The Legislative Process / Stages

Report stage: power of the Speaker to select amendments; amendments having been voted on in committee

May 7, 2014

Debates, pp. 5057–8

On May 6, 2014, Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands) rose on a point of order regarding the consideration of amendments to Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Ms. May argued that an order adopted by the Committee requiring that all remaining questions necessary to dispose of its clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill be put by a specified time contradicted an earlier order by the Committee. She contended that this resulted in Members from non-recognized parties being prevented from speaking to their amendments before they were voted on by the Committee. That being the case, Ms. May argued that some of her motions in amendment should be selected by the Speaker for consideration at report stage, even though they were already voted on by the Committee. After hearing from other Members, the Speaker took the matter under advisement.^[1]

Resolution

On May 7, 2014, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He stated that the Committee was within its rights to impose a deadline for debate on clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill, even if it kept Ms. May from speaking to all of her proposed amendments. The Speaker added that decisions on the conduct of its business was the exclusive responsibility of the Committee. The Speaker concluded that the imposition of a deadline for debate by the Committee did not provide sufficient grounds to select Ms. May’s amendments, which the committee considered and voted on for consideration at report stage.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: Before addressing the selection and grouping of report stage motions for Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts, I would like to address the point of order raised on May 6, 2014, by the hon. Member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

I would like to thank the Member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for raising this matter as well as the Government Leader in the House, the House Leader of the Official Opposition, and the Members for Toronto—Danforth, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, and Winnipeg North for their comments.

The Member for Saanich—Gulf Islands raised concerns that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs adopted a motion requiring all remaining questions necessary to dispose of its clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill to be put by a specified time, effectively creating a deadline for the debate to end. She argued that this motion contradicts an earlier Committee order adopted on October 29, 2013, which gives Members from non-recognized parties the ability to speak to their suggested amendments to Bills before they are voted on by the Committee. Because of the imposed deadline, the Member’s opportunity to speak to her amendments was interfered with, pursuant to the Committee order of October 29, 2013. As such, the Member for Saanich—Gulf Islands suggested that substantive amendments, even if already voted on by the Committee, should be selected for consideration at report stage. Several Members rose in support of the Member for Saanich—Gulf Islands’ point of order.

The Government House Leader made two central points in response. First, he reminded the House that at report stage the Speaker’s authority to select report stage amendments is limited to determining whether they were presented, or could have been presented at committee. Second, he pointed out that the deadline adopted by the Committee affected all Members the same way, so it is inaccurate to claim that Members from unrecognized parties and independents were particularly penalized in this regard.

In examining the matter, it is useful to remind the House of the power of the Speaker to select amendments at report stage. To place the matter in its proper context, it is helpful to refer to the March 21, 2001, statement by Speaker Milliken, found at page 1991 of the Debates, which establishes the guidelines upon which I rely to discharge my responsibility to select amendments at report stage. Speaker Milliken was clear in his intent when he urged:

… all Members and all parties to avail themselves fully of the opportunity to propose amendments during committee stage so that the report stage can return to the purpose for which it was created, namely for the House to consider the committee report and the work the committee has done …

These principles are also reflected in the interpretive notes attached to Standing Orders 76(5) and 76.1(5).^[2] House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, further expands on these principles, explaining at pages 783 and 784 that:

… the Speaker will normally only select motions in amendment that could not have been presented in committee.

I would remind all Members that the guidelines for selection specify whether amendments could have been presented in committee and whether they were defeated in committee. In the case of the Committee’s consideration of Bill C-23, all members of the Committee, as well as any interested independent Member, were given the opportunity to present their amendments at Committee, and a certain number of these amendments were defeated. The hon. Member is now asking the Chair, in exercising its powers of selection, to evaluate whether the consideration afforded such amendments in Committee was sufficient.

It is evident that the Committee chose to handle its consideration of Bill C-23 in a particular way. A motion setting out the process to be followed was proposed, debated, and ultimately agreed to. Just as the opportunity to present and speak to amendments was decided by way of a committee motion, the deadline by which debate would end likewise was decided by a committee motion. Such decisions are the exclusive responsibility of the Committee. I do not believe that it is for the Chair to second-guess how committees choose to manage their business.

The hon. Member has asked that I select motions for consideration at report stage because she was not able to debate them in Committee. In doing so, she referred to a ruling I gave on December 12, 2012, whereby I noted that I would continue to select motions from independent Members at report stage until such time as a satisfactory method was found for them to participate in the clause-by-clause consideration at committee. I understand that the hon. Member found unsatisfactory the opportunities afforded to her at the Procedure and House Affairs Committee in relation to Bill C-23. Other members of the Committee echoed they too were not satisfied that certain amendments were not debated once the Committee’s self-imposed deadline was reached. That said, it remains clear to me that the Committee considered and voted on all amendments she is asking me to select.

In 2006, Speaker Milliken dealt with a somewhat analogous situation in relation to Bill C-24, the Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act.

On November 6, 2006, the hon. Member for Burnaby—New Westminster raised a point of order regarding the decision of the Standing Committee on International Trade to limit debate and set a strict deadline by which point debate would end.

Though the situation was different insofar as he was a Member of the Committee concerned, I believe Speaker Milliken’s response, found on page 4756 of Debates, was instructive:

I do think that committees are masters of their own procedure. They are entitled to make provisions in adopting orders in the committee that govern the way they are going to conduct their business.. The committee is allowed to make amend­ments to the bill. The committee has imposed rules on how those amendments will be dealt with in the committee and how Members will be able to address the issues raised by the amendments. It seems to me that [it] is entirely within the jurisdiction of the committee and indeed [it] is [a] quite normal exercise of its powers.

When the Bill was taken up at report stage, the Member for Burnaby—New Westminster submitted a large number of the amendments that had been defeated in committee, and asked the Chair to select them on the basis that they had not been debated in committee.

In a ruling I gave as Acting Speaker on November 21, 2006, found on page 5125 of Debates, I declined to do so, reminding the House that:

... the Chair selects motions which further amend an amendment adopted by a committee, motions which make consequential changes based on an amendment adopted by a committee and motions which delete a clause.

Aside from this, the Chair is loath to select motions unless a Member makes a compelling argument for selection based on the exceptional significance of the amendment.

As far as the Chair is concerned, in keeping with past precedents, I cannot see how the imposition of a deadline for the end of the debate could constitute a justifiable argument for the selection of amendments at report stage that were already presented and defeated in committee.