Private Members’ Business / Miscellaneous

June 15, 2000

Debates, pp. 8073-4

On June 5, 2000, at the beginning of the sitting, Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley), rose on a point of order to express concern about the cancellation of that day’s Private Members’ Business hour because it had not been possible to arrange an exchange of items pursuant to Standing Order 94(2).^[1] The business for consideration was to have been the report stage of Bill C-201, formerly known as An Act to amend the Competition Act (protection of those who purchase products from vertically integrated suppliers who compete with them at retail), sponsored by Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge). The bill had been reported from the Standing Committee on Industry with amendments which deleted its title and clauses. Mr. Strahl complained that the bill had been scheduled for debate on several occasions, and that each time either an exchange of items had been arranged or the hour for Private Members’ Business had been cancelled. After hearing interventions from Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons), the Speaker deferred ruling on the matter until he had heard from Mr. McTeague.^[2] On June 7, the Speaker reminded the government House leader that the matter was in abeyance until Mr. McTeague could be heard. Later in the sitting, Mr. McTeague explained to the House that he was attempting to restore through amendment the content of the bill.^[3]

The Deputy Speaker (Peter Milliken) delivered a ruling at the beginning of the sitting on June 15, 2000. He pointed out how repeated exchanges were unfair to members with items outside the order of precedence, which could not advance if other items remained on the order of precedence as a result of such exchanges. Referring to Standing Order 94(1)(a), empowering the Speaker to ensure the orderly conduct of Private Members’ Business, the Deputy Speaker allowed Mr. McTeague a further 48 hours to place on the Notice Paper motions in amendment to restore the bill’s title and clauses. He stated that, if at the expiration of this time, no motions in amendment were filed, he would instruct the Clerk to remove Bill C‑201 from the order of precedence; the order for concurrence at report stage would be discharged and the Bill withdrawn. In addition, the Deputy Speaker encouraged the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to consider the issue and to provide guidance on how to proceed in future in similar cases.

Decision of the Chair

The Deputy Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule on the point of order raised on June 5, 2000, by the honourable opposition House leader concerning Bill C-201, formerly known as An Act to amend the Competition Act (protection of those who purchase products from vertically integrated suppliers who compete with them at retail) in the name of the honourable member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, which is presently on the order of precedence.

At the outset, I would like to thank the opposition House leader, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the honourable member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge for their contributions in this matter.

Standing Order 86(1) allows a private member’s bill considered in a previous session to be reinstated at the same stage at which it stood at the time of prorogation. At the time of prorogation the bill in question, previously Bill C-235, had been reported from the Standing Committee on Industry with amendments that deleted the title and all the clauses of the bill and it was set down for consideration at report stage.

When the honourable member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge introduced his bill on October 14, 1999, pursuant to Standing Order 86(1), it was again placed on the order of precedence at the report stage with its title and clauses deleted.

On a number of occasions during the present session, the honourable member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge has given notice that he could not be present in the House to go forward with his bill.

Most of the time it was possible to arrange an exchange of positions on the order of precedence with another member. However, on two occasions, on February 15 and on June 2, the House was informed that it had not been possible to arrange an exchange of positions on the order of precedence for Private Members’ Business Hour for the following sitting day.

Consequently, Private Members’ Business hour had to be cancelled and the honourable member’s bill was dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence.

On June 5 the opposition House leader expressed concern about the number of times exchanges had been arranged for Bill C-201, and the fact that when no exchange of items on the order of precedence was possible, Private Members’ Business could not take place.

On June 7 the honourable member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge responded to the point of order raised by the opposition House leader, and the Speaker undertook to return to the House with a ruling, which I am now providing.

Bill C-201 is once again working its way up the order of precedence, while the honourable member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge seeks a way to restore, through amendments, the effect of Bill C-201. However, the honourable member will agree that the situation is unfair to other honourable members who have items in the list outside the order of precedence that they consider of equal importance but which are unable to advance.

Standing Order 94(1)(a) allows the Speaker to ensure the orderly conduct of Private Members’ Business and, with that in mind, the Chair has decided to allow the honourable member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge a further 48 hours to place on the Notice Paper motions in amendment to restore the title and clauses.

At the expiration of the 48 hours, if no motions in amendment are placed on notice, I hereby instruct the Clerk to remove Bill C-201 from the order of precedence, the order for concurrence at report stage to be discharged and the bill withdrawn.

As I stated the other day, I would encourage the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to consider this specific issue and to provide the House with some guidance as to how it should proceed in the future with similar cases.

The Chair would like to take this opportunity to thank all honourable members for their patience in awaiting this decision.

On June 15, the day the ruling was given, the House adjourned until September 18, 2000.^[4] On September 18, the Notice Paper carried a series of amendments submitted by Mr. McTeague, restoring the content of the bill.^[5] The bill was in second place on the order of precedence when the 36th Parliament ended on October 22, 2000.

P1007-e

36-2

2000-06-15