UPDATED - Fact Check: So, about Libby Davies' bid to remove the 10 year residency requirement for OAS benefits ...

Can a private members' motion really do that? (Spoiler alert: No, it can't.) 

I'll repeat that, just for emphasis: A private member's motion is not the same as a private member's bill, for one very simple reason: a private members' motion, like all but a very few motions, is inherently non-binding on the government, even if passed by a majority of members. All that happens at that point is it becomes an expression of the views of the House on a given matter; the government of the day is under no obligation - legal, moral or otherwise - to take those views into account when deciding on policy. 

So why introduce one at all, you ask? 

Well, from the perspective of an individual MP, it can be a useful tool to launch a debate over broader policy issues that cannot be dealt with through private members' bills, which are under strict limits as far as what can be proposed: such bills cannot impose any additional cost on the government, and if the speaker rules that it would, the bill will be declared out of order. Given that, it can be easier to introduce a motion that simply calls on the government to take action, in hopes that it will be persuaded to do so, since by virtue of their non-binding nature, such restrictions do not apply.  

Occasionally, private members' motions on seemingly noncontentious matters -- like, for instance, NDP MP Alex Atamanenko's bid to designate May 29th the National Day of the Honey Bee -- are brought forward with the aim of garnering unanimous consent, which would indicate a willingness on the part of the government to move forward despite the lack of statutory requirement to do so.

Now that we've covered the difference between private members' bills and private members' motion, let's move onto Libby Davies' alleged bid to extend benefits to new immigrants who may not have paid into the program through taxes, which, according to party pension critic Wayne Marston, will be withdrawn as it was re-submitted in error.

Yes, resubmitted: A quick peek at the relevant Order Paper shows there were actually two NDP private members' motions that would call on the government to remove the ten year requirement submitted during the 40th parliament: one - M-233 -  from Davies, and one - M-1, in fact -- which was tabled by her fellow British Columbian Peter Julian.

As far as I can tell, neither was selected for debate - which, for those of you who may be unfamiliar with procedure regarding private members' business, can be done by any MP whose name comes up in the lottery, regardless of who introduced the bill in the first place. That isn't uncommon, because - as noted above - private members' motions are non-binding, even when passed, and as such, all but pointless when compared to a private members' bill, which has the possibility, however remote, of becoming law. Generally speaking, an MP whose number finally comes up tends to want to focus on a more tangible goal, and not simply the prospect of a symbolic debate.

Anyway, on June 6th -- the very first day on which the House was open for private members' business -- Davies re-tabled M-233, along with 72 additional private members' motions, many of which had originally been introduced by other NDP MPs, but had died at the drop of the writ. Retroactively conspicuous by its absence was a new iteration of M-1, which could be seen as possible corroboratory evidence of the subsequent claim that Davies' motion had been submitted in error, since she wouldn't have bothered submitting a motion on Julian's behalf, as he tabled a passel of private members' motions under his own name that very same day.

So why didn't she pull her own motion from the lineup if the party -- or at least its pension critic -- doesn't seem willing to support it on the outside chance that it came to a vote? Could be simple forgetfulness -- again, she introduced 73 motions on June 6th, which - again, for those (mercifully) unaware of the intricacies of parliamentary protocol, simply requires that the documents be delivered to the Table, and not formally introduced, one by one. 

UPDATE - In a conversation last night with my colleague Janyce McGregor, a staffer in Davies' office reiterated the "Oops" defence, and claimed that the motion had originally been introduced by a subsequently defeated NDP MP, whose name, alas, they could not recall, several elections prior. She does not, in fact, support the policy, at least according to the staffer. 

That, of course, sent me hunting through the parliamentary archives, which confirmed that the motion has, indeed, been on the Order Paper under Davies' name since at least 2000. (At one point, it was co-sponsored by three other NDP MPs: Denise Savoie, Tony Martin and Catherine Bell.) Interestingly, an almost identically worded motion was submitted by former Conservative MP Gurmant Grewal in 2004. (Search for M-187 in the relevant Order Paper and you'll find it.)