The Legislative Process / Miscellaneous

August 16, 1988

Debates, pp. 18380-1

On August 15, 1988, during debate at report stage on Bill C-130 respecting the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, the Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)) rose on a point of order to state that the two opposition parties informed him that they had reached an agreement to limit debate on the bill at report stage and third reading. According to Minister, this agreement included 150 days debate for report stage and 200 days for third reading. Arguing that this agreement made a mockery of the negotiations, Mr. Lewis then gave notice of the Government’s intention to move a motion for time allocation as stipulated by the Standing Orders.^[1] Immediately thereafter, the Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West) rose on a point of order to take exception to the notice. Mr. Gray argued that the notice was flawed in two ways: that the notice did not specify the time to be allotted and that since, as the Minister pointed out, the opposition parties had reached an agreement, which in Mr. Gray’s view met the requirements of the Standing Orders, the notice was not valid.^[2]

The debate on this matter resumed the following day when the Minister proposed to move the motion for time allocation. Following this, Mr. Gray again rose on a point of order to argue against the motion.^[3] On this day, the debate centered mainly around the issue of whether the agreement reached by the opposition parties, to which Mr. Lewis had referred, met the requirement of the Standing Orders which stipulated that “a majority of the representatives of the several parties have come to an agreement.” After hearing comments from other Members, the Speaker ruled on both issues later in the day. The text is reproduced in its entirety below.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: Yesterday the honourable Minister of State (Treasury Board) gave oral notice of a motion for time allocation for the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-130 the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, pursuant to Standing Order 117.

The honourable Member for Windsor West then rose on a point of order to argue the notice was defective because it failed to specify the number of hours or days to be allocated. This morning he further claimed that the Minister could not proceed because agreement had been reached under Standing Order 116 “by a majority of the representatives of the several parties”.

The honourable Member for Kamloops—Shuswap (Mr. Nelson Riis) has supported the honourable Member for Windsor West in both the arguments and took the position that the Government House Leader was precluded from resorting to Standing Order 117 because of a declared agreement between the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party on a specific number of days for debate at report stage. That is, the agreement between the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party indicated that they had agreed on 150 days at report stage and on 200 days at third reading with respect to the free trade Bill and, as they argued, as required in the Standing Order.

I will first address the issue relating to the deficiency of the oral notice. The basis of the argument against that notice was because it did not specify the amount of time to be allocated for further debate. The Chair has carefully reread Standing Order 117. When it deals with notice the Standing Order employs the words “and has given notice of his or her intention to do so”. It appears to require only notice of intention and not notice of the text of the motion per se.

Furthermore, I can point to two precedents, on May 3, 1988 and June 3, 1988, when the same notice of intention was given without specifying a number of days. I should point out that I bring both these occasions to the attention of the House, not necessarily to suggest that just because it has been done once it ought necessarily, to legally be done again but to bring the matter to the attention of the House. I do not take those two incidents as the basis of a legal, procedural precedent, but I do bring them to the attention of the House.

I remind honourable Members that at the moment the motion which may eventually be proposed to the House by the Chair is one that has been proposed by the honourable Minister. A point of order has interrupted that process. I am considering whether or not the honourable Minister’s motion is acceptable. If it is acceptable, then it would inevitably be proposed by the Chair, and the motion that might eventually be proposed to the House by the Chair is required to be specific and to provide for at least one sitting day for report stage and at least one sitting day for third reading. I think that comes from any clear reading of the rules.

I must therefore rule that the Minister has properly given notice of his intention and that his action was in keeping with the House’s usual form.

The second point the honourable Member for Windsor West argued this morning is more complex and simply restated is: Is a Minister of the Crown precluded from invoking Standing Order 117 if a majority of the Parties, not including the Government, states that it has reached an agreement under Standing Order 116?

The first sentence of Standing Order 116 bears repeating:

When a Minister of the Crown from his or her place in the House, states that a majority of the representatives of the several parties have come to an agreement in respect of a proposed allotment of days or hours for the proceedings at any stage of the passing of a public bill…

I have read carefully the words “representatives of the several Parties”. The honourable Member for Windsor West has stated those words mean the three Party House leaders, but the use of the word “representatives” is open to considerable interpretation and could mean a majority of the Members of each Party or, indeed, even a majority of the members of the House. I think the honourable Member for Windsor West and the honourable member for Kamloops—Shuswap will remember that earlier I may have made a comment in that direction. I probably should have used the counsel of the seniors from whom I learned to do court work who always said that it was wise, a judge who did not comment while listening to an argument. In any event, these words have never been clarified. I have to say now, after having given both honourable Members’ submissions careful consideration, that I would tend to agree with the view that the words mean the House Leaders of the several Parties or their appointees, for no other definition is practicable since there is no [formal] mechanism in the Standing Order to determine the majority of a larger group of Members.

That being said, I am not sure I can agree with the honourable Members for Windsor West and Kamloops—Shuswap that two Parties in opposition alone can form the basis of an agreement that would compel a Minister of the Crown to act under Standing Order 116. Just so the honourable Members and the public understand, if that proposition were accepted by the Chair it would mean that two opposition parties, or three opposition parties, or whatever number of opposition parties could form an agreement to decide on how many days of debate would continue on any given Bill, and the Government would thereby be bound by that agreement. All three Standing Orders, that is 115, 116 and 117—and they all deal with the question of how to handle the time allocation at various stages of debate on a Bill—in their opening sentences clearly leave the initiative of announcing any agreement or no agreement to a Minister. It is my view that a minister must be party to any agreement and that rising in his or her place under Standing Order 115 or 116 to take any initiative means that he or she is supportive of the proposed proposal for time allocation.

Standing Order 117 provides for a Minister to act if there is no agreement and, as I stated on June 6, 1988, the Chair must take a Minister’s declaration at face value and cannot judge the quality of negotiations or of any proposals that may have been made. In this case I was not even asked to judge on the quality of the negotiations because there is a document that indicates the arrangement at least had been entered into with two of the Parties in the House, albeit, not that of the Government.

As a consequence, I have to rule that the notice was in order and the motion is receivable.

Following the Speaker’s ruling, the Minister moved the motion for time allocation which was subsequently agreed to.

F0504-e

33-2

1988-08-16