The Legislative Process / Miscellaneous

April 3, 1990

Debates, pp. 10126-7

On April 3, 1990, the Speaker gave a ruling concerning the selection and grouping of the motions at report stage for Bill C-62 respecting the Goods and Services tax. The Speaker expressed reservations over the practice of the filing of a series of amendments deleting each clause of the Bill. He expressed concern that such action could result in a repeat of the entire second reading debate. Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa—Vanier) and Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands) both rose to express concern over the comments, stating that each amendment deleting a clause constituted a substantive motion which the House should be allowed to debate.^[1] The Speaker’s decision is reproduced in its entirety below.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: The honourable Member for Ottawa—Vanier raises a point which is certainly not unexpected under the circumstances. I want to make it very clear to honourable Members that I have made a ruling, but having said that, it is the right of honourable members at any time in the future to raise matters of order with the Chair. This is some indication of my thinking on the matter.

I say to the honourable Member for Gloucester that I am sorry that there was not a chance for consultation but in this case, there wasn’t. Honourable Members know also that all table officers and the Chair were very busily engaged yesterday and last night on not just this matter but others. I will not say anything more than that.

If the honourable Member for Ottawa—Vanier wants to raise this matter at another time, of course he is completely free to do so. I thank him for recognizing that when a ruling is made, he has to accept that. This is an example that can be used in discussion at another time and I would certainly not in any way make it impossible for the matter to be raised.

The honourable Member knows that these are not always easy decisions to make, especially with a bill which is very contentious, and I am aware of that. It is why I pointed out to honourable Members that, at least at the moment, it would be very hard to say that there will not be very extensive debating time at report stage…

As I indicated to the honourable Member for Ottawa—Vanier and all Members a moment ago, any time Members want to rise on a matter of order in which they question or wish to consult with the Speaker, or make recommendations to the Speaker and through the Speaker to other Members of the House, that is a perfectly normal practice here. I am not going to preclude that.

I also point out that the House has the power to change the Standing Orders and I refer specifically to Standing Order 76(5). Those standing orders give very strong powers of selection of motions to the Speaker. That is where the authority is given to me by all Members of the House. If Members want to change that, that is a matter for Members to consider.

F0516-e

34-2

1990-04-03