The Legislative Process / Stages
Consideration in committee: motions of instruction; empowering a committee to expand the scope of a bill
Debates, p. 12576
Context
On March 31, 2015, Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) rose on a point of order with regard to a motion of instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security moved by Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster) to grant the Committee the power to expand the scope of Bill C-51, An Act to enact the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act and the Secure Air Travel Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts. The Government House Leader argued that the motion, in seeking to have the Committee establish new charges upon the Crown, would require a royal recommendation, and he thus asked the Speaker to rule the motion out of order because it infringed the financial prerogative of the Crown. Other Members also contributed to the discussion.[1]
Resolution
The Speaker delivered his ruling immediately. The Speaker determined that the motion of instruction was permissive rather than prescriptive, thus allowing the Committee to decide if and how it would exercise powers granted to it by the House. He stated that the Chair should not prejudge how the Committee may proceed and that the Committee would remain limited by the rules related to the financial prerogative of the Crown. That being the case, the Speaker declared the motion in order and allowed debate to proceed.
Decision of the Chair
The Speaker: I thank all hon. Members for their interventions on this point. I thank the hon. Government House Leader for raising it.
As I read the motion of instruction, it does seem to me to be a permissive instruction; it is not a prescriptive instruction—that is, telling the Committee exactly how to accomplish the aims of it. Were the motion to be adopted, it would be up to the Committee to decide if it wished to exercise the powers given to it by the House and how it would do so.
What is clear to me is that, in widening the scope of the Bill, the Committee would still be limited by the other rules of admissibility in relation to amendments, including Standing Order 79.[2] Clearly in that regard, the Committee cannot adopt an amendment that violates the financial prerogatives of the Crown. However, it may well be that the Committee may find a way to accomplish the goals stated in the motion of instruction without infringing on the Royal Recommendation.
I do not believe the Chair should prejudge what steps the Committee may take. Even though the Government House Leader was making arguments about what public statements may have been made, I do not know that that would put the Chair in a position to rule this out of order just based on those statements alone. As I said, it may well be that the Committee would find other ways to accomplish what is set out in the motion without infringing on the Royal Recommendation.
For that reason, I believe the motion is in order, and I will allow it to proceed.
Postscript
During debate on the motion, Peter Kent (Thornhill) moved that the debate be adjourned. That motion was adopted and no further consideration was given to the motion of instruction.[3]
Some third-party websites may not be compatible with assistive technologies. Should you require assistance with the accessibility of documents found therein, please contact accessible@parl.gc.ca.
[1] Debates, March 31, 2015, pp. 12571–6.
[2] See Appendix A, “Cited Provisions: Standing Orders of the House of Commons”, Standing Order 79.
[3] Debates, March 31, 2015, pp. 12580–2.