Speaker’s Ruling – Point of Order on Amendment to Motion to Establish Special Committee
Honourable senators,
I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised by Senator Ringuette on Wednesday, May 15, 2019.
The point of order concerned an amendment to motion 474. Motion 474 by Senator Pratte sought to establish a Special Committee on Prosecutorial Independence. Senator Plett then moved an amendment to have this study instead conducted by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
Senator Ringuette argued that Senator Plett’s amendment is not admissible as it is beyond the scope of the motion. She suggested that the purpose, or the pith and substance, of Senator Pratte’s motion is the creation of a special committee. By removing the idea of a special committee, she argued that the amendment is therefore contrary to the motion.
Other senators disagreed. In particular, Senator Martin argued that the purpose of motion 474 is not to create a special committee, but to conduct a study of prosecutorial independence – the special committee is only the vehicle by which this study would take place. Senator Plett’s amendment, therefore, simply proposes a different vehicle, while maintaining the core purpose of the study.
The argument really comes down to whether the purpose of the motion is the creation of a special committee, or the study of prosecutorial independence. Either would seem to be reasonable conclusions to draw.
In a ruling on February 24, 2009, the Speaker noted that, “In situations where the analysis is ambiguous, several Senate Speakers have expressed a preference for presuming a matter to be in order, unless and until the contrary position is established. This bias in favour of allowing debate, except where a matter is clearly out of order, is fundamental to maintaining the Senate’s role as a chamber of discussion and reflection.”
In the present case, I do not believe that the motion in amendment has been clearly established as being out of order. As such, the Senate should be allowed to consider the question and determine for itself whether the alternative proposed by the amendment is desirable.
I therefore find that the amendment is in order, and debate can continue.