Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a very brief point of order concerning the admissibility of this motion at this stage of our proceedings.
It appears this motion has been set down under Routine Proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 67(1)(p) as a motion:
-made upon Routine Proceedings, as may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the appointment or conduct of its officers, the management of its business-
I would refer the Chair to the annotated standing orders, page 213, which state very clearly:
With reference to subsection (p), the Chair has consistently ruled that all motions referring to the business of the House should be introduced by the Government House Leader.
Speaker's rulings to this effect can be found in Journals from May 30, 1928, May 11, 1944 and May 2, 1961. Madam Speaker Sauvé ruled very clearly against such a motion's being proposed by a private member on April 21, 1982, as seen at pages 16701-2 of Debates for that date.
On July 13, 1988 Mr. Speaker Fraser gave a more adventurous opinion, saying with regard to such motions: "It is not the exclusive purview of the government despite the government's unquestioned prerogative to determine the agenda of business before the House".
On September 23 our present Speaker went one step further when he said: "Under our current practices the Chair may well accept after due notice such a motion on the condition that it is very strictly limited to the terms of the committal of a bill to a committee and that it is not an attempt to interfere with the committee's proceedings thereon".
The Speaker has said that such a motion may be in order but that if the motion sought to interfere with the committee's work on the bill other than to oblige the committee to complete its work by a
specified time, it would not be possible to admit such a motion under Routine Proceedings.
If one reads the motion in question, one sees that the motion would not only order the committee to complete its study of the bill by a certain time, but it would also propose to instruct the committee that it cannot make any amendments to the proposed bill. This clearly and explicitly violates the conditions set down by Mr. Speaker on September 23 last.
The motion is clearly an attempt to interfere improperly with the committee's proceedings on the bill in question and I submit that even if the motion were otherwise acceptable the inclusion of the words "without amendment" violates the conditions set down by the Speaker and makes this motion inadmissible under the rubric Routine Proceedings to propose a motion of this nature under Routine Proceedings.