimous consent, but sometimes without unanimous consent, because a motion is introduced and changes are made.

On February 23, 2007 the Government introduced a motion. It read in part, “That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, a bill in the name of the Minister of Labour” [had]^[2] special provisions set out that dealt with the disposition of that bill in the House.

The hon. Member for Windsor–Tecumseh raised a point of order on that occasion, arguing that the motion was not in order, that it was contrary to our practice. He made a very able argument, but he ran into difficulty because the ruling from the Chair said that his argument was not a good one. I will quote my ruling if I may. I do not like quoting myself, but I am happy to do so in this case. I said:

I am concerned about his reference to the fact that a majority of the parties in the House have not agreed to something and therefore that something may not be in order. The House decides matters, not by party but by votes, by the number of Members supporting or rejecting a motion. In my view, that is the way the House operates and will continue to operate.

What we have here is a motion that has been put forward to the House to make changes in the rules in respect of one bill. If the House decides that it wants to do that after a vote by the Members of this House, it seems to me that it is entirely within the jurisdiction of the House to do it. It is not for the Speaker to say that the motion is out of order because it does something that the rules do not allow for.

The rules do allow us to make changes to the rules whenever we want, and we do it on a fairly regular basis. We had a rule change today to allow Statements by Ministers at 3 o’clock instead of this morning at 10 o’clock. That was not a problem; Members agreed to it and it happened.

We now have a proposal to make changes to the rules that apply to a particular bill that has been introduced in the House and is now going to be the subject of debate under different rules perhaps than other bills are. I have just read the long thing. It is tedious, but there it is.

In my view, it is a matter that can be brought to the House for debate and it should be discussed by the House and then ultimately voted upon by the House, as I am sure it will be when the debate concludes.

Thus in my view, the motion before us is in order. I now call upon the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance who wishes to make a speech on this matter.