Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the point of order made by the member for Vancouver East concerning the government motion on Afghanistan. That motion was presented to this House a few days ago.
I would like to argue that this motion is entirely in order, as the member has taken a narrow reading of the procedural authorities. I will also point out that there are many precedents to support my view.
The basic rule concerning the form of motions can be found at page 449 of Marleau and Montpetit, where it is stated:
A motion must be drafted in such a way that, should it be adopted by the House, “it may at once become the resolution...or order which it purports to be”.
In my view, the motion has been drafted in such a way that, if adopted, it would become a resolution expressing the opinion of the House on Canada's commitment in Afghanistan. I therefore submit that the motion is in order.
Let me now turn to some of the member's specific points. The member referred to citation 565 of the sixth edition of Beauchesne's, which states:
A motion should be neither argumentative, nor in the style of a speech, nor contain unnecessary provisions or objectionable words.
I reject the member's statement that the motion, in her words, is “more like a speech disguised as a motion”. Instead, I argue, the motion has been drafted to take the form of a resolution of the House. It simply is not in the style of a speech.
I would also point out that it is not clear what Beauchesne's means by stating that motions should not be “argumentative”, as Beauchesne's does not cite any references to support this.
Since a motion is, by definition, a proposed opinion of the House, there will always be some level of disagreement over the contents of a motion. That is why the House debates motions and divisions are taken, as there is usually more than one opinion on any given matter before the House.
The member also cites page 449 of Marleau and Montpetit, which states:
Examples may be found of motions with preambles, but this is considered out of keeping with usual practice.
That statement in Marleau and Montpetit is taken from page 317 of the fourth edition of Bourinot; however, Bourinot explains that this is derived from a rule of the Senate. At pages 316 and 317, Bourinot states:
By the 27th rule of the Senate it is provided that “no motion prefaced by a preamble is received by the Senate”; and this rule is always strictly observed in that house.
To contrast that, I would note that no such rule exists in this House. While Bourinot states that preambles may be “inconvenient”, he also recognizes that there are precedents for preambles, as do Marleau and Montpetit.
As Bourinot and Marleau and Montpetit point out, there are precedents for the inclusion of preambles in motions. I will not take up the time of the House by listing all of the examples of motions with preambles. Instead, I would refer the Speaker to the opposition motion from the member for Toronto—Danforth, debated on April 26, 2007, which stated:
Whereas,
(1) all Members of this House, whatever their disagreements about the mission in Afghanistan, support the courageous men and women of the Canadian Forces;
(2) the government has admitted that the situation in Afghanistan cannot be won militarily;
(3) the current counter-insurgency mission is not the right mission for Canada;
(4) the government has neither defined what 'victory' would be, nor developed an exit strategy from this counter-insurgency mission;
therefore this House condemns this government and calls for it to immediately notify NATO of our intention to begin withdrawing Canadian Forces now in a safe and secure manner from the counter-insurgency mission in Afghanistan, and calls for Canada to focus its efforts to assist the people of Afghanistan on a diplomatic solution, and redouble its commitment to reconstruction and development.
This motion by the leader of the New Democratic Party is exactly on point, but contradicts the point of order presented by the House leader of the New Democratic Party.
I would also point out that motions do not need the word “whereas” to include a preamble. It is common for many motions to include statements prior to the main point of the motion using such words as “given that”.
The final point the member makes is that “it contains two conditions that...are clearly outside of the control of the House and upon which support for the extension of the motion is predicated”. This argument might be relevant if the motion took the form of a House order that had a binding effect, such as changes to the Standing Orders.
However, the motion takes the form of a resolution expressing the opinion of the House. In my view, there is nothing irregular about the House expressing its support for a government action, where that support is contingent on certain conditions being met.
To conclude, I believe this is entirely a matter for debate and not a point of order.
Members may disagree with the text of the motion. That is why they can propose amendments to the motion. They can also vote against the motion if they so wish.
But in the end, the text of the motion is a matter for the House to decide. It should not be set aside on narrow procedural grounds.