I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on October 2, 2018, by the hon. member for Montcalm regarding the government's alleged disregard of a motion adopted by the House.

I would like to thank the member for Montcalm for having raised the matter, as well as the deputy government whip and the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for their observations.

During his intervention, the member for Montcalm argued that the government disregarded a motion adopted unanimously by the House on September 26, 2017, that stated:

That the House reiterate its desire to fully preserve supply management during the NAFTA renegotiations.

The member feels that the concessions made with respect to access to the Canadian dairy products market in the new trade agreement between the United States, Mexico and Canada constitute a clear disregard of the will of the House and, thus, are a grave offence to the authority of the House and constitute contempt of Parliament.

In response, the deputy government whip stated that the matter raised was more a question of debate on the facts; therefore, it could not constitute a question of privilege.

For his part, the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford contended that the terms of the motion adopted on September 26, 2017, are fundamentally different in English and in French in the House of Commons' records which should be taken into account when examining the question at hand.

The House regularly adopts motions, by unanimous consent or by a simple majority, intended to allow members to express themselves on all sorts of matters. Depending on their intent, these motions take the form of a resolution or an order. Resolutions, such as the motion adopted on September 26, 2017, are intended, regardless of their precise wording, to be expressions of opinion and do not order or require that measures be taken by the government. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on pages 536 and 537:

A resolution of the House of Commons is a declaration of opinion or purpose; it does not require that any action be taken, nor is it binding. The House has frequently brought forth resolutions in order to show support for an action or outlook.

Such motions can not bind the government or prevent it from pursuing a particular course of action.

In response to a charge that the then prime minister was in contempt of Parliament for disregarding a motion to concur in a committee report that had been adopted by the House, Speaker Milliken stated in a ruling on May 3, 2005, which can be found at page 5548 of Debates:

While the government can be guided by recommendations of a standing committee...the Speaker cannot compel the government to abide by the committee's recommendation nor by the House's decision on these matters.

Consequently, I cannot conclude that the matter raised constitutes a prima facie contempt of the House, and, thus, it is not a question of privilege.

I thank all hon. members for their attention.

Geoff Regan

Transcript

Government Orders

Discussions (0)