The Legislative Process / Miscellaneous

March 31, 1993

Debates, pp. 17860-1

On March 31, 1993, Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona) rose on a point of order asking the Speaker to refuse the motion for time allocation at second reading of Bill C-115 respecting the North American Free Trade Agreement, which had just been moved by the government.^[1] Mr. Blaikie argued that the motion for time allocation was an unreasonable restriction of debate as there had been only limited debate and he referred at length to a previous decision by the Speaker dealing with the rights of the majority and the minority. The Speaker also heard representations from various other Members on this issue.^[2] The Speaker ruled immediately. The text of the ruling is reproduced in its entirety below.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am going to respond very carefully to what has been said. The facts of the matter are clear, and that is that the bill is a very important bill. All Members of the House agree with that and probably the country does too.

There have been suggestions that based on another time a few years ago when I had to exercise some discretion in a difficult situation I might be able to do it again in this case. I made remarks then indicating that as a parliamentarian it was important that matters were debated for a reasonable length of time (). I think that is an appropriate attitude to take.

I do though have to remind the House, and I ask the House to have some sympathy with the position of the Speaker on this, that I also have to make decisions according to the law. Sometimes it is not always understood that the Chair is constrained in what the Chair can do by the rules which this House has passed.

It is not surprising that sometimes some honourable Members, or even members of the public, feels that the rules we have set for ourselves may in some cases be unreasonable or even worse. However, it is extremely important I think that the Chair be bound by those rules until the House decides to change them.

I do not want to refer to what is in a committee report that I have not yet seen as tabled in the House. The honourable Member for Winnipeg Transcona suggested—in fact he stated—that there is a committee report coming that may be tabled in the House and may be dealt with by the House that addresses this question. I think he was suggesting that maybe in that report there would be some recommendation to give the Chair more discretion than the Chair has at the moment.

There have been suggestions made that in the British House under circumstances like this the Speaker does have a discretion, but it is my understanding that discretion, that power or that right is spelled out in the British rules. The honourable Government House Leader (Hon. Harvie Andre) has come back and reminded us of something which is also a fact, and that is that in the British House the time for debate is generally probably more brief than in this House. However, that is a matter of argument I think and is not very much assistance one way or the other to the Chair.

The rule that I have to consider is of course Standing Order 78(3)(a) and members are familiar with it. I think that it was passed in April 1991 by this House. The Government House Leader is correct, as I understand it, when he says that the government has followed exactly that rule. I think he is correct in that.

I should bring to the attention of the House a ruling I made on December 9, 1992 (). I am going to read it because again I was faced with the same difficulty that I am faced with today. I said:

I know that the House would want me to respond to the honourable Member for Kamloops and the honourable Member for Cape Breton—East Richmond and the honourable Member for Annapolis Valley—Hants who have raised an issue here which is, to put it simply, that it is inappropriate for the government to move now for time allocation. Some comments that I have made in the past have been quoted and I have listened very carefully to what I once said.

The difficulty it seems to me that those proponents of the motion are in is that, as the honourable [government] House Leader points out, there have been changes in the rules and the government has followed exactly the course it must follow under the present rules which govern us.

There has been some suggestion that when the present rules were [passed] it was without the full consent of all the Members in the House and that may well have been the case. The Speaker’s area of manoeuvre in acting on discretion is always somewhat circumscribed and in this case it clearly is very much constrained.

I have to advise the House…

Then I went on to deal with that point. My situation at that time was that whatever I may have felt personally about the situation, I felt that I had to follow the rules that we have. If the House, which it has not done, were at some point to grant to the Speaker—any Speaker—the power to judge the reasonableness of the use of this rule then I would have no hesitation in doing so. I hope I would do it on the basis of common sense on the circumstances.

Also I think I would reach back to over 20 years in this place and apply some of my experience in that manner. I have to advise the House that the rule is clear. It is within the government’s discretion to use it. I cannot find any lawful way that I can exercise a discretion which would unilaterally break a very specific rule.

I have listened to this debate. I have listened to the honourable Member for Winnipeg Transcona and others. For very real reasons it is a matter that should have been discussed in the House today. This is especially because the honourable Member for Winnipeg Transcona was one of the active and helpful members of the reform committee that was set up consisting of all parties some years ago and has taken a great interest in the reform of our rules.

I have to say, with I hope some sympathy and I hope some understanding from the House, that I feel I am not in a lawful position to unilaterally exercise a discretion in the face of the rule that is in front of us.

Therefore, I have to put the motion and I must ask the House.

At the conclusion of his ruling, the Speaker put the question on the time allocation motion and it was agreed to following a recorded division.

F0506-e

34-3

1993-03-31