Precedence and Sequence / Superseding Motion

Superseding motion (adjournment); final supply day

Debates pp. 2624-5

Background

When Mr. Drury (President of the treasury Board) moved that Bill C-166 relating to Supplementary Estimates for the financial year ending March 31,1973, be read a second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole, several Members, including Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) and Mr. Nielsen (Yukon), raised a point of order because some circulated copies of the bill did not contain a deletion voted by the House earlier that day. At the same time, Mr. Woolliams (Calgary North) pointed out the difficulty of being obliged to consider a bill in all its stages by the end of the sitting when no Member had had an opportunity to read a copy of it. Rising again, Mr. Nielsen further suggested that the Government resign in view of its defeat on an item of supply. Shortly afterwards, Mr. Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate) proposed to move "That this House do now adjourn". After the Speaker had offered a ruling, Mr. Lundrigan went on to charge that the House should have adjourned as soon as the Government was defeated and that it was now sitting illegally.

Issue

Can a motion to adjourn be accepted when supply business must be concluded during that sitting?

Decision

A motion to adjourn is not in order on such occasions unless it is proposed by a Minister of the Crown.

Reasons given by the Speaker

It is not the business of the Chair to rule on points of constitutional law or to claim that the Government must resign. The issue of government resignation is not a point of order. As to the proposed motion itself, the rules are clear in stipulating that the House shall not be adjourned when it is considering business that must be disposed of or concluded in any sitting except by a motion to adjourn proposed by a Minister of the Crown.

Sources cited

Standing Order 6(4).

References

Debates, March 26, 1973, pp. 2622-4.