Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with some brief remarks about Motion No. 43 by the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge.
I do not wish to criticize my colleague, who is acting in good faith. He wanted to introduce legislation on a subject that matters very much to him. The entire NDP caucus and I would be glad to debate the taxpayer bill of rights and the services provided by the Canada Revenue Agency.
However, it is clear to me that Motion No. 43, as drafted and presented to the House, violates Standing Order 68(4).
Standing Order 68(4) states that only a minister can move a motion to do what Motion No. 43 seeks to do. I would like to quote part of that standing order:
A motion by a Minister of the Crown to appoint or instruct a standing, special or legislative committee to prepare and bring in a bill, pursuant to section (1) of this Standing Order, shall be considered under Government Orders.
I would now like to read from page 722 of O'Brien and Bosc, which is very clear about drafting by a committee:
A committee may be instructed to prepare and bring in a bill or a committee may be appointed for that specific purpose. Motions to this effect may be moved only by a Minister.
In my opinion, there is no question that Motion No. 43 is a private member's motion that will be debated during the time allocated for private members' business.
We asked the clerks of the House to tell us whether a committee has ever been mandated to prepare a bill under a private member's motion.
I would like to thank the clerks for getting back to us so quickly last Friday. They gave us two examples: Motion No. 411, placed on notice on April 1, 2003, and Motion No. 541, placed on notice on February 2, 2004.
However, neither of these two motions was debated in the House. We are therefore entering uncharted waters. There were no points of order raised regarding these motions either, but that must be because they were not debated.
Since Standing Order 68(5) came into effect, only two bills have been drafted by a committee, which suggested the wording for the bills under this standing order. One of those bills was drafted in response to an opposition motion that was moved by the member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley at the time and debated on October 30, 1997.
However, it is important to point out the differences in that case. That motion called on the government to:
...bring forward a motion, pursuant to Standing Order 68(4)(a), to instruct a legislative committee to prepare and bring in a bill to amend those sections of the Criminal Code which deal with impaired driving...
That is just part of the motion.
That same day, at around 3:40 p.m., the member for Abitibi at the time proposed an amendment. The government party thus instructed the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to draft the bill.
When debate on the amendment finished at the end of the day, the amendment was adopted. The motion was then adopted as amended. When the Speaker announced it, the then minister of Human Resources Development moved a government motion as called for in the amended motion by the member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley.
The minister obtained the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion mandating the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to prepare the bill. That motion was also immediately adopted. The committee presented the text of a draft bill in May 1999.
In the only precedent in which a committee prepared a bill as a result of an opposition motion, all the parties agreed to allow a minister to move a motion instructing the committee, which was in line with Standing Order 68(4).
This is not what Motion No. 43 does, since it does not require any ministerial involvement. As a result, with all due respect to my colleague from Calgary Rocky Ridge, his motion violates the Standing Orders, in particular Standing Order 68(4). This motion should be ruled out of order.