Order, please. I am now ready to rule with regard to the point of order raised this morning by the hon. House leader of the Bloc Quebecois relating to a decision made yesterday concerning the votable status of the PC/DR motion to be debated today.
I want to thank the hon. member for Roberval, the hon. member for Winnipeg--Transcona, the hon. member for Langley--Abbotsford, the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader and other hon. members who contributed to the discussion.
I have carefully reviewed the interventions of hon. members and the procedural authorities that govern our deliberations. I would like first to review the current situation in which the House finds itself.
Standing Order 81 lays down the rules for consideration of the business of supply. I need not remind the House of all the provisions in the 22 sections of the standing order. Let us simply look at those sections that need concern us.
Standing Order 81(10)( a ) states, in part, “twenty-one days are to be designated as allotted days”.
Standing Order 81(16) provides that:
Not more than fourteen opposition motions in total shall be motions that shall come to a vote—
There are, as we can see, two aspects to any allotted day: first, a motion is put forward by the opposition party; and second, the motion may be designated votable.
The standing orders clearly provide for the Speaker to resolve any disputes arising about the first aspect, namely which opposition party’s motion is to be considered on a given day. Standing Order 81(14)( c ) states:
When notice has been given of two or more motions by members in opposition to the government for consideration on an allotted day, the Speaker shall have power to select which of the proposed motions shall have precedence in that sitting.
By contrast, should a dispute arise on the second aspect, namely designation of the motion as votable, the standing orders are silent.
Our practice provides guidance in these matters. Marleau and Montpetit states at page 726:
The allocation of the 14 votable motions is worked out in an informal agreement among the opposition parties.
In their remarks earlier today, some hon. members have suggested that by the ruling yesterday the Chair intervened in a matter in which it had no place and, by implication, had unfairly sided with one of the parties to the dispute. I trust that the House will agree that the Chair never intended to do any such thing and sees matters from an entirely different perspective.
Yesterday the Chair was asked to decide whether the PC/DR motion was properly designated a votable motion. Given no authority by the standing orders to judge the matter, except insofar as to determine whether the maximum number of votable days had been used, the Chair would ordinarily turn, as indeed I did, to see what was provided in the usual informal agreement among the parties. It is to be noted that no agreement signed by all parties was ever given to the Chair. It now transpires, as the exchanges this morning amply demonstrate, that the very existence of such an agreement is in dispute.
In the circumstances, I decided yesterday that I could not intervene to reverse the designation of the motion as votable given to the Chair by the sponsoring opposition party when the motion was put on notice, in keeping with the usual practice in these matters.
I could not find any authority for so doing since only 8 of 14 votable motions have been used to date and so I declared that, unless a contrary agreement were reached by the House leaders, the motion would go forward, as requested by the sponsor, as a votable motion. This morning, I find that this decision is interpreted as exactly the kind of intervention I sought to avoid.
I can find little comfort in the choices that the House leaders presented to me this morning. If the Chair persists in the view that it has no authority to refuse a sponsor putting forward a votable motion before the full 14 votable motions have been used, it may be viewed as being complicit in what some have characterized as parliamentary mischief that violates an informal agreement. If the Chair is persuaded by the interventions of three of the four opposition leaders to abide by an informal agreement from which the fourth dissents, it may be viewed as interference by the Chair and the prerogatives of the House leaders by the interpretation and enforcement of their agreements.
The circumstances underlying the exchanges this morning leave the Chair in a difficult position. I do not think the interests of the House will be well served if the Speaker is drawn into disputes among parties. I would therefore again urge the hon. House leaders to resume constructive dialogue in the management of the business of the House.
I understand that they will be meeting this afternoon. I would ask that the matter of the allocation of opposition days and the matter of the allocation of votable motions be addressed anew. I hope that they will reach agreement on these matters and that they will inform me of their conclusions in writing, duly signed by all opposition House leaders.
In the meantime it seems to me that it would be most prudent for the Chair not to accept the designation of any motion as votable either today or until such time as I have received an agreement.