The Legislative Process / Miscellaneous

May 24, 1988

Debates, pp. 15722-3

On May 24, 1988, following a recorded division on the motion for the first reading of Bill C-130 respecting the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops—Shuswap) rose on a point of order regarding the appointment of a day for second reading of a bill. Mr. Riis argued that the question put to the House by the Speaker, “when shall the Bill be read a second time,” to which the House generally agrees “at the next sitting of the House,” is a votable motion on which the House may divide. In a detailed argument in which he cited past practice, Mr. Riis also argued that the motion was both debatable and amendable.^[1] Following comments by other Members,^[2] the Speaker ruled immediately. The text is reproduced in its entirety below.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: First, I want to make it clear to honourable Members exactly what has occurred here. The Honourable Minister of State (Mr. Doug Lewis) has pointed out that there was a vote on concurrence on the matter of the trade Bill and today there were two further votes, one for the introduction of the Bill and a second for first reading

It is also quite accurate that in the first vote the Chair gave what I could refer to as the benefit of the doubt to the Opposition in the interest of order in this place and in the interest of effective procedures. However, I think I pointed out that that was not necessarily a precedent.^[3]

The honourable Member for Kamloops—Shuswap has raised a matter that I must say had not gone unnoticed by the Chair some days ago. Therefore, I have had a chance to consider it with care. Let me say, however, and with some degree of admiration, that the argument put forward by the honourable Member for Kamloops—Shuswap was thorough and rooted deep in history. It was succinct and a credit to the honourable Member, and of assistance to other honourable Members who wish to respond to it.

The honourable Member for Windsor West (Mr. Herb Gray) has added somewhat to that argument and I am indebted to him for his remarks. Of course, I appreciate the comments of the honourable Minister of State.

I was able to scribble a few notes during the noon break, I believe in anticipation of most of the argument of the honourable Member for Kamloops—Shuswap. I shall refer partly to these notes in the interest of clarity.

First, I might say that the honourable Member for Kamloops—Shuswap has raised a matter which one could say has rarely been raised in many, many years. I should point out to the honourable Member that while I have looked carefully at the passage in Bourinot, the cases upon which that passage is based go back well over 100 years. The honourable Member for Kamloops—Shuswap has made that very clear.^[4]

When I say that it has rarely been raised in many, many years, it is because I have not been able to find any instance of it being raised, save one single instance a few years ago. I bring that to honourable Members’ attention.

This occurred on January 19, 1984, when Speaker Francis was in the chair. He was responding to a matter raised by the then honourable Member for Yukon. He commented on some argument that had been put forward. He then went on to say, with respect to Citation 722 of Beauchesne [Fifth Edition], which, as honourable Members will remember, takes a different position from the Bourinot citation of many years before:

The Chair has, however, relied on Citation 722 of Beauchesne, which reads:

I am now quoting what was read by Speaker Francis:

Appointment for Second Reading

When the House has agreed to the first reading of a bill, the Speaker at once proceeds to ask: “When shall the bill be read a second time?” The answer is generally: “At the next sitting of the House.” The bill is placed on the Order Paper, in its proper place, for a second reading at a future time. It is purely formal and is proposed with the object of placing the bill on the agenda for a second reading at which time all discussion can more regularly and conveniently take place.^[5]

I quote that not to say that it is an observation with extensive reasoning to it. It is not. However, it is the only citation that I have been able to find which indicates in contemporary times what any Speaker of this place has thought with respect to the distinction between Bourinot and Beauchesne. There at least is some guidance. Clearly, Speaker Francis at that point is making the point that the procedure is purely a formal one.

The honourable Member for Kamloops—Shuswap made several observations in the course, as I said, of his excellent argument in which he said that just because this practice as enunciated by Bourinot has not been followed for many decades is no particular reason that it ought not to be followed today.

I am reminded of Dean Swift when he said that lawyers are a race of men among us who believe that anything that has been done before may legally be done again. I think it is always important not to get caught up in that adage too closely.

However, certainly the honourable Member for Kamloops—Shuswap starts off on sound ground because he cites precedents. I have not been able to go back to look at those precedents in the context. What I think is common ground here is that whatever the practice may have been then, and I think that the honourable Member for Kamloops—Shuswap acknowledged this, as he said, it has fallen into disuse. He also said that there is no precedent that extinguishes the right of a Member to force a division or, indeed, to go on to proceed during a debate and then to amendment.

It would seem, at least at the moment, that what the honourable Member says is so. However, the difficulty of the Chair in a case such as this is that if a practice has so fallen into disuse that it is not in the minds and in the contemplation of Members on either side of the House when the particular form—and that is of course what Beauchesne says it is—is followed, then the question is whether it is a better course of wisdom for the Speaker to reach back too far to pick something out of the mists of time to say that suddenly, without any particular expectation, it applies. I must say that that is a practice that I would not want to take part in unless I had some very clear direction from all sides of the House that, indeed, some ancient practice ought to be reinstituted and ought to be part of the consideration of the House at all times.

I have to say to the honourable Member for Kamloops—Shuswap that to proceed to take the Bourinot quote and apply it, to leap-frog it, if I can put it that way, chronologically, ahead of and in a position of greater importance that the Beauchesne quote, especially when we have at least a nod toward Beauchesne on the part of a recent Speaker of this House, would not be in the interests of procedural wisdom in this place.

However, it is one of those arguments which is of great interest. It may well be that honourable Members may wish to discuss it further. It may well be that honourable Members might want to agree together that some change may be made. In the absence of a very clear direction from this House I do not think it would be appropriate today under these circumstances to apply what may well be a ruling that was appropriate over 100 years ago to the matter that is in front of us today.

I thank very much the honourable Member for Kamloops—Shuswap and those who may have assisted him in his argument. I thank the honourable Member for Windsor West, and I thank the honourable Minister of State.

F0511-e

33-2

1988-05-24