Precedence and Sequence of Business / Supply Day

Selection of motions

Debates pp. 4223-4

Background

Before calling the Order for the Business of Supply, the Speaker stated that he had received two notices of motions, one from each of the two opposition parties, and that he would be prepared to listen to argument before making a selection. Mr. Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West) and Mr. Deans (Hamilton Mountain) each spoke in support of the motion submitted by their party bringing to the attention of the Speaker various statistics reflecting the distribution of allotted days and votable motions between opposition parties over the current and previous parliaments.

Issue

What rules or formulas governing the distribution of allotted days and allotted days ending in a vote of non-confidence are to be followed by the Speaker in selecting a motion for debate?

Decision

The selection must be based on party representation in the House and on what has happened in the immediate past supply periods. [In this instance, the Conservative motion, standing in the name of Mr. Beatty (Wellington—Dufferin—Simcoe) was selected.]

Reasons given by the Speaker

The selection of Mr. Beatty's motion is based on fair play and impartiality. The three Supply periods provide for twenty-five allotted days, six of which can end in a vote of non-confidence. In the current parliamentary calendar, the Conservatives have used eighteen allotted days, four of which ended in a vote. The NDP has used five allotted days, of which one has ended in a vote. The timing of the filing of the notice is not relevant to the Speaker's selection. There is no precedent to suggest that non-confidence motions are the prerogative of the Official Opposition. The Chair wishes to renew its request that the procedure committee clarify the principles which should govern the organization of the Supply procedures.

Sources cited

Standing Order 62(4)(c).

Debates, November 22, 1983, p. 29061.

References

Debates, May 31, 1984, pp. 4219-24.