The Legislative Process / Miscellaneous

August 15, 1988

Debates, pp. 18306-9

On August 15, 1988, as the House was resuming debate at report stage of Bill C-130 respecting the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, the Speaker gave his final ruling concerning the grouping and selection of the report stage motions. Following this ruling, which involved 102 motions, the Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg—Fort Garry) rose on a point of order concerning certain motions. He argued a ruling previously made in committee had allowed amendments to be made to the Annex of the Bill whereas the Speaker had just ruled these types of amendments out of order as they sought to amend the Agreement and not the Bill.^[1] Later, Mr. Steven Langdon (Essex—Windsor) also rose on a point of order concerning Motions Nos. 18 and 26 which, in his view, were incorrectly ruled out of order. Mr. Langdon argued that Motion No. 26, ruled out of order because it was previously moved in committee, should be allowed as it now was in a different place in the Bill itself, and therefore was no longer the same amendment. He also argued that Motion No. 18, though previously moved in committee, should be allowed, because it contained a new element and he wondered whether slight variations in the wording affected the intention of the motions.^[2] The Speaker ruled on Mr. Axworthy’s point of order and then following the comments of Mr. Langdon, the Speaker ruled again. The entire text of the ruling dealt with the 102 motions, including their selection and grouping for debate and the pattern of voting. Reproduced below is the text which concerns motions ruled not in order.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: Before trespassing into the difficult ground of this ruling of amendments, I am informed, and I hope that this is so, that copies of my ruling, in both official languages, have been distributed. This may well be because we had a few extra days to task the translators with what has been for them a difficult time, which I know all honourable Members understand. I am sure Members would want me to indicate to our translators that we do sympathize with their difficulties and appreciate what they do for us so much of the time.

I am now ready to give a final ruling on the motions in amendment to Bill C-130, An Act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States of America.

There are 102 motions in amendment set down on the Notice Paper in relation to Bill C-130, An Act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States of America. As honourable Members know, I gave a preliminary ruling Friday last on the first three groupings. Members will thus bear with me, I am sure, as I go over all the motions in this final ruling as I wish them to be as complete as is possible.

…

On Motion No. 2, I have serious reservations because the intent of the amendment is to add a definition of cultural industries to the Bill. This is a substantive amendment as there is no mention at all of cultural industries in the Bill.

I would refer the honourable Member to paragraph (10) of citation 773 of Beauchesne [Fifth Edition], on page 233:

A substantive amendment may not be introduced by way of a modification to the interpretation clause of a bill.

The reference is to the Journals of May 21, 1970, page 835. Consequently, the motion is out of order.

I have misgivings with respect to Motion No. 3. The Member’s intention is to amend the agreement as published in the Canada Treaty Series under subsection 2 to exclude explicitly the large-scale export of fresh water. I wish to remind the Member that treaty-making power is within the prerogative of the Crown and, therefore, the agreement itself cannot be amended. In Beauchesne Fifth Edition, Citation 778, it is stated:

When a Bill is introduced to give effect to an Agreement and the Agreement is scheduled to the Bill as a completed document, amendments cannot be made to the schedule. An amendment to the clauses of the Bill for the purposes of withholding legislative effect from the document contained in the schedule is in order; also as are amendments to those clauses which deal with matters not determined by the document contained in the schedule.

Consequently, I have to rule the amendment out of order.

I also have misgiving with respect to the admissibility of Motion No. 4. This motion seeks to amend Clause 3 which stipulates the purpose of the Bill and sets out the objectives of the agreement in terms identical to those found in Article 102 of the Agreement. The Chair is of the opinion that this motion changes the intent of the objectives as stated in the Agreement and, therefore, rules it out of order.

…

Motions Nos. 7, 18, 26, and 34 were moved in committee. Motions Nos. 26 and 27 were ruled out of order and negatived in committee. Slight variation in the wording does not affect the intent of the motions. Therefore, according to Standing Order 114(10), I will not select them for debate.

I also have misgivings with regard to Motions Nos. 9, 10, 12, 13, and 14. There is nothing mentioned in the Bill or the agreement concerning aboriginal claims and the various programs referred in these motions. However, the intent of these motions is to limit the operation of this Act with respect to these matters. I would, therefore, give the benefit of the doubt to the honourable Member and allow these motions to be put to the House. In addition, the honourable Member for Winnipeg—Fort Garry after consultation has convinced me that Motion No. 11, which was debated and negatived in committee, is of enough importance that it warrants further consideration.

…

I also have reservations with regard to Motions Nos. 15 and 35. These motions seek to ensure that the provincial Governments are free to exercise certain powers notwithstanding the provisions of the agreement. There is, however, no reference in the Bill to any restrictions or obligations on the provinces in the matters stated in the motions. Both the Bill and the agreement place the responsibility for implementation on the Government of Canada. These motions go beyond the scope of the Bill and are thus out of order.

Motion No. 16 causes me concern because the intent is to restrict the powers granted to the federal Government to proceed with legislation in the future with regard to this agreement as set out in clause 6. This, in my opinion, goes beyond the scope of the Bill because it is introducing a new concept which is inconsistent with clause 6. Therefore, I must rule it out of order.

…

Motions Nos. 28 and 29 infringe upon the financial prerogative of the Crown since the creation of such a commission or an inquiry board would require the expenditure or disbursement of public funds, and I refer honourable Members to citations 540 and 773(7) of Beauchesne Fifth Edition. Thus, these motions in amendment are out of order.

…

Motion No. 36 causes the Chair concern because of its notwithstanding provision with regard to the right to require performance commitments from auto makers. It appears that the purpose of this motion is to ensure that Canada can set its own rules, regardless of any commitment under the agreement. Since the purpose of this Bill is to implement the agreement and Chapter 10 incorporates trade in automotive goods, I must rule the motion out of order.

I have serious reservations with respect to Motions Nos. 37 and 49A for two reasons. Motion No. 37 does not fit under part II, “Procurement Review Board”, and the intent is to amend the agreement. I would also refer honourable Members to the reasons given in earlier [ruling] Motion No. 3 out of order. Motion No. 49A is also an attempt to amend the agreement. For the above reasons, I must rule the motions out of order.

…

The Chair has some misgivings with respect to Motion No. 66. The intent of this motion is to reserve to the Governor in Council the power to make certain orders more than once within a stipulated period. However, the agreement specifies that each party shall exercise such powers no more than once within that period. Since the honourable Member is being permissive in his motion, I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt and allow the motion. It will be debated and voted upon separately.

…

Motion No. 69 causes the Chair concern because of its notwithstanding provision with regard to Canada’s right to exercise certain powers. It appears that the purpose of this motion is to ensure that Canada can continue to set its own rules in these matters regardless of any commitment under the agreement. Since the purpose of the Bill is to implement the agreement, I must rule the motion out of order.

…

Motion No. 94 is beyond the scope of the clause and is thus ruled out of order. The clause deals with the Western Grain Transportation Act and West Coast ports and this amendment attempts to introduce East Coast ports. This in not in order.

Motions Nos. 97 and 98 are ruled out of order because they seek to make the coming into force provisions of this Bill subject to conditions outside the legislative process. In this connection, I would refer honourable Members to Erskine May, Twentieth Edition, paragraph 10, on page 557.

…

I think I might add, for the benefit of honourable Members and the public watching, as I have said, the Bill we have before us is a bill the object of which is to implement the agreement between Canada and the United States and, as a consequence, much of it is taken up with amending existing public laws, but there are additional paragraphs as well which of course are of some importance.

Honourable Members will realize that under the rules amendments aimed at altering the actual terms of the agreement are not acceptable, but other amendments aimed at the provisions of the Bill itself, under certain circumstances, have been acceptable and are of course set out in this ruling. I might just indicate to honourable Members and the public that as of the end of Thursday, the Chair had received 102 amendments and 77 of those have been accepted for debate. I think Members will find that they are presently in 26 groupings.

I want to thank all honourable Members who submitted amendments for their cooperation with the Table Officers. This, as all honourable Members will know, was no easy task given the number of amendments, and I hope honourable Members will feel that they have been carefully and properly dealt with…

I thank the honourable Member for Essex—Windsor for his kind remarks which I know will be appreciated by all of those who have worked hard on this matter.

We have had a practice for some time now which is working very well, that is, because of extensive consultations at the time amendments are tabled, the Chair has felt that for the most part it has not been necessary to hear further discussion on them. However, I am aware, as are other honourable Members in this Chamber, that this is a matter of some importance. All matters here are important, but this is one of some magnitude in the number of amendments that the Chair had to consider. I have, therefore, extended to the honourable Member for Winnipeg—Fort Garry and the honourable member for Essex—Windsor the courtesy of listening carefully to what they have said. I appreciate their additional assistance to the Chair.

With respect to the two motions which the honourable Member for Essex—Windsor has raised with me, I will look again at Motion No. 26 and discuss it with the Table Officers who will communicate with the honourable Member. However, I think I can dispose of Motion No. 18 at this time. I remember this very distinctly and have asked the Clerk to bring me Motion No. 18.

While I understand perfectly the honourable Member’s substantive reason for putting this forward, I am bound by the procedural law. Even the change to which the honourable Member refers does not get around the fact that, at least in the opinion of the Chair, it is out of order. Although I do understand the reasons behind the amendment, I regret that I cannot assist the honourable Member further.

F0514-e

33-2

1988-08-15