Private Members’ Business / Miscellaneous

June 18, 1996

Debates, p. 4028

On February 27, 1996, Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell) put a motion on the Notice Paper accusing Ray Speaker (Lethbridge), Reform Party House leader, of attempting to put pressure on the Speaker to recognize the Reform Party as the official opposition in the House. The motion further declared that this constituted a contempt of Parliament and ordered that Mr. Speaker be admonished by the Chair at the bar of the House. The motion was placed on the Order Paper under Private members’ Business^[1] and on March 4, 1996, was chosen for debate in a random draw. However, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs did not designate the item as votable. At the beginning of the sitting on May 9—the day before the motion would be called for debate, in accordance with the order of precedence for Private members’ Business—Mr. Speaker rose on a point of order and questioned whether a motion which was not votable could be used to make a charge against another member. The Acting Speaker (Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais) advised the House that the motion would not be called the next day because the sponsor, Mr. Boudria, could not be present, and that in the meantime the Chair would consider the question.^[2]

On June 18, 1996, after Oral Questions, the Speaker ruled on the point of order raised by Mr. Speaker concerning the procedural acceptability of the motion standing in the name of Mr. Boudria. The Speaker ruled that the motion was procedurally acceptable under the Standing Orders for Private members’ Business and that the Speaker had no authority to declare it votable. He pointed out that there were “procedures at the disposal of the House to ensure that a sense of fair play prevails in all its proceedings”.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised on  9, 1996, by the honourable member for Lethbridge concerning the procedural acceptability of Motion M-1 standing on the order of precedence for Private Members’ Business in the name of the honourable member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.

The honourable member for Lethbridge argued that the motion is procedurally unacceptable because it contains allegations of contempt by one member against another and yet had not been designated as votable by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. In other words, the House must be capable of taking a decision on any motion which contains a charge against a member. In addition, he questioned the current rules governing Private Members’ Business which have allowed this situation to occur.

The rules governing Private Members’ Business are indeed complex. members may put bills or motions on notice, and then those members whose names have been chosen in a draw decide which item they wish to put forward for debate in the House during Private Members’ Business hour.

Once the chosen items are placed on an order of precedence, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs selects which ones will come to a vote of the House. In the case of Motion M-1, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs chose not to designate this item as votable.

Pursuant to Standing Order 92(2), the report of the Committee concerning votable items is automatically deemed adopted, and therefore stands as a decision of the House. This is how the House has decided, through its Standing Orders, to deal with Private Members’ Business.

The honourable member is quite correct in his assertion that the conduct of a member can be brought before the House only by way of a specific charge contained in a substantive motion. Often, in such cases, members will choose to raise the matter on the floor of the House without giving the required 48-hour or two-week notice and ask the Speaker to give it priority or right of way for immediate consideration by the House, thus putting all other regular House business aside.

What is at stake here is whether or not your Speaker can override the rules governing the transaction of Private Members’ Business in order that such motions come to a vote even when the sponsoring member has selected to bring it before the House under that procedure. I humbly must admit that unless the House changes its rules I do not have that power.

For the benefit of the House, please allow me to point out that this is not the first time this type of motion has come before the House without the possibility of a vote.

On a number of occasions on supply days the opposition has moved non-votable motions to condemn or challenge ministers for their actions.

In one case a motion condemning a minister for “failing to provide full and satisfactory information on the blatant conflict of interest situation involving the minister” was moved as a non-votable motion on a supply day.

I refer members to the Journals of the House of Commons of May 12, 1986, page 2160: “In at least one other instance, a non-votable supply motion contained a specific charge of contempt of Parliament against the minister”. The text of this motion can also be found in the Journals of June 17, 1982, page 5025.

The content of the motion and the fact that it has not been designated as a votable item under Private Members’ Business does cause the Chair some difficulty.

I understand the concerns of the honourable member for Lethbridge. As your Speaker I suggest this situation could be corrected either by the honourable member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, the honourable member for Lethbridge or, for that matter, the House itself. There are procedures at the disposal of the House to ensure that a sense of fair play prevails in all of its proceedings so that members are not placed in this type of position.

In the current circumstances I find that the rules for Private Members’ Business have been followed and that there is therefore no point of order.

I would like to thank the honourable member for raising this point and the honourable member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell for his contribution to the discussion.

The motion sponsored by Mr. Boudria was not debated in the House. On October 23, 1996, the Speaker informed the House that Mr. Boudria had advised the Chair in writing that because of his recent appointment to cabinet, he could no longer move private members’ motions. The Speaker, who has the duty under the Standing Orders of ensuring the orderly conduct of Private Members’ Business, thus directed that Mr. Boudria’s motion be removed from the Order Paper.^[3]

P1001-e

35-2

1996-06-18