Amendments to the Content of Bills / Report Stage

June 14, 1984

Debates pp. 4680-3

On June 12, 1984, the House proceeded to the consideration of report stage of Bill C9, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, for which 175 notices of motion in amendment had been printed on the Notice Paper. In the usual practice of the House, Mr. Speaker made a preliminary statement on the grouping and procedural acceptability of 133 of the motions in amendment. Of this number, 97 in the name of Mr. Robinson (Burnaby) sought to delete a separate clause or schedule of the bill. Mr. Speaker noted that the cumulative effect of affirmative votes on these motions would be to kill the bill and therefore all must be disposed of together. He grouped all for debate with a vote on Motion No. 1 disposing of all the remaining motions. At the conclusion of his statement Mr. Speaker said that he would hear argument before making his final ruling. The House began debate on Motion No. 1 without prejudice to any final decision.

For much of the sittings of June 12, 13 and 14, the Chair heard procedural argument stemming from the preliminary statement of the Speaker. Much of the debate involved the Speaker's proposed grouping of Mr. Robinson's amendments to delete clauses. In his own submissions, Mr. Robinson pointed out that the purpose of placing on notice such a large number of deletion motions was to ensure that the House had an opportunity to debate the wide range of very important subjects referred to in the legislation. He proposed that his motions could be grouped with others dealing with the same subject matter or part of the bill, or that in some instances motions might be withdrawn if other motions in amendment allowed sufficient debate. It was his contention that the manner in which the Chair had grouped all the deletion clauses allowed for no such debate on the subject matter of the bill and that because of the importance of the legislation Members should have an opportunity to debate the major elements of the bill fully at report stage. To aid the Chair in its final ruling he also provided a specific set of groupings for its consideration. Following a number of submissions in the Chamber and consultations outside it, Mr. Speaker made his final ruling following Routine Proceedings on June 14, 1984.

Issue

During report stage consideration of a bill should motions in amendment to delete clauses and schedules be grouped together for debate?

Decision

No. In a lengthy, complex bill, motions to delete clauses should be grouped in such a way as to allow debate on the various aspects of the bill.

Reasons given by the Speaker

The role of the Speaker in relation to report stage is twofold. The Speaker has the power to select motions to be put to the House and he has the power to group motions either for debate or for voting or both. These powers are absolute and the Speaker may combine motions as he sees fit. "No occupant of the Chair can exercise this discretion without keeping in mind the importance of his decisions."

The arguments of the Hon. Member for Burnaby "have convinced me to group the motions to delete clauses with those motions which amend the same clauses. The remaining motions to delete have been grouped in three separate groups, according to parts of the Bill".

Sources cited

Beauchesne, 5th ed., pp. 236-7, c. 787.

References

Debates, June 12, 1984, pp. 4559-73; June 13, 1984, pp. 4635-48; June 14, 1984, pp. 4649-30.