The Daily Program / Routine Proceedings

Motions: motions relating to the appointment of a Privacy Commissioner and an Information Commissioner; correct placement on the Order Paper; Government Business; officers of the House and of Parliament

June 6, 1990

Debates, pp. 12339-40

On June 4, 1990, Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa—Vanier) rose on a point of order regarding the notices of motions to appoint a Privacy Commissioner and an Information Commissioner. The motions were printed on the Order Paper under the heading Motions. In Mr. Gauthier’s opinion, the motions were erroneously listed. He felt that proceeding in this manner was highly unusual and possibly irregular, since by placing the motions under Routine Proceedings the government was treating the officials in question as officers of the House, when they were more properly officers of Parliament. He argued that as officers of Parliament, motions on their appointment should not come under Routine Proceedings but rather under Government Notices of Motions. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) rose to point out that the legislation covering the two appointments required the passage of a resolution by the House. He therefore considered it more logical to treat the motions as the business of the House than as government business, since they involved officers of the House and of Parliament. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands) argued that the motions should appear under Government Orders because Routine Proceedings is reserved for motions involving the business of the House and the discussion of committee reports. The Deputy Speaker (Andrée Champagne) took the matter under consideration.^[1] On June 6, 1990, the Speaker handed down a decision, which is reproduced in full below.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: On Monday of this week the opposition House leader, the honourable member for Ottawa—Vanier, rose on a point of order concerning two items which the government placed on the Order Paper.

One was for the appointment of an Information Commissioner and the other was for the appointment of a Privacy Commissioner. The opposition House leader contends that the government erred in requesting that these items be placed under the rubric Motions in the Order Paper. He believes that they should have been placed under the rubric Government Notices of Motions.

Several members, including the government House leader, contributed to the discussion of this interesting point of order. The Chair thanks all honourable members for their contributions. I am now prepared to address the concerns raised and render a decision.

To many persons in our listening audience, it may appear irrelevant as to where a notice of motion is placed on our Order Paper and Notice Paper. It is important to note, however, that these categories have been developed over a lengthy period of time in order to respect the organization of the business of the House. Some categories are uniquely reserved for the government or the opposition, whereas others are reserved for private members and some very special categories are reserved for items which affect the transaction of the routine business of the House.

To illustrate matters, motions to amend or suspend the Standing Orders, to appoint special committees, to concur in committee reports, to instruct a committee to divide or consolidate bills are moved under the heading Motions and are often adopted by unanimous consent.

By contrast, motions to deal with matters of substance or government policy are moved under the heading Government Motions. For example, motions to advance government bills or to adopt resolutions are handled under this heading and are usually adopted on division after extensive debate.

At this point I wish to refer to a decision I delivered on June 13, 1988 relating to a similar procedural problem. At page 16377 of Hansard I explained:

…a “Government Notice of Motion” is any motion that the government gives notice of. In other words, a “Government Notice of Motion” is not based on the content of the motion, but rather upon the mover. In many cases, therefore, a notice of motion could go under more than one heading and it is up to the minister giving notice to decide which heading should be chosen. Clearly a “Government Notice of Motion” can only be moved by the government, but the government can choose to place it either under Motions or under Government Notices of Motion.

This concept is borne out in a ruling on May 16, 1985, by Speaker Bosley. He was called upon to rule on whether a time allocation motion had to be moved under Motions during Routine Proceedings or whether it could be placed under Government Notices of Motion and then transferred to Government Orders.

His decision was that it could be proceeded with in either way and that the choice was up to the minister moving it.

A key element in the government House leader’s argument concerned a definition of what items are permitted to be placed under the rubric Motions. While no specific Standing Order enunciates exactly what should or should not be included under this rubric, Standing Order 67(1)(p) gives us a partial list. It reads, in part:

…[motions] as may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the appointment or conduct of its officers, the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings, the correctness of its records, the fixing of its sitting days or the times of its meeting or adjournment.

From this the opposition House leader and honourable member for Kingston and the Islands suggest that it is inappropriate to file a motion for the appointment of the Information Commissioner or for the Privacy Commissioner under the rubric Motions because these appointments are for officers of Parliament rather than for officers of the House. This rubric, the opposition House leader contends, should only be reserved for officers of the House.

A review of precedents reveals that previous appointments to these positions were moved under the rubric Government Motions. However, the question still remains: because that route was followed in the past, can we logically conclude that this route is the only option open? The Chair is not persuaded to that conclusion. Instead, as in the decision of June 13, 1988, the Chair concludes that the government has the option of choosing to move such a motion under either heading.

Several honourable members have pointed out that the Standing Order refers to the appointment or conduct of the House’s officers. I have been unable to find anywhere a precise definition of who fits into that classification.

Taken in its widest sense, an officer of the House could include such positions as diverse as the Chair occupants, the House leaders, the Clerk and the Sergeant-at-Arms and the other officers reporting to the House through its Speaker. Some of these are appointed by resolution of the House, but many of them are not. Unless the House directs me otherwise it is this broad interpretation that I intend to be guided by.

As to the distinction that the honourable member for Kingston and the Islands attempted to make between an officer of the House and an officer of Parliament, I have not been able to accept his reasoning on that issue, although I must say it is an interesting if not ingenious argument.

It is my view that the Auditor General for example could be considered to be either an officer of the House or an officer of Parliament.

In conclusion, the Chair judges that the government has liberty to move the appointment of the Information Commissioner or the Privacy Commissioner either under the rubric Motions or under the rubric Government Motions. The motions as they now stand on the Order Paper under the rubric Motions are regular and can be proceeded with.

F0325-e

34-2

1990-06-06