The Legislative Process / Miscellaneous

May 28, 1991 and May 29, 1991

Debates, pp. 702-3, 733-5

On May 28, 1991, Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton—East Richmond), rose on a point of order with respect to a Government motion to reinstate six bills from the previous session. Mr. Dingwall based his concerns on three points, that the motion included a provision for a bill which the House had previously reinstated by unanimous consent, that the motion consisted of “five completely separate and distinct legislative matters which do not lend themselves to being considered together” and that the motion was unacceptable as it sought to circumvent the normal legislative process. Mr. Dingwall argued that, as there was no precedent in the House to reinstate bills other than by unanimous consent, the motion ought to be refused. An extensive debate arose with various Members participating in the debate.^[1] After private representations from all three House Leaders requesting that the Chair render its decision quickly and in order to expedite consideration of the motion, the Speaker rendered his ruling later that afternoon and returned to the House the following day to explain the full reasons behind his decision. Both statements are reprinted in their entirety below.

Decision of the Chair

May 28, 1991

The Speaker: As honourable Members are aware, we have had a series of comments concerning a problem in the House. Unfortunately, it was impossible to produce a judgment with all the requisite reasons, but I acknowledge the urgent nature of the issue raised by honourable Members and the need for handing down a judgment this afternoon.

Consequently, I am now ready to render my decision.

A point of order was raised this morning relating to Government Business No. 1, which concerns the reinstatement of certain bills from the Second Session.

After hearing representations from several honourable Members, I took the matter under advisement and have been deliberating on the points raised, intending to render my decision tomorrow.

However, I have now received representations, as I have just said, on behalf of the three House Leaders requesting that the Chair render its decision this afternoon.

Accordingly, to accommodate this request, I will now render my decision. I will return later to explain the rationale behind it. I should say—and I think honourable Members can understand this—that I am trying to accommodate certain necessities and I would hope that it would not become the practice to give a judgment and file the reasons later.

The Chair, of course, knows full well the effects of prorogation on the business then before the House. The Chair must also acknowledge, however, that the notion of reinstatement of business in the subsequent session is well established in our practice.

While this has hitherto been done by unanimous consent, the Chair can find no compelling reason to preclude proceeding byway of notice of motion, nor am I persuaded to reject the motion outright.

The theme of the motion is the reinstatement of certain bills. While the six bills are all distinct, the purpose of the motion is clearly to reinstate the bills at various stages. Therefore, the Chair has decided not to divide the motion for the purpose of debate.

That being said, however, the Chair does have some difficulty in accepting the argument that a Member in casting a single vote, can adequately express his or her opinion on six distinct pieces of legislation.

Therefore, Government Motion No. 1 will be dealt with in the following manner. There will be a single debate and five separate questions will be put, namely on the reinstatement of Bill C-26, Bill C-58, Bill C-78, Bill C-82 and Bill C-85. No question will be put on Bill C-73 as this matter has already been disposed of by the House. The enabling final paragraph of the motion will, as appropriate, form part of each question put.

May 29, 1991

The Speaker: Yesterday morning a point of order was raised relating to Government Business No. 1 which concerns the reinstatement of certain bills from the Second Session. Yesterday afternoon, to accommodate a request from the three House leaders, I informed the House of the Chair’s decision on the matter, undertaking to return to set in context that decision. I would like to do so briefly at this time.

I do not propose to restate the arguments which were presented yesterday but I would like to thank the honourable Member for Cape Breton—East Richmond, the honourable Member for Kamloops (Mr. Nelson Riis), the honourable Member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Peter Milliken), the honourable Member for Ottawa—Vanier (Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier), the honourable Member for Annapolis Valley—Hants (Mr. Pat  Nowlan), the honourable Member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell (Mr. Don Boudria), the honourable Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. John Rodriguez) and the honourable Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader (Mr. Albert Cooper).

Before looking at the terms of the motion itself, two concepts must be examined: the concept of prorogation and its effects, and the notion of the reinstatement of the business of one session in the subsequent session.

Prorogation has the distinct effect of interrupting the business of Parliament and, possibly, altering its agenda. Its most significant impact is on the legislative process.

According to Beauchesne [Fifth] Edition, Citation 167:

(1) The effect of prorogation is at once to suspend all business until Parliament should be summoned again. Not only are the sittings of Parliament at an end, but all proceedings pending at the time are quashed. Every bill must therefore be renewed after a prorogation, as if it were introduced for the first time.

Bourinot Fourth Edition, pages 102 and 103, states this in even more explicit terms:

The legal effect of a prorogation is to conclude a session; by which all bills and other proceedings of a legislative character depending in either branch, in whatever state they are at the time, are entirely terminated, and must be commenced anew, in the next session, precisely as if they had never been begun.

Thus, prorogation gives Parliament the chance to start anew in dealing with the business of the nation.

While the effects of prorogation are clear, there have been many occasions when the Government has sought the permission of the House to reinstate legislation considered in the previous session. This has always been considered an extraordinary procedure. In fact, on two separate occasions, July 22, 1977, and March 22, 1982, the House amended its Standing Orders to permit certain bills to be reinstated in the next session.^[2] These and other instances of reinstatement—including several proposed in this Third Session—have been dealt with by unanimous consent.

In the situation before us, the Chair appears to be facing an “unprovided case” as I understand the terms of Standing Order 1. In considering this case, I am mindful of the words of one of my predecessors [honourable Lucien Lamoureux] in his ruling of March 23, 1966:

It is only in exceptional circumstances and when there is little doubt about it that the Speaker can intervene and, of his own initiative, amend the resolution proposed by an honourable member.^[3]

I have carefully reflected on the learned ruling of Speaker Macnaughton on June 15, 1964,^[4] which I commend to the attention of honourable Members. I have had, reluctantly, to conclude that this is indeed one of those exceptional instances to which Speaker Lamoureux referred.

The Chair can find no precedent for the reinstatement of bills by way of motion, following notice. Honourable Members may wish to refer to a ruling on June 13, 1988, which offers certain useful parallels (). However, despite the unprecedented nature of this situation, the Chair has found nothing in the rules of the House or in our practice which precludes such an approach and accordingly will allow the motion to proceed.

However, if this approach to reinstatement of business is acceptable, the form of the motion poses some difficulties. Some honourable Members contend that the motion must be divided so that a separate debate and a separate vote can be held on each item of business addressed. The Chair views the subject of the motion as the reinstatement of business, not the individual items of business to be reinstated, and therefore concludes that a single debate will give Members adequate opportunity to express themselves on the motion.

Nevertheless, the effect of the motion is to reinstate several distinct pieces of legislation and Members must be afforded an adequate opportunity for assent or dissent on each of those items. Accordingly, separate questions will be put on each of the bills to be reinstated.

The reference to Bill C-73 also causes some concern since it was reinstated by unanimous consent on May 23, 1991 and has now been disposed of by the House.

Citation 424[4] of Beauchesne Fifth Edition notes that the Speaker:

…has the [unquestioned] authority to modify motions with respect to form.

Accordingly, no question will be put on this item.

In summary, Government Motion No. 1 will be dealt with in the following manner: there will be a single debate and five separate questions will be put, namely, on the reinstatement of Bill C-26, Bill C-58, Bill C-78, Bill C-82 and Bill C-85. No question will be put on Bill C-73. The enabling and final paragraphs of the motion will, as appropriate, form part of each question put.

Immediately after the Speaker’s ruling, the Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)) moved closure on Government Business No. 1. The closure motion was agreed to after a recorded division.

F0501-e

34-3

1991-05-28

1991-05-29