“Routine Motion” by a Minister
If, at any time during a sitting of the
House, unanimous consent is denied for the presentation of a “routine
motion”, a Minister may request during Routine Proceedings that the
Speaker put the
motion. [132]
For that
purpose, a “routine motion” refers to motions which may be required
for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its
authority, the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings,
the establishment of the powers of its committees, the correctness of its
records or the fixing of its sitting days or the times of its meeting or
adjournment. [133]
The
motion, which is neither debatable nor amendable, is immediately put to the
House by the Speaker. If 25 Members or more oppose the motion, it is deemed
withdrawn; [134]
otherwise, it is
adopted. [135]
While it appeared at first that the range
of motions to which this process could be used would be limited, over the years
the rule has been used to extend a sitting in order to sit on the
weekend; [136]
to
extend the sitting to consider Government
Orders; [137]
to deal
with a specific motion under Government
Business; [138]
to
pass a government bill at all
stages; [139]
to
establish the length of speeches during a “take note”
debate; [140]
and to
attempt to rescind an Order of the
House. [141]
There is
no limit on how often the government can resort to this rule during one
sitting.
Adopted in
1991, [142]
this
procedure was relatively unused until the Thirty-Sixth Parliament (1997- ). [143]
Prior
to its adoption, it was argued that the new proposed rule would have a negative
impact on Members’ ability to debate government motions and
“override unanimous
consent”. [144]
On April 9, 1991, Speaker Fraser, while pointing out that the range of motions
to which the proposed procedure would apply was very limited, also suggested
that the new Standing Order was to be understood as another procedurally
acceptable mechanism for limiting debate: “There are certain similarities
also between the proposal and existing Standing Order 78 respecting time
allocation in that both use a ladder-like type of approach depending upon the
extent of agreement forthcoming to securing the right to propose the
motion”. [145]