The House and Its Members / Miscellaneous

Written committee proceedings on Bill C-36 (Anti-terrorism Act) unavailable: request for delay of consideration of report stage

November 26, 2001

Debates, pp. 7477-8

On Thursday, November 22, 2001, Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) announced that the Government would call Bill C-36, Anti-terrorism Act, for debate at report stage on Monday, November 26, 2001. Peter MacKay (Pictou–Antigonish–Guysborough) rose immediately on a point of order, objecting that neither transcripts of the deliberations of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights nor copies of the Bill, as reported by the Committee with amendments, were available.^[1]

Pursuant to a Special Order adopted on October 31, 2001, the deadline for the submission of notices of motions in amendment at report stage to the Bill was 2:00 p.m. on November 23, 2001, a day on which the House was not scheduled to sit.^[2] Mr. MacKay asked that the Government House Leader delay consideration of the Bill until all the Committee Evidence was published and copies of the Bill, as amended, were available to all Members. After hearing from other Members, the Speaker declared that the “blues”, the unedited transcription of Committee Evidence, were accessible and that a reprint of the Bill would be available at 4:00 p.m. that same afternoon. He also remarked that the rules applicable to the matter were clear and had been respected. He suggested that Mr. MacKay seek a solution through other channels. Later in the sitting, Mr. MacKay returned to the matter, noting that neither the Bill nor the Committee Evidence was available. The Speaker promised to look into the matter of the transcripts and later informed the House that the reprint of the Bill would not be ready until the next day. Following consultations, the House agreed to extend the deadline for notice first to 2:00 p.m., Saturday, November 24, 2001, and then to 6:00 p.m., on the same day.^[3]

On Monday, November 26, 2001, Mr. MacKay rose on a point of order. Although the deadline for the submission of notices of motions in amendment at report stage to the Bill had been extended to 6:00 p.m., Saturday, November 24, 2001, he noted that half of the Committee proceedings had not yet been published. He again asked that the consideration of the Bill at report stage be delayed. The Government House Leader argued that the deadline for notice had been extended three times and that often in the past the publication of committee Minutes and Evidence occurred after the House had taken up consideration of a bill at report stage. Other Members also spoke to the matter at issue.^[4]

The Speaker ruled immediately. He stated that he had no power to defer the business the Government had chosen to bring forward that day and that there was no precedent that established that a bill in the House which was up for discussion could not be proceeded with until the Evidence had been filed. He concluded that the Chair ought not to intervene in the matter or to change a process agreed to by the House, and that it was the right of the Government to set the business of the House and to proceed with the Bill.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: The Chair appreciates the interventions of all hon. Members who have had something to say on this important issue.

It is not the first time that Members in the House have criticized the Government for the speed with which it proceeds with a bill. I am sure this will happen again.

Even allowing for that, I think hon. Members have to recognize, as the hon. Member for Pictou–Antigonish–Guysborough did in his point of order, that he was raising not a point of order. He was raising a request to the Government to consider deferring the matter.

The Government House Leader has in effect given his answer. As I understand it he is not prepared to defer it. Now the suggestion seems to be that perhaps the Speaker is somehow able to be involved in the matter and ought to take some steps to defer the matter and prevent the House from considering the business the Government has chosen to bring before the House today.

I do not think it is for the Chair to make that decision. I respectfully draw the attention of all hon. Members to the words of Mr. Speaker Macnaughton on March 17, 1965, as reported on page 12479 of Hansard of that day, when he said:

The basic question is whether or not a bill in the House of Commons can be discussed, assuming that the Evidence has not been completely finished in its English and French printing. I have made a search of the records since Confederation, and there is no case that says that a bill in the House of Commons which is up for discussion cannot be proceeded with until the Evidence has been filed. If we were to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Lapointe… emotionally pleasing as it may be, nevertheless procedurally in my opinion it would be completely wrong, and would establish a very bad precedent.

I could quote Mr. Speaker Francis from page 4631 of Hansard dated June 13, 1984, when he said:

I really do feel uncomfortable when hon. Members do not have the transcripts. However, I am guided by the precedent of Mr. Speaker Macnaughton. I am guided by the fact that the rules are silent as to the form of printing.

I realize hon. Members are uncomfortable with the fact that certain of the transcripts of committee proceedings in relation to this Bill are not available or, if they are, have only just become available, whatever the case may be. However, in spite of that, I believe it is the right of the Government that sets the business of the House in compliance with the rules of the House itself to proceed with this Bill without those transcripts.

As the hon. Leader of the Government in the House said, when he was first elected, the Minutes of the committees were not available for at least three weeks after the end of the committee meetings. I clearly remember that myself. When I first came here, 13 years ago, the committee Minutes were not available the same week that the meetings had been held.

To look back at our history and our practice, I believe the ruling I have cited from Speaker Macnaughton in 1965 is entirely in accordance with that practice. However inconvenient it may be to proceed with the Bill at this time, if the Government’s choice is to do exactly that, I do not believe it is a case where the Speaker ought to be intervening in this matter, either to delay the matter further or to make any changes in the process, which has been agreed to by the House unanimously, in extending the time for filing those amendments and in dealing with the amendments as they have been brought forward.

I therefore now proceed to Orders of the Day.

Immediately following the Speaker’s ruling, Lorne Nystrom (Regina–Qu’Appelle) rose on a question of privilege on the same matter. He stated that the Bill had only become available in its final form on Saturday, November 24, 2001, notwithstanding the fact that the deadline for the filing of amendments was 6:00 p.m. that day. He charged that this had affected his privileges and those of the NDP Caucus attending the Party’s national convention in Winnipeg, as they had been able neither to see the reprint of the Bill nor to meet the notice deadline. The Speaker recognized that all Members had obligations that took them away from Ottawa, but since the House met daily, it was difficult for the Chair to imagine that the Member’s privileges had been violated by the fact that he was tied up at another meeting over the course of the weekend and could not file amendments. He did not believe that the Member’s privileges had been violated. He suggested that the Member meet with the House Leaders to see if other arrangements could be made or seek unanimous consent to bring forward any amendments.^[5]