Financial Procedures / Supply

Opposition motion: order binding on the Government; amendment exceeding the scope of the motion

June 8, 1989

Debates, p. 2811

On June 8, 1989, after the order was read for the consideration of an opposition motion standing in the name of Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich—Gulf Islands), the Hon. Jean Charest (Minister of State (Youth), Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Deputy Government House Leader) rose on a point of order to allege that the motion was procedurally unsound in that it might, ipso facto. become an order binding on the Government to introduce legislation on the environmental assessment process, table a policy on safe disposal of hazardous wastes, or take other action of this kind. Other Members also intervened on the matter.^[1] The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Marcel Danis) took the matter under advisement and recognized Ms. Hunter to lead off the debate. Later in the course of the sitting, the Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport) moved an amendment to the opposition motion to the effect that every Government department and agency be required to review its policies, programs, projects and budgets to determine their contribution to sustainable development and that the Government be required to table a strategy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by at least 20 per cent by the year 2005 and to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The Deputy Speaker took the amendment under advisement.^[2] Around 5:10 p.m., the same day, the Deputy Speaker delivered his decision as to the admissibility of the amendment and of the main motion. It is reproduced in extenso below.

Decision of the Chair

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Danis): The honourable Member for Davenport proposed to move an amendment to the motion on the environment which we have been debating throughout the day. I am now prepared to rule on the acceptability of the proposed amendment.

An examination of the wording of the proposed amendment suggests to the Chair that the honourable Member is attempting to expand and add to the proposition envisaged in the original motion.

If I may remind honourable Members of Beauchesne Citation 437(2),^[3] it is not in order by means of an amendment to raise new questions which should be considered as distinct motions moved after proper notice. With regret, I must therefore rule the proposed amendment of the honourable Member for Davenport out of order.

Now to the second ruling. Earlier today, the Deputy Leader of the Government in the House rose to object to the wording of the opposition motion under discussion today on the grounds that a motion which might, if agreed to, become an order binding on the Government, was out of order.

After deliberation, I am ready to rule on the point of order.

Beauchesne Fifth Edition at Citation 412 says:

[…] By its orders the House directs its committees, its members, its officers, the order of its own proceedings and the acts of all persons they concern ;-

It appears to the Chair that there are instances in which the House, in directing "the order of its own proceedings", also gives orders to the Government. Such instances are found in Standing Order 36(8), which directs the Ministry to answer petitions; Standing Order 111(4), which directs a Minister's office to produce documents; and Standing Order 123(1), which specifies that a committee report on delegated legislation, when concurred in, becomes an Order of the House to the Ministry.

The Chair notes that the relevant parts of the motion proposed today involve the introduction of a bill and the tabling of documents, processes which are, at least arguably, parts of the procedure of the House in the same way as the examples cited above. Furthermore, both Speaker Lamoureux, on March 6, 1973 and Speaker Jerome, on November 14, 1975, have expressed strong reluctance to interfere with the freedom of the opposition to choose the motion to be debated on an allotted day.^[4]

For these reasons, I am also reluctant to infringe this freedom, except in the clearest cases of irregularity. I therefore find that this particular motion is in order.

Before closing, however, I wish to advise the House that this decision should not be taken as a precedent by which any opposition motion could order or instruct the Government on a particular course of action. The Chair will continue to examine each motion before the House with close attention as to its form and content, and will not hesitate to rule against any motion that it finds irregular.

F0611-e

34-2

1989-06-08