The Legislative Process / Stages

Report stage: power of the Speaker to select amendments; accuracy, selection and grouping of motions

January 28, 2003

Debates, pp. 2805-6

On January 28, 2003, Paul Szabo (Mississauga South) rose on a point of order with respect to motions in amendment to Bill C-13, Assisted Human Reproduction Act. First, he claimed that Motion No. 5 which he had submitted had been inadvertently left out and replaced by another. Second, he argued that the large number of motions in Group No. 2 could not be addressed properly in the 10 minutes of speaking time available to him.^[1] After hearing from another Member, the Acting Speaker (Réginald Bélair) took the matter under advisement.

The Speaker delivered his ruling later in the sitting. He stated that he had verified that the text of Motion No. 5 was indeed that which had been submitted by Mr. Szabo to the Journals Branch and that there was no irregularity. In response to the second concern, the Speaker indicated that until then he had based his decisions as to the grouping of report stage motions on the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) and guidelines in his March 21, 2001, statement, but that he recognized that there was an element of subjectivity in making these decisions. Having reviewed the motions in Group No. 2, he concluded that they could be split according to content into two groups—those relating to activities that Members sought to prohibit and those respecting activities that Members sought to control.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now ready to rule on the points of order raised earlier today by the hon. Member for Mississauga South concerning report stage of Bill C-13, An Act respecting assisted human reproduction.

The first point of order concerns Motion No. 5 standing in the name of the hon. Member for Mississauga South. The hon. Member has said that the text of this motion is not the text he intended to submit.

Having checked with my officials, I understand that while this might not be the text the hon. Member intended, it is indeed the text that was submitted to the Journals Branch, duly signed by him. Accordingly, I do not find any irregularity in the matter and will therefore have to put the question to the House.

(Editor’s Note: The question was then put on Motion No. 5 and five Members having risen, a recorded division on the motion was deferred. The Speaker then proceeded to address the second argument raised by Mr. Szabo.)

The Speaker: The second point of order concerns motions in Group No. 2.

The hon. Member for Mississauga South contends that 10 minutes is insufficient for him to speak to the 19 motions he has in that group.

In this, he is supported by the hon. Member for Oakville who argues that the 27 motions in Group No. 2, relating as they do to “prohibited and controlled activities”, go to the very heart of the debate on assisted human reproduction. She contends that 10 minutes per speaker to address the full gamut of motions is insufficient.

The Chair is aware of the limits that Members have to deal with at report stage; until now, I have based my decisions on report stage on the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) and I have tried to abide by the guidelines set out in my statement of March 21, 2001.

However, it cannot be denied that there is always an element of subjectivity in making these decisions.

As Marleau and Montpetit specifies, “Motions are grouped according to content if they could form the subject of a single debate.”

In reviewing the motions now in Group No. 2, I have concluded that the group can be split into two groups: the first relating to motions respecting activities that Members seek to prohibit; and the second relating to motions respecting activities that Members seek to control.

Accordingly, the debate at report stage of Bill C-13 will proceed with the motions originally placed in Group No. 2, regrouped as follows: in new Group No. 2, motions relating to the prohibition of activities: Motions numbered 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20 to 24, 26, 27, 40 and 47; in new Group No. 3, motions relating to controlling activities: Motions numbered 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 36, 39, 44, 45, 46, 49, 51 and 95.

Subsequent groups are re-numbered accordingly. Thus, the House is now debating, ipso facto, Group No. 4, with new Groups Nos. 5 and 6 to come.

A revised voting table will shortly be available with the Clerk.

I thank hon. Members for their representations on this subject.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for your ruling. I believe this will be very helpful to Members of the House.

At the end of your comments though, I think you mentioned being on Group No. 4. It is my understanding that we are still on Group No. 3 report stage motions.

The Speaker: Yes, but the number changed. That is what I explained in the ruling. The number changed because I split the other group so we have another number. That group has been re-numbered and is now Group No. 4. I said ipso facto. It is just one of those marvellous things. It is not quite high tech but it is close. It was Group No. 3 but because Group No. 2 was split and now we have a new Group No. 3 all the other numbers were bumped. It is very confusing, especially for your simple Speaker, but he is doing his best. That is why we are now on Group No. 4. Do not panic.