Rules of Debate / Curtailment of Debate

Time allocation: appropriate use; consultations

June 12, 2014

Debates, p. 6717

On May 30, 2014, Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster) rose on a point of order concerning the notice of a time allocation motion on Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act. Mr. Julian stated that the Government had not consulted the New Democratic Party before giving notice of the motion, as required by Standing Order 78(3).^[1] After the point of order, Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment) asked for unanimous consent to have the Bill read a second time and referred to committee. The motion was agreed to. The Deputy Speaker (Joe Comartin) asked Mr. Julian if he would be withdrawing his point of order but Mr. Julian declined.^[2]

On June 2, 2014, Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) stated that the Government had in fact consulted and, finding no agreement between the parties, gave notice of the motion.^[3] The Speaker took the matter under advisement.

Resolution

On June 12, 2014, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He noted that the Chair does not have the authority to rule on whether consultations between parties took place or on what would constitute consultations. He further reminded Members that it was only the House that could determine whether sufficient debate had occurred and therefore whether time allocation should be applied to a bill.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on May 30, 2014, by the House Leader of the Official Opposition regarding the validity of a notice of time allocation with respect to Bill C-17, an Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act.

I would like to thank the House Leader of the Official Opposition for having raised the question, as well as the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the Member for Oxford for their contributions.

The House Leader of the Official Opposition argued that the consultation required pursuant to Standing Order 78(3)^[4] had never taken place and [that] therefore the Chair should rescind the notice for time allocation for Bill C-17. Furthermore, it was his contention that there was no need for the Government to resort to time allocation at all since the Bill had been on the Order Paper for six months, yet had received virtually no debate to date.

The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons confirmed that although the contents of confidential House Leaders’ meetings could not be revealed, agreements had been proposed to the House Leader of the Official Opposition and his staff. Notice of time allocation was then given only once it was evident that no agreement could be reached.

Through this point of order, the Chair is being asked to stand in judgment of two things, the first being whether or not there were consultations such that the conditions of Standing Order 78(3)^[5] were satisfied. The second is whether the time that the House had debated Bill C-17 was sufficient enough to warrant the use of time allocation.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, on pages 669 to 670, states that:

The Speaker has stated that the wording of the rule does not define the nature of the consultations which are to be held by the Minister and representatives of the other parties, and has further ruled that the Chair has no authority to determine whether or not consultation took place nor what constitutes consultation among the representatives of the parties.

As recently as March 6, 2014, the Deputy Speaker addressed this very issue when, on page 3598 of Debates, he reminded the House that:

The nature of the consultation, the quality of the consultation, and the quantity of the consultation [are] not [things] that the Chair will involve himself in. That has been the tradition of this House for many years. What the Chair would have to do, in effect, is conduct an extensive investigative inquiry into the nature of the consultation. That is not our role, nor do the rules require it.

Therefore, it remains a steadfast practice that it is not the role of the Speaker to determine whether consultations have taken place or not.

With respect to the amount of debate a bill must receive before notice of a time allocation motion can be given, the Chair is being asked to render a decision on a matter over which there are no explicit procedural rules or practices, and thus, over which it has no authority. Rather, it is the House that retains that authority and therefore must continue to make that determination as to when and if a bill has received adequate consideration.

Accordingly, notice of time allocation for Bill C-17 was valid when it was given. I thank all Members for their attention.