The Daily Program / Routine Proceedings

Motions: unanimous consent refused, same motion moved under Standing Order 56.1

Debates, p. 7774

Context

On June 8, 1998, during Government Orders, Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt) rose on a point of order and requested the unanimous consent of the House to move that the application of Standing Orders 57 (closure) and 78(3) (time allocation) be suspended until the end of the session. Unanimous consent was given and the motion was moved and adopted.[1] The following day, Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) requested unanimous consent to move a motion revoking the order adopted on June 8, 1998. Consent was refused. During Routine Proceedings the government House leader moved the same motion, but this time under Standing Order 56.1. A debate ensued on whether the motion was in order. Some members objected to the use of Standing Order 56.1 to revoke a substantive motion and introduce a motion that has nothing to do with Routine Proceedings.[2] The Speaker ruled immediately.

Resolution

The Speaker, on the basis of two precedents, ruled that the motion was in order. The first precedent involved legislation requiring the return to work of postal employees and the second provided for a special debate on Canada’s possible participation in a military action in the Middle East (the Gulf War). The Speaker urged the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to look into the matter and provide the Speaker and the House with clearer guidelines on the use of Standing Order 56.1.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: The House leader for the Conservative Party makes a very interesting point as does the opposition House leader.

I point out to the House that it would be one thing to go with the strict wording of this rule. However a motion was put on February 19, 1998, which perhaps went beyond the scope of the wording and it went through the House.[3] On December 1, 1997, a motion pursuant to Standing Order 56.1(1) was put and it went through the House.[4]

My interpretation of both of those motions is that we cannot pick and choose on the way through. Those two motions went through before and they seemed to go somewhat beyond the scope of the wording, and at that time no one raised a voice of objection.

I am loath to interfere at any time like this. I would rule that because of these other two motions that went through as precedents, I will allow this one to go through. I would strongly urge the Committee on Procedure to perhaps take this up again and to give direction more clearly to the House and the Speaker. I am going to allow this Standing Order 56.1 to stand.

Postscript

The Speaker then put the motion to the House. More than 25 members having risen, the motion revoking the order of June 8 was deemed withdrawn, pursuant to Standing Order 56.1(3).[5] On June 12, 1998, during Routine Proceedings, by unanimous consent, the House adopted Government Business No. 15 which, among other provisions, rescinded the order of the House of June 8, 1998 concerning Standing Orders 57 and 78(3 ).[6]

P0305-e

36-1

1998-06-09

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] Journals, June 8, 1998, p. 948, Debates, pp. 7737-8.

[2] Journals, June 9, 1998,p. 954, Debates, p. 7773.

[3] Journals, February 19, 1998, p. 506, Debates, p. 4146.

[4] Journals, December 1, 1997, p. 290, Debates, p. 2471, 2508.

[5] Debates, June 9, 1998, p. 7774.

[6] Journals, June 12, 1998, p. 1027, Debates, p. 8112.