The Legislative Process / Stages

Report stage: power of the Speaker to select amendments; amendments not presented in committee

February 27, 2013

Debates, p. 14397

Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca), in a written submission to the Speaker, requested to have his amendments to Bill C-279, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (gender identity and gender expression),^[1] selected for debate at report stage. He described the efforts he had made to amend the Bill during its study by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, including seeking a 30-day extension for the consideration of the Bill. Mr. Garrison informed the Speaker that he had not been successful and explained that, while the Committee did begin clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill and pass two amendments, it was unable to get past the first clause and complete its study prior to the Bill being deemed reported back to the House without amendment pursuant to Standing Order 97.1.^[2]

Resolution

On February 27, 2013, the Speaker delivered his ruling on the selection of the nine report stage motions in amendment to Bill C-279 put on notice by Mr. Garrison. The Speaker stated that, at first glance, the nine motions could have been presented during the committee study of the Bill. However, having reviewed Mr. Garrison’s written submission and the sequence of events related to the study of the Bill by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the Speaker was satisfied that the Member was unable to have his amendments considered by the Committee despite his efforts and, therefore, selected his motions for debate at report stage.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: There are nine motions standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of the Member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca’s Bill C-279, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (gender identity and gender expression).

While it is not usual for the Chair to provide reasons for the selection of report stage motions, in this case, I have decided to do so, as I have received a written submission from the hon. Member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca outlining what he feels are exceptional circumstances surrounding the clauseby-clause consideration of the Bill in committee.

As Members know, consistent with the note to Standing Order 76.1(5),^[3] the Chair would not normally select motions that could have been presented in committee.

The hon. Member who has submitted motions at report stage was also an active participant in the meeting scheduled for the clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. As such, it would appear that the amendments submitted by the Member could have been proposed during the Committee consideration of the Bill. In the present case, however, there appear to be extenuating circumstances.

In his remarks, the Member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca explained that during clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill on December 6, 2012, the Committee passed two amendments to the first clause of the text as well as the clause itself, as amended. He stated that the Committee did not continue studying the Bill.

Even the Member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca’s attempt to seek a 30-day extension for the consideration of Bill C-279 in committee was unsuccessful. As a result, clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill did not proceed beyond the first clause, and pursuant to Standing Order 97.1,^[4] on December 10, 2012, the Bill was deemed reported back to the House without amendment.

The Chair has had to rule on similar cases in the past, including one that came up on December 7, 2012—at page 13030 of House of Commons Debates—regarding Bill C-377, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (requirements for labour organizations). In that case, due to circumstances beyond its control, the Committee was unable to complete its examination before the Bill was deemed to have been reported without amendment pursuant to Standing Order 97.1.^[5] Accordingly, any amendments that had originally been submitted for the clause-by-clause examination of the Bill in committee were submitted again at report stage. The Chair therefore selected those motions at report stage for debate, because it was clear that the Members in question had attempted to propose their amendments in committee during the clause-by-clause examination of the Bill.

In reviewing the sequence of events related to the Bill now before the House, as well as the written submission from the Member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, I am satisfied that despite the efforts of the Member to have his amendments considered by the Committee, he was unable to do so before the Bill was deemed reported back to the House.

Accordingly, Motions Nos. 1 to 9 have been selected for debate at report stage, and they will be grouped for debate and voted upon, according to the voting patterns available at the Table.

I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1 to 9 to the House.