The Decision-Making Process / Moving Motions

Concurrence motion: absence of sponsoring Minister

December 5, 2012

Debates, p. 12908

On December 5, 2012, Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley) rose on a point of order with regard to the legitimacy of the vote on the motion for concurrence at report stage of Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, which took place at the previous sitting. Mr. Cullen objected that the sponsoring Minister, Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance) had been absent from the Chamber at the time the motion was moved and argued that a motion is not duly moved if the mover is not present and, that being the case, asked that the vote on the motion be revoked and a legitimate one be held. After hearing from other Members, the Speaker took the matter under advisement.^[1]

Resolution

Later that day, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He acknowledged that the Minister was not present to move his motion and that neither the staff nor the Chair noticed his absence. He added that it was a minor oversight and explained that practice allows for substitution for the name of the sponsoring Minister with the name of another Minister who is present in the Chamber since the progress of Government bills is seen as the collective will of Cabinet. Consequently, he ruled that the vote on concurrence at report stage was valid and that the debate at third reading of the Bill could proceed.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: The Chair is now prepared to rule on the point of order raised a few moments ago by the House Leader of the Official Opposition with regard to the manner in which the motion for concurrence at report stage of Bill C-45 was moved yesterday evening.

I have looked into how events transpired last night and can report to the House that there was indeed a clerical oversight in the moving of the motion for concurrence at report stage. However, Members will know that our practices do provide for this.

As is stated at page 440 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition:

A government bill standing on the Order Paper in one Minister’s name may be moved on his or her behalf by another Minister since the bill is considered an initiative of the entire Cabinet.

Members will know that it routinely happens that sponsoring ministers are not present when their bills are either introduced or are proceeding through the various stages of the legislative process. When that is the case, staff assisting the Speaker with forms will note the absence, insert the name of another Minister, and the Chair carries on, indicating that one Minister is moving a motion on behalf of another.

Last night, the staff had duly noted the Minister of Finance as moving the motion for concurrence, but when the time came to move the motion last evening, the Minister had stepped out, and neither the staff nor the Chair noticed his absence, nor, might I say, was that raised by any Member.

This kind of occurrence is, in my view, a minor oversight. It is our practice to consider that this progress of Government bills represents the will of the Cabinet. I will again refer the House to page 440 of O’Brien and Bosc. One Minister is often cited by the Chair as moving a motion for the sponsoring minister who is absent.

That is how events are recorded in Journals, since the absence of the Minister was drawn to the Table’s attention after the fact by a Member. As it usually does, the Table followed our practice and the Journals were drafted to indicate that the Government House Leader, who we knew to have been present, had moved the motion for the Minister of Finance.

Accordingly, at this time I cannot find in favour of the Opposition House Leader. I find that the House can proceed with debate on third reading of Bill C-45.