The Legislative Process / Report Stage

December 6, 1999

Debates, pp. 2155-6

On December 2, 1999, at the beginning of Government Orders  and following the Speaker's ruling on the report stage motions in amendment to Bill C-9, An Act to give effect to the Nisga 'a Final Agreement, Randy White ( Langley-Abbotsford), House Leader of the Official Opposition, rose on a point of order regarding a notice of motion in amendment that he had submitted earlier which had been rejected by the Journals Branch . His notice had proposed that the Nisga 'a Final Agreement be appended to the Bill as a schedule. The Member went on to explain why his notice should have been considered procedurally correct . The Speaker said that he would take the matter under consideration and would return to the House before the vote .^[1]

On December 6, 1999, the Speaker ruled on the point of order, noting that in this particular case there was no established practice or clear procedure. In trying to address this point of order, he stated that he had looked back to the rulings of his predecessors and found that they had not had to address directly this specific issue. The Speaker said that he was prepared to grant the benefit of the doubt to the Member in this instance.  He therefore allowed the proposed notices of motion in amendment to be considered by the House, albeit in a slightly altered form .

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now ready to rule on a point of order raised by the House Leader for the Official Opposition on Thursday, December 2, 1999, concerning the acceptability of report stage motions related to Bill C-9, An Act to give effect to the Nisga'a Final Agreement, which were refused.

The first motion that the honourable Member submitted sought to append the Nisga'a Final Agreement and Appendices as a schedule to Bill C-9. The Member had been informed by the Journals Branch that, pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(2), his motion was not in order and could therefore not be placed on the Notice Paper . A second motion seeking to add the Nisga' a  Nation Taxation Agreement as a schedule was also refused for the same reasons. The Member argued that the Speaker or the staff of the Journals Branch could have made the necessary corrections to ensure that his amendments were in order.

Before proceeding to the substantive issues raised, let me state that the onus has always been on Members submitting amendments to ensure that they are in order. There were however, more substantive reasons for ruling these motions out of order.

The Member for Langley-Abbotsford made reference in  his presentation to a ruling delivered by Speaker Beaudoin on May 17, 1956, and found on pages 567-569 of the Journals. I have read the ruling and was struck by what was said by my predecessor. At that time, in dealing with an issue having some similarities to the present case, the Speaker stated:

—it was customary not to include agreements in bills providing for the carrying in to effect of these agreements .

He further drew Members' attention to chapter 71 of the Statutes  of 1948 in which is found An Act to provide for carrying into effect treaties of peace between Canada and Italy, Romania, Hungary and Finland, in which none of the agreements were included.

A more recent example of this practice can be found in the James Bay and Northern Quebec Native Claims Settlement Act, which was assented to on July 14, 1977. Members consulting that statute will find  that  the  agreement that is referred to throughout the Act has not been appended to it as a schedule.

Nonetheless, the Member is quite right in stating that a schedule containing an agreement or treaty has often been included in bills. Where agreements or treaties have not been tabled in the House, this may be a convenient way of providing information for the use of Parliament.

I would now like to tum to the citations in Beauchesne that the Opposition House Leader made reference to in his arguments.

One of them----citation 704--makes it abundantly clear  that  the addition of a schedule of this type to a bill is not necessary.

In another section of Beauchesne 6th edition, a criterion is provided under which the Speaker will not permit an amendment to be proceeded with.  In particular, an amendment is not acceptable as stated in subsection 3 of citation 699 if it is deemed that it would have no effect or was unnecessary. This principle is found as well on page 526 of the 19th edition of Erskine May . One reason behind this rule is simply to prevent the House from voting needlessly.

At the same time, this particular question is not one with respect to which an established practice or clear procedure exists. In trying to address this point of order, I have looked back to my predecessors and I find that they have not had to directly address this specific issue. Despite  what might be regarded as a principle precluding such proposed amendments in Beauchesne  citations 699 and 704, I am prepared to grant the benefit of the doubt to the honourable Member for Langley-Abbotsford in this instance. I am willing to allow the proposed motions to be considered by the House, albeit in a slightly altered form.

I stress that this is not a matter of technical detail. Since the agreements have previously been tabled in this House, the motions in amendment should refer specifically to the tabled documents. This will ensure that  the  text inserted in the Bill pursuant to these motions is consistent with the documents already laid before the House. Accordingly, the form of the motions which will be proposed to the House will read as follows:

That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after line 8, on page 10, Sessional Paper No. 8525-362-2, The Nisga'a Final Agreement and related Appendices, as Schedule 1.

And second:

That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after line 8, on page 10, Sessional Paper No. 8525-362-3, The Nisga' a Nation Taxation agreement, as Schedule 2.

Accordingly, these new motions will be numbered 470 and 471, will be grouped for debate in Group No. 5 and voted on separately.

I would like to thank the honourable Member for Langley-Abbotsford for drawing this matter to the attention of the House.

P0509-e

36-2

1999-12-06