July 7, 1969

PROCEDURE

NEW PROVISIONS RESPECTING DEBATING TIME

IND

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Independent

Mr. Speaker:

Order. A point of order was raised yesterday by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) in respect of a notice of motion in the name of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) dealing with proposed amendments to the Standing Orders of the house. Other hon. members, including the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) supported the contention that the minister's motion should not be accepted by the Chair for purposes of transfer to government orders pursuant to Standing Order 21. The President of the Privy Council argued in support of the government's position. At the conclusion of the procedural debate I undertook to study the arguments advanced in the course of the discussion and to make an early ruling.

Stated briefly, the problem is whether the government can set down a motion that follows substantially the terms of a committee report presented to the house, but the concurrence of which has not yet been moved by the committee chairman. I must remind hon. members that the Speaker can only rule on points of order and questions of procedure. The decision to be made at this time is whether it is procedurally in order to transfer the minister's motion for debate. During the discussion yesterday serious questions of principle were raised by hon. members who questioned the propriety of a government motion which, if proceeded with, might in effect block the discussion of a motion to concur in the report of a standing committee.

It has been suggested that the government's motion as it now stands is in contempt of the house; and that the Chair, on its own initiative, should determine that the house will consider the proposed rules changes within the framework of the committee report rather than under the heading of the proposed motion. 1 am not convinced that the question

terms.

Generally speaking, hon. members who have taken part in the procedural argument in opposition to the government, have based their objections on the rule of anticipation. It is of interest to note that while the British practice in reference to this rule is sufficiently clear, the same cannot be said about Canadian precedents where attempts have been made to apply the rule to our own Canadian practice. The difficulty stems from the fact that the British Commons' standing orders include a specific rule on this subject. Standing Order 11 of the British House of Commons is as follows:

In determining whether a discussion is out of order on the ground of anticipation, regard shall be had by Mr. Speaker to the probability of the matter anticipated being brought before the house within a reasonable time.

In our own house, we have attempted over the years to develop a practice which has no support in our own standing order and where British precedents are not always relevant. If hon. members will study May's definition of the rule, they will see that the rule relates to discussion or debate of a matter already set down, and not to the setting down itself of an item of business on the order paper.

Campion's third edition, at page 180, indicates that the anticipation rule applies to the discussion by anticipation of an order already set down by the house. But, there is nothing in our rules and no precedent in Canadian parliamentary practice to prevent the setting down of more than one bill or motion dealing with the same subject. No precedents have been quoted by hon. members who took part in yesterday's procedural debate that could support the contention that the minister's motion cannot appear on the order paper along with a notice of motion to be moved in similar terms by a committee chairman.

What we are concerned with at the moment is whether the minister's notice of motion can be transferred for debate under government orders. Standing Order 21 is perfectly clear on this point. The rule is as follows:

When any other government notice of motion is called from the Chair, it shall be deemed to have been forthwith transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders in the same or at the next sitting of the House.

External Affairs

Once the motion has been transferred for debate under government orders it becomes the government's decision and the government's responsibility to decide whether it will proceed with its motion. It is at that point that the anticipation rule might become operative in the sense that the minister's motion, if proceeded with, might block consideration of the committee report.

[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)

The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) has been at liberty for several days to proceed with his motion. Indeed, he could move it later this day if he wishes to do so.

On the other hand, that notice of motion cannot be used to "block" consideration of the government's notice of motion. It is suggested that the question of priority should not be confused with the rule of anticipation.

At this time the notice of motion in the name of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton has priority because of its present position on the order paper. If the hon. member has not moved his motion when it is called later today, the Chair will have no alternative, at the appropriate moment in our proceedings, but to order that the notice of motion standing in the name of the President of the Privy Council, be transferred for debate pursuant to Standing Order 21.

Topic:   PROCEDURE
Subtopic:   NEW PROVISIONS RESPECTING DEBATING TIME
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTMENT-RULING BY MR. SPEAKER
Permalink

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

LIB

Mitchell William Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to table in French and English a number of international agreements which have recently been signed by Canada, subject to ratification or have entered into force in Canada.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   TABLING OF INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS SIGNED BY CANADA
Permalink
IND

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Independent

Mr. Speaker:

The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton? Stands.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   TABLING OF INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS SIGNED BY CANADA
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Oh, oh.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   TABLING OF INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS SIGNED BY CANADA
Permalink
IND

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Independent

Mr. Speaker:

The hon. member for Gatineau? Stands.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   TABLING OF INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS SIGNED BY CANADA
Permalink

PROCEDURE

NEW PROVISIONS RESPECTING DEBATING TIME ALLOTMENT


On the order: Government notices of motions: June 26, 1969-The President of the Privy Council: That the Standing Orders of the house be amended by adding the following new Standing Orders immediately after Standing Order 75: 75a. When a Minister of the Crown, from his place in the house, states that there is agreement among the representatives of all parties to allot a specified number of days or hours to the proceedings at one or more stages of any public bill, he may propose a motion, without notice, setting forth the terms of such agreed allocation; and every such motion shall be decided forthwith, without debate or amendment. 75b. When a Minister of the Crown, from his place in the house, states that a majority of the representatives of the several parties, including that of the government, have come to an agreement in respect of a proposed allotment of days or hours for the proceedings at any stage of the passing of a public bill, he may propose a motion, without notice, setting forth the terms of the said proposed allocation; provided that for the purposes of this standing order an allocation may be proposed in one motion to cover the proceedings at both the report and the third reading stages of a bill if that motion is consistent with the provisions of Standing Order 75(13). During the consideration of any such motion no member may speak more than once or longer than ten minutes. Not more than two hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon, Mr. Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the said motion. 75c. A Minister of the Crown who from his place in the house at a previous sitting has stated that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 75a or 75b in respect of proceedings at the stage at which a public bill was then under consideration either in the house or in any committee and has given notice at that sitting of his intention so to do may propose a motion for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at that stage; provided that the time allotted for any stage is not to be less than one sitting day and provided that for the purposes of this standing order an allocation may be proposed in one motion to cover the proceedings at both the report and the third reading stages on a bill if that motion is consistent with the provisions of Standing Order 75(13). During the consideration of any such motion no member may speak more than once or longer than ten minutes. Not more than two hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon, Mr. Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the said motion.


IND

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Independent

Mr. Speaker:

In accordance with Standing Order 21 (2) this notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders later today or at the next sitting of the house.

July 3, 1969 COMMONS

Topic:   PROCEDURE
Subtopic:   NEW PROVISIONS RESPECTING DEBATING TIME ALLOTMENT
Permalink

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

INDIAN AFFAIRS


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development whether he will assure the house that the National Indian Brotherhood or some other representative of the Indian body will be fully consulted about the terms of reference and the identity of the commissioner proposed to be appointed, in place of a full claims commission?


LIB

Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development)

Liberal

Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):

Mr. Speaker, I met with the members of this National Indian Brotherhood last Thursday and I discussed the problem with them. I told them that finally the appointment of a commissioner was the responsibility of the government but that I was open to their suggestions regarding possible applicants and that if they did not make any, I would advise them of the appointee selected by the government.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   INDIAN AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   CONSULTATION ON IDENTITY OF COMMISSIONER AND TERMS OF REFERENCE
Permalink
PC

Robert Lorne Stanfield (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Stanfield:

When will the commissioner be appointed and under what authority? In other words, will he be appointed under the Public Inquiries Act, some other statute or some other authority?

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   INDIAN AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   CONSULTATION ON IDENTITY OF COMMISSIONER AND TERMS OF REFERENCE
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development)

Liberal

Mr. Chretien:

Mr. Speaker, the commissioner will be appointed as soon as possible, I hope, and the appointment will come under the federal Inquiries Act.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   INDIAN AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   CONSULTATION ON IDENTITY OF COMMISSIONER AND TERMS OF REFERENCE
Permalink
PC

Robert Lorne Stanfield (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Stanfield:

I take it that means under the Public Inquiries Act. Is it a fair summary of the proposed duties of the commissioner that he will decide whether or not there is to be a claims commission and, if so, what claims would be permitted to go before that commission?

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   INDIAN AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   CONSULTATION ON IDENTITY OF COMMISSIONER AND TERMS OF REFERENCE
Permalink

July 7, 1969