Precedence and Sequence / Supply Day

Non-confidence

Journals pp. 742-3

Debates pp. 6526-7

Background

When the motion of Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre), seeking increases to old-age and veterans' pensions, had been moved in accordance with the rules as a supply day motion, Mr. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka) rose on a point of order. He stated that while it had been agreed among the House Leaders that this motion would be considered that day as a supply day motion, no agreement had been made that it would also be a non-confidence motion. According to past practice, he claimed, a non-confidence motion was the prerogative of the Official Opposition unless there was an agreement to the contrary. He concluded by stating that this event should not be considered a precedent. After hearing comments from Members, the Speaker ruled.

Issue

Can the Speaker determine whether a supply day motion is one of non-confidence?

Decision

No. The role of the Speaker in the application of the rule on supply day motions is limited. Since the motion had been filed under the terms of a non-confidence motion, it must be accepted in that way.

Reasons given by the Speaker

"... the only way in which the Standing Order can be operated so as to work and make sense is to have agreement between. . . representatives of the parties in the House." In this instance, there has been no agreement and a motion has been presented under the terms of the rules as a non-confidence motion. The only role assigned to the Speaker in the application of rules governing supply day proceedings concerns the determination of precedence when there is one motion sponsored by the Official Opposition and another by a second opposition party. While the Chair has some sympathy for the objection that the motion to be debated does not indicate an expression of non-confidence in the Government, it would be difficult to rule "that this is not properly a non-confidence motion and to treat it as an ordinary motion". The problem deserves to be examined more closely. ". . . perhaps the next time the Chair is presented with a motion which purports to be a non-confidence motion there will be an indication on the part of the Chair that it should clearly be a non-confidence motion rather than an expression of feeling or opinion in the form of a substantive motion or a private Member's resolution such as this one appears to be."

Sources cited

Standing Order 58(4)(b) and (9).

References

Debates, May 4, 1970, pp. 6525-6.