Private Members’ Business / Miscellaneous

December 5, 1997

Debates, pp. 2787-8

On December 4, 1997, after Oral Questions, Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton) raised a question of privilege concerning the draw for Private Members’ Business which was to be held the following day. In order to make up for an irregularity in regard to a private member’s motion, which had occurred during the draw held on November 25, the December 5 draw was taking place earlier than might have been expected, given the number of items remaining on the order of precedence. Mr. Gallaway explained that his name had been selected in the November 25 draw and that one of his bills was now on the order of precedence and before the Sub-Committee on Private Members’ Business, which would determine which items would become votable. Mr. Gallaway expressed concern that the new draw would bring forward additional bills from which the sub-committee would have to choose and that, in view of the rules restricting the number of votable items, this would unfairly affect the chances of his bill being selected as a votable item.^[1] The Speaker expressed doubt that the matter raised by Mr. Gallaway was a question of privilege, but undertook to look into it and report back to the House.

The Speaker ruled the next day at the beginning of the sitting. Repeating that the matter was not a question of privilege, the Speaker went on to explain that Mr. Gallaway would not be adversely affected as a result of the draw, which was being held for the sake of another member who had inadvertently been left out of the draw held on November 25. The Speaker pointed out that pursuant to Standing Order 92(1), decisions as to the votability of an item are based on its merits, and are not directly affected by the number of items being considered by the Sub-Committee on Private Members’ Business. Furthermore, he pointed out, the sub-committee might end up making its selection only from the items added after the draw on November 25. In addition, some members whose names were drawn might not request that their items be made votable. The Speaker also observed that the sub-committee could designate an item as votable at any time before it is taken up by the House. In response to Mr. Gallaway’s suggestion that a draw be held for motions only, the Speaker stated that to proceed in this way would inevitably lead to a contravention of Standing Order 87(1)(b), which provides for equal numbers of bills and motions on the order of precedence following a draw.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: Colleagues, I am now ready to render a decision on the question of privilege raised by the honourable member for Sarnia—Lambton on December 4 concerning the draw for Private Members’ Business.

On December 4 the honourable member for Sarnia—Lambton rose on a question of privilege regarding a random draw to establish an order of precedence for additional items on Private Members’ Business. While ruling that the matter did not constitute a question of privilege, I undertook to return to the House after having examined the situation about which the honourable member complained.

Notice of the draw was given on Wednesday, in accordance with Standing Order 87(2), and the draw is scheduled to be held today at 1:15 p.m. The member pointed out that a draw had recently been held on Tuesday, November 25, 1997, when 14 names were drawn.

The Sub-Committee on Private Members’ Business is planning to meet next week to begin the process of deciding which of the members whose names were drawn on November 25 have items which should be selected as votable.

The honourable member for Sarnia—Lambton pointed out that there were already only two openings for additional votable items, one bill and one motion. By holding another draw at this time the sub-committee might be faced with having even more items from which to choose, namely nine bills instead of six. This, the member suggests, would put him at a disadvantage. In effect, he would have to compete against a slightly larger field of candidates for what was already a very small number of openings.

The member’s concern is not at all unreasonable. At first blush it does appear that he might be disadvantaged by having to compete against three additional candidates for the single opening for another votable bill. However, if we look at the process in more detail, the Chair is of the opinion that the member will not really suffer any prejudice.

First, we should note that unlike the draw itself, which is entirely random, the selection of votable items is based on the merits of the bills or motions put forward by members. Indeed Standing Order 92(1) specifically states:

In making its selection, the Committee—shall allow the merits of the items alone to determine the selection—.

The merits of the member’s bill are not directly affected by the number of bills being considered by the sub-committee.

It is nonetheless true that the sub-committee is, on occasion, unable to choose as many votable items as it might like because the votable items selected after a previous draw remain in the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

As some of you may recall, the sub-committee in the previous Parliament was put in the unenviable position of not having openings for additional votable items following a draw. Unfortunately, votable items chosen at the same time all tend to remain on the Order Paper for approximately the same length of time, after which several openings may be created within a short period of time when they are put to a vote.

This is because all votable items may be debated for up to three hours. How many openings for votable items exist at the time the sub-committee meets to select additional votable items is something over which none of us have any control.

Members should remember that although draws are usually held when there are only 15 or 16 items remaining in the order of precedence, the Standing Orders do not stipulate that a draw cannot be held sooner. Standing Order 87(2) provides that:

The Clerk of the House, acting on behalf of the Speaker, shall, when necessary during a session, conduct a random draw to establish an order of precedence for not more than 15 additional items of Private Members’ Business—

It is thus possible to conduct a draw even though there are more than 15 items in the order of precedence, provided it is considered necessary to do so.

The principal reason for not holding draws more frequently than we normally do is in order to limit the number of meetings of the Sub-Committee on Private Members’ Business.

The order of precedence used to contain 20 items, but in the 34th Parliament this was increased to 30, the present number, precisely because the sub-committee at that time wanted it so.

The Chair would point out that the sub-committee is by no means obliged to consider any new items placed in the order of precedence following today’s draw. The sub-committee may confine its selection to the items added after the November 25 draw. Furthermore, members whose names are drawn later today will have until the end of the day Tuesday to designate which of their bills or motions are to be added to the order of precedence, and the sub-committee has 10 sitting days following the draw before it must begin the process of selecting votable items.

Moreover, and there is no way to predict this, some members whose names are drawn may not wish to be considered by the sub-committee. They may prefer that their bills or motions not be designated votable.

The Chair would also draw members’ attention to the fact that the sub-committee may select an item as votable at any time before it is taken up by the House. Thus, if an item is not selected as votable by the sub-committee next week, it may still be selected in February. There may be more openings for votable items at that time.

Finally, the member suggested that since this draw is being held to remedy a problem arising from the accidental exclusion from the previous draw of a member with a motion, then the proper course would have been to conduct a draw for motions only. However, that would have meant that the number of bills in the order of precedence would decrease faster than the number of motions, causing more bills to be drawn next time.

Since Standing Order 87(1)(b) stipulates:

—the draw shall be conducted so that there shall be in the order of precedence an equal number of motions and bills originating in the House of Commons—

The Chair is of the opinion that any draw should be held for both bills and motions.

I thank the honourable member for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. This may seem to some like a lot of quibbling over numbers and technical details, but it reminds us all that in attempting to remedy a wrong done to one member, we must not cause harm to another.

After considering the situation thoroughly, I am of the opinion that the draw will not adversely affect the honourable member for Sarnia—Lambton but will allow another member to have the opportunity to participate.

P1005-e

36-1

1997-12-05