Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to bring to your attention the Liberal motion that is before the House for debate today.
The last paragraph reads as follows:
--the House condemn the irresponsible and self-serving actions on November 28, 2005, by the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québécois which led to the installation of a government--
I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to Beauchesne's Sixth Edition, citation 923(4), which states:
It has been ruled that on an amendment to motions on allotted days, the conduct of an opposition party may not be brought into question.
This citation is from a Speaker's ruling which can be found at page 22998 of the Debates from February 18, 1983.
I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that we are dealing with a very analogous situation here. If it is true that an amendment to an opposition motion cannot bring into question the conduct of an opposition party, then the very same should be true for the main motion itself.
There are other abnormalities in the motion which also should be taken into consideration. While it is standard practice to use opposition motions to express a loss of confidence in the government, it is quite another thing for an opposition motion to express a loss of confidence in the opposition or, at least in this case, two of the opposition parties.
The other flaw in the motion is that while it condemns the two other opposition parties for installing this government, the Liberal Party, that is the sponsor of this motion, votes or does not vote and in recent days undervotes in order to keep this government in power. Therefore, the motion is also a condemnation of the Liberal Party itself.
The hypocrisy of the motion is obvious and probably has no bearing on its admissibility, but the procedural acceptability of this motion must be reviewed by the Speaker.
In addition to its flaws, as outlined in the Speaker's ruling of February 18, 1983, the motion raises other questions. What if this motion were to pass? Would the opposition be obliged to resign? I would like an answer to that before the House votes on this question because, if it is true, the government may just support it.