Legislative Reports in committee reports as a means of In the following days, motions to testing the confidence of the House adjourn the House were proposed in the government. For instance, af- by the opposition and adopted by ter the Opposition House Leader the House. For the opposition, this moved that the Third Report of the was another clear indication that Standing Committee on Finance, the government had lost the confi- dealing with pre-budget consulta- dence of the House and the moral tions, be concurred in, the Leader of authority to govern and that it the Opposition moved an amend- should resign. This led to the sec- ment. He moved that the report be ond important moment where the House of Commons not now concurred in, but that it be confidence convention took centre recommitted to the Standing Com- stage. ith the summer adjournment mittee on Finance with the instruc- As a result of the Prime Minister's Win sight and important legisla- tion that it amend the report so as to address to the nation, in which he tion before the House, tensions be- recommend that, in view of its re- committed to allowing the House to gan to rise and patience began to fusal to accept some of the Commit- express its confidence in the gov- wear thin in the Chamber. The most tee's key recommendations and to ernment, an all party agreement important topic of discussion implement budgetary changes, the made it possible to have the votes amongst parliamentary observers government resign. The Speaker necessary to dispose of the second was certainly the confidence con- ruled that the amendment was in reading stages of Bills C-43 and vention. The last months of Spring order and clearly stated that it was C-48. The votes took place on May 2005 led to the examination of this not up to the Speaker to judge the 19, 2005. The government was able seldomly talked about convention substance of any motion; rather the to survive this first set of confidence in greater detail. Two clear in- Chair must determine solely votes (a casting vote by the Speaker stances can be identified. whether our procedures have been was needed, see below for more in- Firstly, arguing that its focus was respected in the presentation of a formation), but the government on the passage of the Budget imple- motion to the House. The vote pro- now had to ensure that these bills mentation Bills (C-43 and C-48), the ceeded and resulted in a count of got to committee and came back to government decided to postpone 153 in favour of the motion and 150 the House for consideration at third the designation of Opposition days. opposed. reading. The Governement House Leader The opposition felt they had On June 14, 2005, the Standing went as far as to undesignate an Op- clearly expressed their non-confi- Committee on Finance presented its position day which had already dence in the government with this Fourteenth Report to the House been granted but on which debate result, but the government felt oth- with respect to Bill C-48. This report had not yet started. This rarely seen erwise. The Prime Minister and the indicated that the Bill had been occurence took place after the Offi- Government House Leader, on nu- amended in such a way that all of its cial Opposition had put on notice a merous occasions, stated that the content was removed with the ex- motion that, if adopted, would have adoption of a motion of concurrence ception of the title. The government designated the remaining Opposi- in a committee report amounts to was forced to move motions to tion days, which is, by convention, nothing more than a 'procedural re-instate the clauses that were de- the responsibility of the govern- motion' and that it does not qualify leted so that the Bill could then pro- ment. as a motion of confidence in the gov- ceed. The undesignation of this allotted ernment. Once the clauses were re-instated day paved the way for the Official and both C-43 and C-48 were ready Opposition to use motions to concur 54 CANADIAN PARLIAMENTARY REVIEW / AUTUMN 2005 for third reading, the government the three hours provided for debate Council appointments are the realized that in order to pass the two to frustrate the government's ability prerogative of the Crown, and that he could not compel the Gov- budget bills and the same-sex mar- to proceed to Government Orders. ernment to abide by the Commit- riage bill, they would need to ex- It is this new procedure that the op- tee's recommendation. tend the sittings of the House, and position used to explore the con- • On May 4, 2005, the Speaker ruled that is exactly what they did. On fines of the confidence convention that the Chair would continue to June 9, 2005, the Government previously described. accept that documents be tabled House Leader moved that, pursu- Privilege / Speaker's Rulings by Ministers during Oral Ques- ant to Standing Order 27(1), com- tions or indeed at any time. mencing June 13, 2005, and • The Speaker has had to rule on sev- On June 6, 2005, the Speaker concluding June 23, 2005, on Mon- made a short statement regarding eral occasions with regard to privi- days, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and matters before the Ethics Com- lege or other matters on which the Thursdays the House would con- missioner. He stated that once a House needed clarification from the request for an inquiry has been tinue to sit until midnight. Seeing Chair. These instances include: made, Members should permit that this would still not be suffi- the inquiry process to take place cient, the government then gave no- • On April 18, 2005, the Speaker without further commenting on tice for Government Business No. ruled that the question of privi- the matter in the House, and that 17 which would see the sitting pe- lege raised by Brian Masse the Chair would be enforcing the (Windsor West) concerning a Code's provisions with respect to riod extended until such time as questions and answers during Bills C-43, 48, and 38 were sent to householder (10 percenters) mail- ing to constituents of Windsor Oral Questions. the Senate. To ensure that this mo- West under the frank of Monte • On June 8, 2005, the Speaker ruled tion to extend the sittings was Solberg (Medicine Hat) consti- on the questions of privilege adopted in a timely fashion, the tuted a prima facie question of raised by the Don Boudria (Glen- Government House Leader gave privilege. Subsequently, the garry–Prescott-Russell) concern- notice and later moved for closure Speaker ruled that two other sim- ing the blocking of fax lines and ilar cases regarding the use of the of the debate, which was eventually the registration of Internet do- frank of Members and mailings main names of certain Members adopted by the House. were prima facie cases of privilege of the House of Commons by in- Upon considering the bills in (May 3, 2005, raised by Mark dividuals or organizations with question, C-43 passed without Holland (Ajax--Pickering) and no affiliation to the House. The John Reynolds (West Vancou- much opposition. It is only due to Speaker ruled that there were no ver--Sunshine Coast--Sea to Sky prima facie breaches of privilege the use of both time allocation and Country); and May 10, 2005, because, even if the Members had closure, however, that the govern- raised by Mike Chong experienced some inconve- ment succeeded in passing C-48 and (Wellington-Halton Hills). On niences, they had not been pre- C-38, which then allowed the House June 22, 2005, the Standing Com- vented from performing their mittee on Procedure and House parliamentary duties. to adjourn for the summer on June Affairs presented its Forty-Forth 28, 2005. Report, in which it concludes that Committees Standing Order Change there was no breach of privilege in any of these cases. Committees were not immune from • Many other procedural tactics have On May 3, 2005, the Speaker ruled the increased tensions in the Cham- on the question of privilege been used in the last few months. A ber. Party lines were clearly drawn raised by Bob Mills (Red Deer) in some committees while others recent Standing Order change pro- who charged the Prime Minister continued to function normally. vided for three hours of debate on with contempt of Parliament for • allegedly disregarding a motion Once Bill C-38, the same-sex mar- motions for concurrence in commit- riage bill, was adopted at second tee reports. Little did anyone know to concur in a committee report adopted by the House on April 6, reading, it was referred to a legis- Marcel that this would provide the opposi- 2005. The report had recom- lative committee with Proulx tion with the arsenal it needed to fil- mended that Glen Murray's (Deputy Chairman of ibuster the proceedings of the nomination as Chairman of the Committees of the Whole) ap- National Round Table on the En- pointed by the Speaker to be its House. Because motions to concur chair. On May 30, 2005, the chair in committee reports are moved and vironment and the Economy be rejected. The Speaker indicated gave a ruling with respect to the debated under the rubric “Motions” that committees do not have the definition of a 'technical witness' during Routine Proceedings, Mem- power to revoke an appointment that would be used when consid- bers repeatedly took advantage of or nomination, that Order in ering possible witnesses to ap- AUTUMN 2005 /CANADIAN PARLIAMENTARY REVIEW 55 pear before the Committee.