Rules of Debate / Questions and Comments Period

Moving of superseding motion following twenty-minute speech: effect on Questions and Comments Period

February 2, 1990

Debates, p. 7780

On January 31, 1990, during debate on an amendment to the motion for second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Finance of Bill C-62, respecting the Goods and Services Tax (GST), Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan­Similkameen-Merritt) concluded his twenty-minute speech by moving "That this House do now adjourn." The motion was subsequently defeated on a recorded division and the Acting Speaker (Hon. Andrée Champagne) called for the resumption of debate.

On a point of order, Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East) noted that as the Member had moved his motion at the end of his twenty minutes of remarks, there remained a ten-minute Questions and Comments Period. In her initial comments, the Acting Speaker stated that the point of order left the Chair in a quandary. By moving the adjournment of the House, the Member left the Chair with the conclusion that the Member did not wish to continue debate and, therefore, with the defeat of the motion the Chair had recognized another Member. However, after interventions by a number of Members, the Acting Speaker decided to take the matter under advisement and report back to the House.^[1] In the interim, the House resumed debate: The Acting Speaker delivered her ruling on February 2, 1990. The decision is reproduced in extenso below.

Decision of the Chair

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne): Last Wednesday, January 31, the honourable Member for Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt concluded his remarks in debate on second reading of Bill C-62, by moving that the House do now adjourn. That motion was subsequently defeated on a recorded division.

When debate was resumed on the Bill, the honourable Member for Edmonton East rose on a point of order to suggest that the House was still entitled to the opportunity to proceed to the ten-minute Questions and Comments Period on the honourable Member's speech.

The honourable Member for Churchill (Mr. Rod Murphy) and the honourable Member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca (Mr. David Barrett) have argued that the right to proceed with the ten-minute Questions and Comments Period is the prerogative of the House, not that of the Member who has just ended his remarks.

After listening to arguments the Chair deferred ruling on the point of order to check precedents and past practices and then recognized the honourable Member for Calgary West (Mr. Jim Hawkes).

The Chair indicated as well that the House would be allowed the ten-minute period if the point of order raised by the honourable Member for Edmonton East were deemed to be legitimate.

The Chair is now prepared to offer a ruling. According to Standing Order 74(2), following the speeches of Members speaking twenty minutes on the second reading of a bill, a period of ten minutes, if required, is provided for questions and comments. The rule does not mention any qualification which would prevent the House from claiming this ten minutes.

By practice, however, it has been established that if proceedings are interrupted before the ten-minute period is reached or exhausted and the Member is not present in the House when debate is resumed, the Chair will recognize the next Member seeking the floor. It is also true that there have been occasions when Members moved superseding motions that were negatived only to have the House carry on to another Member who was recognized without a claim being made for the ten-minute Questions and Comments Period.

On the other hand the House has frequently claimed its right to the ten-minute period, after Members have moved amendments to the motion for second reading or motions to extend the sitting in order to prolong the debate and the claim has not been denied.

However our research uncovered the fact that during second reading debate on a bill on March 14 and 15, 1985, the honourable Member for Vancouver­ Kingsway, now Member for Port Moody—Coquitlam (Mr. Ian Waddell), moved the adjournment of the House. The motion was defeated in the ensuing vote. When debate resumed the following day the honourable Member asked for a ten-minute Questions and Comments Period. Speaker Bosley ruled that the fact that the honourable Member had concluded his remarks by moving a dilatory motion did not prevent the House from proceeding with the ten-minute period.^[2]

In the case now under consideration, which is practically a repeat performance of the precedent I have just referred to, the Chair must keep previous practice in mind and allow a ten-minute period when second reading debate on Bill C-62 resumes, if the honourable Member for Okanagan­ Similkameen-Merritt is in the House to respond.

The Chair would like to thank all Members for their understanding and for giving the Chair the necessary time to do some research and some reflection on this very technical point before rendering its decision.

On February 5, 1990, the House resumed consideration of Bill C-62 with the Chair recognizing the Member for Calgary West for debate. On February 6, the House once again took up consideration of the Bill at the beginning of Government Orders. On a point of order, the Member for Thunder Bay—Atikokan (Mr. Jain Angus) referred to the ruling of February 2 and, noting that the Member for Okanagan-Simikameen-Merritt was in the House, asked that the Questions and Comments Period for the Member proceed. The Acting Speaker (Hon. Steven Paproski) ruled that since the Member for Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt had not been in the House the next time debate on the Bill had resumed, specifically on February 5, the opportunity for questions and comments had been lost.^[3]

F0707-e

34-2

1990-02-02