The Legislative Process / Report Stage

September 25, 2000

Debates, pp. 8572-3

On September 25, 2000, at the beginning of Government Orders and following the Chair’s ruling on the report stage motions in amendment to Bill C‑3, An Act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other Acts, Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough) rose on a point of order to argue that the Chair had not used the powers provided by Standing Orders 10 (order and decorum) and 76.1(5) (Speaker’s power to select amendments) to preserve the orderly conduct of business in the House and prevent needless debate and voting on over 3,000 notices of motion in amendment placed on the Notice Paper, mostly by members of the official opposition. He stated that the unprecedented number of amendments had been introduced to disrupt and delay the business of the House. He pointed out that due to the volume of amendments, they had not been published in the usual manner in the Notice Paper or on the parliamentary website, thereby affecting proper analysis by members of Parliament as well as public access to the legislative process. After hearing from other members, the Deputy Speaker (Peter Milliken), ruled immediately.^[1]

In his ruling, the Deputy Speaker reminded the House that when dealing with the admissibility of amendments at report stage, the Chair was guided by practice and precedents that had evolved over the past 30 years. The Deputy Speaker stated that the Chair was not empowered to define a new procedure and that if it so wished, the House could change the rules respecting report stage or have the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs recommend amendments to the Standing Orders.

Decision of the Chair

The Deputy Speaker: The Chair has given a ruling in respect of the admissibility of the amendments. Of the 3,100 or so that were submitted, I am told 156 have been rejected as not in order and will not be proposed to the House in the course of the debate.

It must be remembered that from 1964 to 1968 we adopted a number of rules that have changed the practice in this House concerning amendments at report stage by including a new debate at the report stage of bills, after a standing committee of the House tables its report on a bill.

I know honourable members are aware of the fact that these changes to the rules were made. At that time certain discretion was given to the Chair in the Standing Orders and there have been amendments to that from time to time in the years since. But I think it is fair for honourable members to know, and I am sure all honourable members do know, that the Chair has exercised its discretion in certain ways throughout the period from 1968 until now, so we have 30 years of practice in this House of dealing with the admissibility of amendments at report stage.

What we have today, which we have had before, and not just on the three bills where we have had a significant number of votes, is a deliberate choice by members of the House to submit amendments that, based on Speaker’s rulings in the past, are in order. What has happened on this occasion is that a large number of amendments have been submitted that, based on previous rulings by the Chair, are in order.

It is not for the Chair to adopt the solution proposed by the honourable member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, that is, to exercise powers that are there in the rules, that have never in fact been exercised before, and that in fact have been exercised but in different ways than what we are faced with today. members have chosen to draft amendments to get around rulings that Speakers have made as to their discretion under Standing Order 76 and they have done it apparently in compliance with those previous decisions which, in my view, are binding on the Chair today.

The Procedure and House Affairs Committee, after the two other voting marathons we have had, has considered the issue and chose not to come up with any amendments to the Standing Orders reflecting their consideration and reflecting the difficulties that we encountered. The duty of that Committee is to make suggestions for changes.

I do not think that the Chair is required to define a new procedure here today.

If the House wishes to make changes in the rules or wishes the Speaker to exercise his or her discretion in another way, I think that can be done through the Procedure and House Affairs Committee, not on a point of order in the House. Accordingly, I must reject the point of order.

P0512-e

36-2

2000-09-25