Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party made a very interesting suggestion and I imagine you will eventually draw it to the attention of the members of the House.
My colleague from Roberval has explained in very eloquent terms the philosophical, historical and political reasons why you should declare out of order the motion introduced by the Secretary Parliamentary to the Prime Minister.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to go over some more technical considerations.
In the last few hours, we have had time to carefully read through some literature, namely Erskine May, Beauchesne and Marleau-Montpetit, to determine if there was actually something allowing a motion such as the one introduced by the government to have precedence over a non-confidence motion against the Speaker.
We found nothing which could justify a decision that a motion to proceed with the orders of the day has precedence over a non-confidence motion against the Speaker.
Yesterday, you made a decision. Some might argue that this decision was motivated by the fact that the House was subject to an order imposed by the government through the double gag procedure used Monday regarding Bill C-20 and that consequently, since it was on the agenda of the government and that there was only one day left for third reading, the Chair had no other choice and felt compelled by this order of the House to give precedence to the motion introduced by the government yesterday.
Earlier, the government House leader made some fallacious arguments to justify that we revert once more to Government Orders, though a non-confidence motion against the Speaker is on the Order Paper.
“We have an opposition day. There are only a few left. We have little time for these opposition days, so we must hurry to allow every party to have its opposition day”. The same government that pressured this House for close to four weeks to ram through Bill C-20 before the Liberal Party of Canada convention, thus using the House for purely partisan purposes, could easily have reserved a number of days for the business of supply. It did not do so. It resorted to partisan tricks to make the House do what it wanted and have Bill C-20 passed according to its own agenda.
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, we consulted the appropriate literature. The books on procedure clearly state that a non-confidence motion concerning the Speaker takes priority over any other issue. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons showed the true autocratic nature of this government a few moments ago when he said that the government does not intend to let this issue go on for very long. But it is not up to the government. It is not a decision that rests with the government. It is a decision that rests with the Chair. It is a decision that rests with the House.
Mr. Speaker, since you are the protector of the rights of each member of this House, the protector of the rights of the opposition, of the minority in this House, I urge you to deem the motion presented by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister out of order, prima facie.
The existing literature contains no reference, provision or precedent suggesting that the motion presented by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister can take precedence over the non-confidence motion.
By contrast, as I said, there is every indication that the non-confidence motion must take precedence over any other issue, and I am asking you to rule on this, Mr. Speaker.