The Decision-Making Process / Motions and Amendments

Motion: Government motion urging a legislature to take a certain action; encroachment on an area of provincial jurisdiction; admissibility

June 19, 1990

Debates, pp. 12965-7

On June 19, 1990, Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops) rose on a point of order to ask the Speaker to rule on the admissibility of a Government motion urging the legislatures of Manitoba and Newfoundland to ratify the Meech Lake Accord. In Mr. Riis’s opinion, the motion was out of order because it encroached on an area of jurisdiction exclusive to the legislatures of the provinces in question. Other Members also intervened on the matter.^[1] The Speaker ruled immediately on the admissibility of the Government notice of motion. His decision is reproduced in extenso below.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: The honourable Member for Kamloops has raised a matter of interest.

So that all honourable Members can fully understand what is placed in front of the Chair, I draw their attention to the Order Paper and Notice Paper wherein the government has indicated by notice of motion placed on the Order Paper…, although it has not been called for debate yet, a resolution relating to the constitutional accord and the results of the discussions of a week or so ago.

I will not read the whole preamble, but I will read the substantive part, which is the basis of the complaint brought to us by the honourable Member for Kamloops. It reads:

…the House…

That is, this House of Commons.

…urges the Manitoba and Newfoundland Legislative Assemblies to exert efforts to bring about full ratification of the Constitution Amendment…

The honourable Member has said that this ought to be ruled out of order because, in one way or another, it seems to trespass into the realm, the area, or the jurisdiction of another legislative assembly within the Canadian Confederation, within our federal system.

First of all, he has put forward to the Chair one citation of Erskine May and another, I think, in Beauchesne Fifth Edition, if my memory is serving me correct.

I would point out to begin with that if we try to take Erskine May or even Beauchesne, if it is referring back into British practice, we are dealing there with comments which involve the appropriateness of the British House of Commons debating what is a subject matter of debate in the House of Lords.

What is being asked for here by the government, although as I say the government may not even call it, but that is not for me to say, is that this House urges the Manitoba and Newfoundland legislative assemblies to do something.

The question is whether or not that is an inappropriate trespass into the jurisdiction of another legislature.

It is not the first time this has happened, and I draw attention to the motion in 1984 which, if memory serves me correctly, was urged upon the government of the day by Members. It related to a matter which was divisive in the nation and in the province of Manitoba. I quote the motion.

It is true, as the honourable Member has pointed out, that it was done by unanimous consent. That is of interest, but I do not think that it is a matter that takes away from this precedent. I quote: “The House urges the government of Manitoba to persist in its efforts to fulfil the constitutional obligations of the province and protect effectively the rights of its French-speaking minority”.

It goes on: “The House urges the legislative assembly of Manitoba to consider such resolution and legislation in an urgent manner so as to ensure they finally pass it.”^[2]

We are not a unitary state as is the United Kingdom. We are a federal state. Under the British North America Act, which brought in our constitutional position in 1867, property and civil rights and a number of matters were given to the provinces and other matters were retained by the House of Commons and the Parliament of Canada.

So it is absolutely true, as the honourable Member points out, that within the provincial legislatures there are a number of matters that are the exclusive jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures across the country and of course that has to be respected.

The issue here is whether a motion like this is a trespass into the debate of another legislature. The motion relates to something which is absolutely fundamental to the whole nation and is just as important at the provincial level as at the federal level because it concerns the amendment of the Constitution of our country. It is not something that is exclusively related to the jurisdiction of a provincial government.

Even if it was, and I point out that distinction, what is being asked for here is nothing more or less than an expression of this federal House on a matter of great national interest in which it says:

…the House urges the Manitoba and Newfoundland Legislative Assemblies to exert efforts to bring about full ratification of the Constitution Amendment…

It is not for me to say what reaction there may be in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the province of Manitoba if the House decided to do this, but I have to say on a procedural basis that it is very hard to be persuaded that that is some kind of a jurisdictional trespass into the appropriate workings of a provincial legislature.

As I say, this is a national issue. If the House of Commons chooses to express itself on a matter of national import—and it has in the past done so—I would think that it would be inappropriate for me to rule that it cannot do so.

I also want to bring to Members’ attention the debate of 1987 to which the honourable parliamentary secretary (Mr. Albert Cooper) referred, in which there was a motion from the New Democratic Party debated on an opposition allotted day which stated: “That this House calls upon the Government of British Columbia to cooperate in setting aside the South Moresby area of the Queen Charlotte Islands as a National Park Reserve”. It goes on.

That particular motion was debated in this House. Some honourable Members will remember there was such unanimity within the Chamber on it that long before the day that had been allotted for the full debate was over, at the suggestion of the then honourable Member for Winnipeg—Birds Hill (Mr. Bill Blaikie) and the then Minister of the Environment for the Government of Canada (Hon. Tom McMillan), the motion was put to the House at that point and the motion was passed.^[3] Debate then continued, but it was a unique and unusual day; there is no question about that.

I must say that that motion did have an effect outside this Chamber. It had an effect in terms of the province of British Columbia, the province from which I come. Of course, there was an effect.

Again, what the House did here was call upon the Government of British Columbia “to cooperate in setting aside”. One could say that that did not call upon the legislative assembly. Perhaps not, but it is a very direct plea from this House to a legislative assembly in a province to do something.

I think I have to take the position that it is not an invasion into the jurisdiction of another legislature. There is a difference here which probably distinguishes the case from those set out in Beauchesne or in Erskine May because this is a federal state, not a unitary state.

Third, it has clearly been done before not just once in a while but quite often. Some Members who have been here for some time will remember that it has been customary. It has happened again and again that Members have risen in the House and urged the government of the day, whatever government it might have been, to make a public statement on matters of great national importance, and invited the government of the day to put motions to this House in order to make such a statement.

The honourable Member for Kamloops raises a point which causes me concern, and that is that this process, if abused, may very well cause some difficulties and some resentment in some places. That is of course a political question, not a procedural one, and it is not for me to rule on that, but I have listened carefully to the point.

F0403-e

34-2

1990-06-19