The Decision-Making Process / Motions and Amendments

Motion: Government motion to amend various provisions of the Standing Orders; division requested for the purpose of debate and voting

April 10, 1991

Debates, pp. 19312-3

On April 8, 1991, during consideration of Government Business No. 30 to amend the Standing Orders of the House of Commons (Government Business No. 30), Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon—Clark’s Crossing) rose on a point of order to ask the Speaker to divide Motion No. 30 into five separate motions, so that each one could be debated and amended separately before being put to a vote. He argued that Motion No. 30 was unique in that it did not arise from a matter under consideration in committee, where interested parties could have made their concerns heard, and asserted that it would be impossible to amend the motion to the point where Members would be able to express their position clearly by speaking to a number of amendments, because the Government did not intend to allow a lengthy debate. The Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) argued that the amendments to the times of sittings and to various provisions dealing with the manner in which legislation is dealt with could not be divided because they were linked. He did however concede that certain divisions were possible, in particular with respect to the proposals involving committees. Other Members also took part in the discussion.^[1] The Deputy Speaker (Hon. Andrée Champagne) took the matter under advisement. The Speaker returned to the House on April 10, 1991 and delivered his ruling which is reproduced in extenso below.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: On Monday, April 8, 1991, the honourable Member for Saskatoon—Clark’s Crossing rose on a point of order concerning Government Motion No. 30, the motion dealing with the proposed changes to the Standing Orders of the House.

The honourable Member argued cogently that this motion contains many distinct propositions. He then went on to ask the Chair “to divide Motion No. 30 into five distinct motions and to permit each to be debated, amended and voted on separately”.

The honourable Government House leader, the honourable Member for Kamloops (Mr. Nelson Riis) and the honourable Member for Calgary West (Mr. Jim Hawkes) contributed to the brief discussion that ensued. The Chair took the matter under advisement and undertook to return to the House as soon as possible. I am now prepared to rule on the matter.

Government Motion No. 30 now being debated consists of 64 separate proposals, as well as paragraphs relating to its coming into force. I have carefully considered the motion and the arguments put forward by honourable Members. I have equally carefully reviewed the weight of precedent and practice with regard to the Chair’s discretionary power in such a situation.

Although it is clear that the Speaker has the authority to divide complicated questions, it is equally true that this power has only very rarely been exercised. In this situation, I have been guided by the cautionary note sounded by Speaker Lamoureux in his ruling of March 23, 1966:

It is only in exceptional circumstances and when there is little doubt about it that the Speaker can intervene and, of his own initiative, amend the resolution proposed by an honourable Member.^[2]

Therefore, after serious reflection, I undertook discussions with the leadership of the three parties. Following those consultations, I wish to inform the House that the Chair proposed to deal with Government Motion No. 30 in this manner. All proposals will be debated together but they will be voted upon in three groupings, those groupings being: proposals relating to Private Members’ Business, namely those numbered 38 through 45 and 60 through 64; proposals relating to committees, namely those numbered 46 through 59; and all other proposals, namely those numbered 1 through 37, as well as those separate un-numbered paragraphs relating to the terms and conditions of the coming into force of the motion.

With regard to the amendment of the honourable House leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. David Dingwall), a division on that question will precede the divisions on the groupings I have just outlined.

In summary, then, there will be a single debate on Motion No. 30 and the House will vote on the motion in the following manner: (1) a vote on the amendment of the Member for Cape Breton—East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall), (2) a vote on the proposals relating to Private Members’ Business, (3) a vote on the proposals relating to committees, (4) a vote on all other proposals including the paragraphs relating to the coming into force of the motion.

I wish to express my sincere appreciation to all honourable Members for their contribution to the Chair’s consideration of this question. Your cooperation does great credit to this place and obviously obviates the necessity of the Chair to make unilateral interventions that might be of some difficulty in terms of precedents to both sides at some later date. I thank honourable Members.

F0404-e

34-2

1991-04-10