Arranging the Business of the House / Miscellaneous

October 11, 1990

Debates, p. 14030

On October 11, 1990, Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa—Vanier) rose on a question of privilege respecting the notice of time allocation which had been given the previous day^[1] pursuant to Standing Order 78(3) by the Government, with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-84, An Act respecting the privatization of the national petroleum company of Canada. In his submission, Mr. Gauthier, by citing Standing Order 78 in its entirety, argued that the necessary prerequisite to giving notice under Standing Order 78(3) was the fact that the Government had to have made an attempt to consult and find agreement under parts (1) and (2) of the Standing Order. He contended that this attempt at consultation and agreement had not taken place and asked accordingly that the notice be ruled null and void. In response, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Mr. Albert Cooper) made the point that the wording of the Standing Order mentions “agreement” but does not lay out the process to be followed. He then claimed that there had been several attempts, both publicly and privately, to proceed with discussions. Other Members commented on the matter. The Speaker expressed his concern about the wording of the rule and invited further interventions on this narrow point. He then reserved his decision,^[2] and returned to the House later that day to deliver the ruling.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: The honourable Member for Ottawa—Vanier rose earlier this morning on a question of privilege concerning whether or not the honourable Minister (Hon. John McDermid, Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affaires)) had given valid notice pursuant to the provisions of sections 78(1), 78(2) and 78(3) of the Standing Orders relating to time allocation.

The honourable Minister said “I am informed that to date agreement has not been reached under the provisions,” et cetera. I point out that he also said “we will try to get an agreement with the opposition parties on a reasonable length of time”.

There has been considerable discussion this morning with respect to what is or what is not required under the Standing Order in terms of consultation or exchange of views between the Government and others in the Chamber.

I want it clearly understood that my ruling today does not turn in anyway, or on any particular, on any of the comments that were made during arguments as to the question of discussions between, or lack of discussions between, anybody in this Chamber at all.

My ruling does not take anything away from rulings of past Speakers, and especially my ruling of some months ago, in March I think of last year. It made it very clear that under the rules it is not for the Speaker to go behind the statement of the Minister and try to make a factual ruling as to whether or not discussions were adequate or inadequate or, for that matter, try to strain the rules and to try to give an interpretation that substitutes for the plain wording of the rule.

I have also indicated that it might be in the interests of the House that the entire rule was looked at again, reconsidered, and perhaps redrafted.

The rule I am bound by, and this place lives by the rule of law, is the plain words of [Standing Order] 78(3) and it states:

(3) A Minister of the Crown who from his or her place in the House, at a previous sitting, has stated an agreement could not be reached—

It sometimes happens that when one has to try to interpret what is meant by words, some guidance or some difference shows up between the English and the French. There is, in my opinion, absolutely no difference whatsoever in the meaning of those words either in English or in French.

As I have pointed out, the honourable Minister said: “I have been informed to date that agreement has not been reached.” I find on this very narrow ground, but one which I cannot ignore as your Speaker because it is clearly there in the rules, that the Minister should have said “could not be reached.” That is what is required under the [rules] and, as a consequence, I have to rule that the notice given yesterday is not valid. Of course, it is for the Government to decide whether it wishes to give the notice again.

On October 22, 1990, the Government gave notice of its intention to apply allocation of time to the second reading stage of Bill C-84.^[3]

F0204-e

34-2

1990-10-11