The Decision-Making Process / Unanimous Consent

Alleged abuse pointed out; withdrawal of a Government Order and ensuing amendments

October 22, 1990

Debates, pp. 14509-10

On October 18, 1990, the House completed the debate on Government Motion No. 16 (invasion of Kuwait by Iraq) as well as the amendment and subamendment pertaining to it. Pursuant to an order made earlier that day, the recorded divisions were deferred to October 23, 1990.^[1] On October 19, 1990, Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) obtained unanimous consent for the withdrawal of the Government motion, as well as the amendment and the subamendment, so that anew resolution could be introduced, and to apply the order of Thursday, October 18, 1990, regarding deferred recorded division.^[2]

On Monday, October 22, 1990, Mr. Marcel Prud’homme (Saint-Denis) rose on a point of order to object to the decision taken the preceding Friday. Mr. Prud’homme argued that this was an abuse of parliamentary process, since the Members would be called upon to vote on a motion different from the one they had debated. Other Members also intervened on the matter.^[3] The Speaker ruled immediately. His decision is reproduced in full below.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: The honourable Member for Saint-Denis, who is one of the most senior Members here, has risen on a matter and is supported by the honourable Member for Burnaby—Kingsway (Mr. Svend Robinson) on [a] matter which I think is very serious indeed. I think it is serious because debate took place on a motion, the vote was deferred, and honourable Members expected to be voting on the motion that was debated. For reasons that we do not need to go into, by consent, the motion was changed. That means that honourable Members will go to vote on a different motion than that which was debated. I very much regret this.

The honourable Member for Saint-Denis has said that an abuse of Parliament by consent is just as much an abuse. We are at a time when the country is watching this institution very closely. Much of what the country sees, it is not happy with. All of us are going to have to make a much greater effort to give an example that is in keeping with the great tradition of this place, in keeping with the history of it, and in keeping with what I think most of us want this place to be in the hearts and minds of Canadians.

The honourable Member for Burnaby—Kingsway has stated correctly that the House can by consent do what it wishes. The reason that that is so is because ultimately this is the place where the people of Canada have sent all of us to do what we think is in the best interest of the country. If the House agrees and there is consent, then no matter what other rules we may have or whatever customs we may have, we can abridge those to do what the whole House consents to do.

There may have been, and there may well be, sound reasons under the circumstances where it was felt by some that it may have been in the national interest to change the motion. I do not want to get into that side of the debate. What I have to say to honourable Members is that, in my view, what happened was improper and an abuse. I am not in a position to change it, but I view it as a very serious matter. However, I want Members to know, and I want the public to know, that it was done by consent and we are now all bound by it. I would hope that not again for a long, long time, if ever, would honourable Members, such as the honourable Member for Saint-Denis, the honourable Member for Burnaby—Kingsway, or others have to rise to complain about an event which, while procedurally proper because of the consent, in my opinion, ought not to have happened.

On October 23, 1990, immediately after the prayers, the Speaker stated that his comments regarding the point of order raised by Mr. Prud’homme meant no reflection whatsoever on the House or the House leadership. He admitted that he probably went further than a Speaker should and reminded Members that the House can do by consent what it wishes to do.^[4]

F0415-e

34-2

1990-10-22