Financial Procedures / Supply

Allotted day: adjournment of the House prior to the consideration of the business of Supply

December 4, 1986

Debates, pp. 1811-2

On December 4, 1986, Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops—Shuswap) rose on a point of order to oppose the Government's insistence that the sitting of December 3 had been an opposition day, despite the fact that the House had adjourned at 6:00 p.m. before reaching Orders of the Day and, more precisely, the opposition motion. Mr. Riis argued that no opposition day had occurred and that there were two allotted days left in the Supply period. Other Members intervened on the matter.^[1] The Speaker reserved his decision until later in the sitting. It is reproduced in extenso below.

Decision of the Chair

Mr. Speaker: This morning the Chair heard a point of order regarding the status of the allotted days for the current supply period, and the effect of yesterday's proceedings on the supply motion that was to be debated and voted on yesterday.

The House will remember that at 3 p.m. yesterday the Chair heard comments at length on an alleged question of privilege before taking the matter under advisement. Accordingly, Routine Proceedings were delayed and the House was still considering Routine Proceedings when it adjourned at six p.m. I will go through the details of that in a moment.

I have reviewed the precedent referred to by the honourable Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Doug Lewis). The events in that precedent were as follows. First, on Wednesday, June 6, 1972, the sixth and seventh allotted days for that period were designated to occur on Thursday, June 8, 1972, and Friday, June 9, 1972. Second, the Notice Paper shows a notice of motion of supply for Thursday, June 8, 1972. Third, on June 8, 1972, the House began Routine Proceedings and debate ensued on a motion under the then Standing Order 43. Fourth, at 10 o'clock p.m., when the House adjourned it was still considering the motion under Routine Proceedings. The order for supply was not reached or called on June 8, 1972. Fifth, the Order Paper for June 9, 1972, shows under the continuing order of supply: "the sixth allotted day" with the same motion on the Notice Paper and an additional motion.

At this point it is important to note that since the order for supply was not reached on June 8, it reappeared still as the sixth allotted day on Friday, June 9, 1972. It was not a lost allotted day because the order had not been called.

The sequence of events yesterday was as follows: When Question Period ended, there was an alleged question of privilege. Debate on this lasted from three o'clock to 4:30 p.m. This was followed by a statement by the honourable Minister of Employment and Immigration (Hon. Benoit Bouchard) which, including replies, lasted 10 minutes. The House then moved under Routine Proceedings to petitions. There were petitions presented. During the presentation of petitions, the honourable Member for Kamloops—Shuswap moved: "That the House do now proceed to Orders of the Day." That occurred at about 5 p.m.

As honourable Members know, if this motion had passed the House would have gone to Orders of the Day and the opposition motion would have been called at about 20 minutes to 6, which is the time the vote on the motion of the honourable Member for Kamloops—Shuswap was completed. At that point the allotted day would have commenced. However, the motion to proceed to Orders of the Day was defeated and the House continued with Routine Proceedings which were then at the petition stage.

The honourable Member for Churchill (Mr. Rod Murphy) rose, presented a petition, and moved: "That the House do now proceed to Introduction of Bills". That motion is non-debatable. A division was called for. Before the vote could take place, the ordinary time of daily adjournment was reached and the Deputy Speaker lapsed the motion. I am not ruling on that aspect at this time. It was raised and I will return to the Chamber to discuss that.

However, I repeat that before the vote could take place the ordinary time of daily adjournment was reached and the Deputy Speaker lapsed the motion. The day was then done. In the words of the old hymn: "The day thou gavest Lord, had ended." Consequently, I must rule that the allotted day was never in fact commenced and, therefore, two allotted days remain in the current period.

The Chair wants honourable Members to understand that it is not for the Chair to comment on how or on whose motions the day ended as it did, only that it did end without the allotted day having commenced.

F0610-e

33-2

1986-12-04