Rules of Debate / Curtailment of Debate
Time allocation: quality of consultation
Debates, p. 3598
Context
On March 6, 2014, Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley) rose on a point of order during the question and answer period following the moving of a time allocation motion on Bill C-20, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Honduras, the Agreement on Environmental Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Honduras and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Honduras. Mr. Cullen suggested that the consultation required by Standing Order 78[1] prior to proposing the motion had not taken place. In response, Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) argued that the Government consulted regularly with the opposition parties and that it was not for the Speaker to judge the adequacy or extent of consultation between parties.
Resolution
The Deputy Speaker (Joe Comartin) ruled immediately. Noting that the correct procedure had been followed and that it was not the role of the Chair to adjudicate on the nature, quality or quantity of consultation taking place under the Standing Order, he allowed the motion to proceed.
Decision of the Chair
The Deputy Speaker: With regard to the point of order, I am not ruling against it, but I would like to quote from O’Brien and Bosc, page 667, under “Notice”.
This is what is required when one of these notices is brought forward:
The notice in question is to state that agreement could not be reached under the other provisions of the rule and that the government therefore intends to propose a motion …
The hon. Government House Leader, when he rose in the House yesterday, preceded his presentation of the motion with the following words:
Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that agreements could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2)[2] …
That is all that is required by the Standing Orders. The nature of the consultation, the quality of the consultation, and the quantity of the consultation is not something that the Chair will involve himself in. That has been the tradition of this House for many years. What the Chair would have to do, in effect, is conduct an extensive investigative inquiry into the nature of the consultation. That is not our role, nor do the rules require it. Therefore, I am rejecting the request for the point of order.
Some third-party websites may not be compatible with assistive technologies. Should you require assistance with the accessibility of documents found therein, please contact accessible@parl.gc.ca.
[1] See Appendix A, “Cited Provisions: Standing Orders of the House of Commons”, Standing Order 78.
[2] See Appendix A, Standing Order 78(1) and 78(2).