Private Members’ Business / Miscellaneous

October 16, 2000

Debates, pp. 9043-4

On June 14, 2000, Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley) raised a point of order concerning the placement of private member’s motion M-425 on the Order Paper under Private Members’ Business. The motion was for the House of Commons to send a message to the Senate concerning the “undue delay” in the progress made by it on private member’s bill C-247, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Mr. Strahl argued that since a private member can move a motion during Routine Proceedings concerning a committee’s delay in reporting a private member’s bill to the House, this private member’s notice of motion should likewise have been placed on the Order Paper under Routine Proceedings. After hearing interventions from other members, the Speaker said he would look into the matter and come back to the House if necessary.^[1] On October 5, 2000, Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford) rose on a point of order to reiterate the concern of many members that Bill C‑247 might die in the Senate were Parliament to be dissolved and an election called.^[2] The Speaker promised to return to the House with a ruling in a few days.

When he returned to the House with a ruling on October 16, 2000, the Speaker noted that there were two aspects to the point of order. The first aspect was whether a parallel could be drawn between proceedings in a House committee on a bill and proceedings in the Senate on a bill originating in the House. The Speaker ruled that because the House could not compel the Senate to conduct its work in a specific manner or within a specific timetable, no parallel could be drawn with proceedings in a committee of the House. The second aspect concerned the placement of the notice of motion on the Order Paper. The Speaker stated that when a member or a minister wished the House to express itself on any matter that fell outside the narrow scope of the management of House business, the notice of motion should properly appear under Private Members’ Business or Government Orders. Therefore, he ruled that this notice of motion was in its correct place on the Order Paper under Private Members’ Business.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised by the honourable member for Fraser Valley on June 14, 2000, concerning the placement under Private Members’ Business of a motion regarding the Senate’s progress on Bill C-247, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and on the intervention made by the honourable member for Langley—Abbotsford on October 5, 2000, on the same subject. I want to thank both members for their interventions.

I would also like to thank the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the honourable member for Winnipeg—Transcona for their contributions on this matter last June.

In his submission, the honourable member for Fraser Valley contended that his motion should be more appropriately considered under Motions, under the rubric Routine Proceedings, a point echoed by the honourable member for Langley—Abbotsford. The member for Fraser Valley referred to an earlier question of privilege raised on September 16, 1996, concerning the failure of a committee to report a bill back to the House. He drew a parallel between the principles regarding the fate of that bill and the principles regarding Bill C-247, which is presently before the Senate. The member also stated that his motion concerned the proprieties and authority of the House, which are normally dealt with under Routine Proceedings.

I have carefully examined both honourable members’ arguments and, in my opinion, there are two aspects to this point of order. The first is whether a parallel can be drawn between proceedings in a House committee on a bill and proceedings in the Senate on a bill originating in the House of Commons. The honourable member for Fraser Valley made reference to my earlier ruling on Bill C-234 and I would like to repeat a part of that statement, which is contained in Debates, September 23, 1996, at page 4561:

Should a member or a minister be of the opinion that a committee charged with the review of a bill is defying the authority of the House, he or she may choose to bring it to the attention of the House by placing on notice a motion to require the committee to report by a certain date.

As honourable members know, this can indeed be done under Government Orders or Private Members’ Business, but such a notice of motion could also be placed under the rubric Motions and be dealt with under Routine Proceedings.

I think that it is important to note that this ruling deals with an internal situation that lies clearly within the purview of the House. However, in a bicameral Parliament such as ours, the two Houses share in the making of legislation. Each House is the master of its own proceedings. The rules of one House cannot also be applied to the other, nor can one House compel the other to conduct its work in a specific manner or according to a specific timetable. Accordingly, in my view the situation with regard to Bill C-247 is not analogous to the situation that was at issue with regard to Bill C-234 since the proprieties and authority of each House are completely independent one from the other.

The second aspect of this point of order concerns the proper rubric under which the honourable member’s motion should appear on the Order Paper. House of Commons Procedure and Practice states at pages 390 [and 391]:

Different categories of business have developed over the years in response to the need to adapt to the organization of House business—As a general rule, motions dealing with matters of substance or government policy are moved either by ministers under Government Orders or private members under Private Members’ Business—the Chair accepts certain motions put on notice by private members for consideration under the rubric Motions, such as motions of instruction to committees and for concurrence in committee reports. When private members give written notice of other substantive matters, these motions are placed under Private Members’ Business on the Order Paper.

If a member or a minister wishes the House to express an opinion on any matter which falls outside the narrow scope of what is considered to be House business, such motions should properly appear under Private Members’ Business or Government Orders, as the case may be.

On that basis, I must rule that the motion under the name of the honourable member for Fraser Valley placed on the Order Paper under Private Members’ Business is indeed in its correct place and I thank him for having brought this matter to the attention of the House.

P1008-e

36-2

2000-10-16