The Legislative Process / Report Stage

Motions in amendment: admissibility; previously rejected in committee

Debates, pp. 5608-9

Context

On April 3, 2000, at the beginning of Government Orders and following the ruling given by the Acting Speaker (Yolande Thibeault) on the grouping of the motions in amendment at report stage of Bill C‑23, An Act to modernize the Statutes of Canada in relation to benefits and obligations, Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley) rose on a point of order about the admissibility of Motion No. 3 in the name of Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas). Mr. Strahl alleged that since the motion was moved and defeated at committee stage it was out of order and could not be introduced at report stage in the House, unless the Speaker decided otherwise. Mr. Robinson rose on the same point of order and pointed out that the same situation applied also to Motion No. 4 in the name of Ken Epp (Elk Island) since that motion was also defeated in committee.[1]

Resolution

Later that day, the Acting Speaker ruled that Motions Nos. 3 and 4 were of such exceptional significance as to warrant further consideration at report stage.

Decision of the Chair

The Acting Speaker: Before resuming debate I want to come to the points of order raised earlier today concerning the admissibility of Motions Nos. 3 and 4 on the Notice Paper which were selected for debate at report stage of Bill C‑23, An Act to modernize the Statutes of Canada in relation to benefits and obligations.

Motion No. 3 in the name of the member for Burnaby—Douglas is identical to the text of a subamendment moved in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights during a meeting on March 23, 2000, and defeated in a recorded division. Motion No. 4 in the name of the member for Elk Island is similar to another motion moved in that committee. Under normal circumstances such motions would not be selected for consideration at report stage. I have looked carefully at the two motions and after appropriate consideration, I am convinced that they do fulfil the requirements to be selected in that they have such exceptional significance as to warrant a further consideration at report stage.

Accordingly, both motions remain selected for debate and voting purposes in Group No. 1.

P0511-e

36-2

2000-04-03

Some third-party websites may not be compatible with assistive technologies. Should you require assistance with the accessibility of documents found therein, please contact accessible@parl.gc.ca.

[1] Debates, December 2, 1999, pp. 2029-30.