The Legislative Process / Stages

Report stage: admissibility of motions in amendment; deletion of clauses argued to infringe on financial initiative of the Crown

May 6, 2008

Debates, pp. 5502-3

On May 5, 2008, David Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board) rose on a point of order with respect to the admissibility of amendments at report stage for Bill C-5, Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act. Mr. Anderson argued that motions in amendment moved by Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic) should not be selected for debate since they could have been presented in committee. He also argued that some of the amendments would increase the cost to the Crown and, therefore, were inconsistent with the Bill’s royal recommendation. The Acting Speaker (Royal Galipeau) took the matter under advisement.^[1] Later that day, the Deputy Speaker (Bill Blaikie) delivered a ruling on the selection and grouping for debate of motions in amendment in which he explained that certain motions had not been selected by the Chair because they could have been presented in committee. The Deputy Speaker added that the Speaker would return with a more detailed ruling as soon as possible.^[2]

On May 6, 2008, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He ruled that Motion No. 10 could have been moved in committee and was not selected for debate as indicated in the ruling delivered on May 5, 2008. He noted the long-standing practice that motions to delete clauses, which cannot be proposed in committee, are normally admissible and selected at report stage. He added that motions submitted at report stage still had to meet the requirements of Standing Order 79(1) with respect to the need for a royal recommendation. He stated that the Chair was not persuaded by the arguments presented regarding an infringement on the conditions and qualifications set out in the royal recommendation. He ruled that Motion No. 1 was admissible and accordingly selected it for debate. He recognized a link between Motion No. 1 and Motion No. 5, and stated that the vote on Motion No. 1 would also be applied to Motion No. 5. The Speaker also ruled that Motion No. 7 and Motion No. 9 should remain before the House since any cost increases would be provided for through the main or supplementary estimates, and that Motion No. 6 was admissible as it did not infringe on the royal recommendation attached to the Bill. The voting pattern was revised accordingly.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: Order, please. I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board regarding the report stage motions standing on the Notice Paper for Bill C-5.

Bill C-5 would establish a liability regime applicable in the event of a nuclear incident that makes operators of nuclear installations entirely liable for damages up to a maximum of $650 million. Operators are required to maintain financial security equal to the financial liability of $650 million. The security is in the form of insurance from an approved insurer but may also, by agreement with the Minister, be in alternative form. The risk insured by an approved insurer can be reinsured by the federal Government through a special account called the Nuclear Liability Reinsurance Account.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary argued that Motions Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 could have been moved in committee and therefore should not be selected by the Speaker. I am in agreement that Motion No. 10 could have been moved in committee and accordingly, as indicated in the ruling delivered yesterday, I have not selected it for debate.

However, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary went on to argue that these same motions, all of them deletions, infringe upon the royal recommendation that accompanies the Bill. It should be noted that this is a highly unusual argument. It is a long-standing practice that motions to delete clauses are normally admissible and selected at report stage.

In this case, however, as the usual report stage ruling was about to be delivered regarding the selection from the 21 motions in amendment, 19 of them deletions, concerns were raised that some deletions provoked concerns relative to the royal recommendation. Such requirements are rarely associated with motions to delete clauses so I ask for the House’s indulgence as I explain the conclusions I have reached in this matter.

Motion No. 1 is a motion to delete clause 21. Motions of this type cannot be proposed in committee but are normally selected at the report stage.

Motions Nos. 2, 3, 4, 8, 11, 12 and 16 are consequential to Motion No. 1. House of Commons Procedure and Practice at page 666 states:

—a motion in amendment to delete a clause from a bill has always been considered by the Chair to be in order, even if such a motion would alter or go against the principle of the bill as approved at second reading.

However, motions submitted at report stage still need to meet the requirements of Standing Order 79(1) with respect to the need for a royal recommendation.

Motion No. 1 proposes to delete clause 21, which sets the liability limit of $650 million. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary has argued that deleting this clause would cause the potential liability on agents of the Crown, such as Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, to be increased. He goes on to argue that the deletion of clause 21 without the deletion of clause 26 would increase the liability on the Government and would infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown.

The Chair is not persuaded by the arguments presented that there is an infringement on the conditions and qualifications set out in the royal recommendation attached to the Bill. That said, however, I take the point that the deletion of clause 21 and of clause 26 are inextricably linked.

The Chair cannot agree that Motion No. 1, which would delete clause 21, is not admissible. Accordingly, I have maintained the original decision to select it to go forward for debate and decision. However, in recognition of the link between Motion No. 1 and Motion No. 5 which would delete clause 26, I have amended the voting pattern so that a vote on Motion No. 1 will be applied to Motion No. 5 which would delete clause 26, as well as the several consequential motions enumerated in the original decision delivered yesterday by the Deputy Speaker.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary has also argued that Motions Nos. 6, 7 and 9, if adopted, would have the effect of increasing the tribunal’s operating costs. The Chair believes that, with regard to Motions Nos. 7 and 9, such increases, if any, would be provided for through the usual appropriations secured through the main or supplementary estimates. These two motions shall therefore remain before the House.

Motion No. 6 proposes to delete clause 30 which would establish time limits on bringing claims for compensation. Motion No. 21 is consequential to Motion No. 6. The Chair is not of the view that doing away with these time limits infringes on the royal recommendation attached to the Bill.

The revised voting pattern is available at the Table. I thank hon. Members for their patience in allowing me to consider the important matters raised by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary.