Rule of Debate / Process of Debate

Motions: denial of unanimous consent

May 27, 2019

Debates, p. 28059

On May 27, 2019, the Speaker made a statement regarding the use of unanimous consent. He reminded members that there are two steps in seeking unanimous consent: first, a member must obtain the consent of the House to move the motion; second, if consent is granted, the member then moves the motion to obtain a decision by the House. The Speaker noted that, pursuant to Standing Order 56.1, there is an expectation that the motion will be read in extenso; however, the Chair may invoke its authority to determine to what extent a motion needs to be read, particularly when the motion is too lengthy or repetitive or it strays into debate.^[1]

Statement of the Chair

The Speaker: I would now like to make a statement regarding the use of unanimous consent in the House in light of recent use of this procedure.

Members are aware and appreciate the fact that, while most decisions of the House are made following the usual process of debate and the putting of a question on a motion, the unanimous consent process offers a viable means for the House to expedite its decision-making. In fact, it is an accepted and effective procedural tool adopted by the House for the benefit of members.

Part of its usefulness, and dare I say success, stems from its simplicity. There are just two steps: First, a member must obtain the consent of members to move the motion, and then, if consent is granted, the member can move the motion to allow a decision by the House.

Inherent in this is the assumption, even expectation, that the wording of the motion will be read in extenso, in its fullness, so that members know exactly what they are being asked to decide. Not only did this become our common practice, but it is even prescribed by our rules when used in the context of Standing Order 56.1.

That said, it also confers on the Chair a certain discretion to determine to what extent a motion needs to be read, particularly when they are unusually lengthy or when multiple motions are presented one after another. On February 6, 2004, Speaker Milliken had cause to state at page 245 of Debates:

I want to say right off that if every member had the right to stand up and ask for consent to move motions and then stood here and read motions all day, no business would be conducted in the House. In my view members do not have such a right. They are asking for consent and if consent is not going to be given, then we cannot have interminable requests for unanimous consent.

The Chair then must seek to safeguard the House against unilateral attempts to repurpose or redefine our procedures. As the Deputy Speaker reminded members as recently as May 17, at page 27989 of Debates:

It is known to be common practice of the House to use the unanimous consent motion approach when there is known agreement among parties for the acceptance of these motions. Nonetheless, I would ask members to refrain from using those opportunities for debate. It is not what they are for.

In other words, requests for unanimous consent are not to be used as a method to thwart the rules of the House or as a dilatory tactic. Therefore, to uphold the integrity of the process, the Chair will continue to invoke its authority, particularly when it becomes clear that the motions are deliberately too lengthy, when they are continuously attempted in a repetitive way or when they stray into the realm of debate.

As Speaker, I am confident that members still expect the process of unanimous consent to be used for its rightful purpose and in the manner in which it was intended, including ensuring that the necessary consultations take place prior to these requests being raised in the House so that the motions can be read in their entirety, as is expected. Although as of late there has been a departure from this, the Chair is committed to working in collaboration with members to restore and preserve this important procedural process.

I thank all hon. members for their attention.

Postscript

On June 3, 2019, Adam Vaughan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development) was denied unanimous consent to move a motion regarding the independence of journalism. The Speaker reminded the House of his statement on May 27, 2019, of the two stages in seeking unanimous consent, reiterating that members are expected to have consulted all parties prior to seeking unanimous consent, and that members may not hear the whole motion when there is clear lack of consent.^[2]

On June 12, 2019, Marilène Gill (Manicouagan) was denied unanimous consent to a move a motion regarding the reading of the daily prayer in the House. The Speaker once again reminded members of the process for seeking unanimous consent. Later in the same sitting, David Sweet (Flamborough—Glanbrook) rose on a point of order concerning the lack of consultation with all parties prior to seeking unanimous consent.^[3] In response, the Deputy Speaker (Bruce Stanton) drew attention to the Speaker’s statement on June 3, 2019, and from earlier that day regarding the manner in which unanimous consent motions would be considered by the House.^[4]