Attention MPs: Before granting unanimous consent, always check the fine print

Here's the full text of the motion proposed by Liberal House Leader Marc Garneau (emphasis added): 

That the House recognize that sections of Bill C-45 dealing with members' pensions should be enacted as quickly as possible and passed without further debate;

that Bill C-45, the second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, be divided into two bills: Bill C-45A, An Act to Stop the Delay on Making MP Pensions Fair Act, and Bill C-45B, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures; and

that Bill C-45A be composed of clauses 475, 476 and 477 to 553 inclusively and subclause 545(1);

that a clause adding the short title Stop The Delay on Making MP Pensions Fair Act be added to Bill C-45A;

that Bill C-45A be deemed to have been read the second time and deemed referred to committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read the third time and passed;

that Bill C-45B be composed of the remaining clauses of Bill C-45;

that Bill C-45B retain the status on the order paper that Bill C-45 had before the adoption of this motion;

that the law clerk and parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary;

and that Bill C-45A and C-45B be reprinted.

If you check the above-referenced clauses, you'll see that it did indeed extend beyond the section dealing with MPs' pensions, and would have included changes to both the public service and RCMP pension systems.

According to the Liberals, that was entirely accidental, and was due to an "typo" in the original motion. To support that claim, they point to the comments made by interim leader Bob Rae, both in the House and to reporters. 

Still, it makes one wonder just what would have happened had the Garneau motion been accepted by the House.

Presumably, the Senate could have amended it, should it have decided to do so, but it would have been procedurally messy, since that would require the clauses to be added back into the omnibus bill before it had made its way through the Commons. 

As encouraging as it may be to see MPs working together, this could just as usefully serve as a cautionary tale on the risk of legislating by unanimous consent.

In any case, if the Liberals are going to take credit for fast-tracking MP pension reform, it only seems fair that the NDP should get equal credit for spotting a potentially fatal flaw in the fine print.

Finally, the Conservatives deserve kudos as well for nobly giving up -- without even putting up much of a fight -- a reverse poison pill that was supposed to serve as political cover when the omnibudget process descends, as it inevitably will, into filiblustery rancour, at which point they would have accused the opposition of stonewalling the bill to protect their lucrative pension perks.

Then again, according to the PMO InfoAlerteBot dispatch that went out after the vote, in supporting the motion to split MP pensions away from the main bill, the opposition "also agreed to keep all other sections of the bill together in one bill."

It also notes, dryly, that it "proves the opposition can understand even complex provisions and form a view on them in less than a day."

Let the omnispin begin!