The Legislative Process / Stages

Report stage: power of the Speaker to select amendments; not presented in committee

May 12, 2008

Debates, pp. 5697-8

On May 8, 2008, Joe Comartin (Windsor–Tecumseh) rose on a point of order with respect to motions in amendment proposed by Nathan Cullen (Skeena–Bulkley Valley) for the report stage of Bill C-377, Climate Change Accountability Act. Mr. Comartin argued that since the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development had come to an impasse during clause-by-clause study of the Bill, and therefore, had opted not to consider the remaining clauses and other parts of the Bill, Mr. Cullen had thus not been able to propose his amendments in committee.^[1] Mr. Comartin noted that the Committee had presented two reports to the House on this matter, the Third^[2] and the Sixth.^[3] The Speaker took the matter under advisement. On May 9, 2008, Scott Reid (Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington) rose to argue that it was the Committee that had chosen to end its clause-by-clause examination of the Bill prematurely and, accordingly, the motions in amendment in question should not be selected by the Speaker.^[4]

On May 12, 2008, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He noted that he had decided that the point of order that had been raised merited a departure from the usual practice of not providing reasons for selecting motions in amendment. He referred to the exceptional circumstances set out in the Third and Sixth Reports of the Committee which had advised the House that, as no further progress seemed possible, it had agreed that the remaining parts of the Bill should be deemed adopted and that the Bill should be reported to the House without further debate or amendment. In view of this, the Speaker declared that he was satisfied that the motions could not have been presented during the Committee’s consideration of the Bill. Accordingly, he selected the motions for debate at report stage.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: There are four motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-377, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change.

The Chair does not ordinarily provide reasons for its selection of report stage motions in amendment. However, in light of the point of order raised on Thursday, May 8, 2008 by the hon. Member for Windsor–Tecumseh and the subsequent intervention of the hon. Deputy Government House Leader, I would like to convey to the House the reasoning involved in considering these motions.

In his submission, the hon. Member for Windsor–Tecumseh described the particular circumstances surrounding the Committee consideration of Bill C-377.

During its consideration of the Bill, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development presented three separate reports. In the first of these reports, presented on April 14, 2008, the Committee described procedural difficulties it had encountered in the course of its study of Bill C-377 and recommended some action that the House might wish to take.

On April 29, 2008, in its second report relating to this Bill, the Committee reported Bill C-377 with eight amendments. On the same day, the Committee presented a third report. This report explained that having begun its clause-by-clause study on March 3, 2008, prolonged debate on clause 10 of the Bill resulted in an impasse; and that as no further progress seemed possible, the Committee turned to the consideration of a motion, the effect of which was to deem adopted the remaining parts of the Bill and to agree that the Bill be reported to the House without further debate or amendment. This motion was adopted on division by the Committee.

The hon. Member for Windsor–Tecumseh also referred to previous Speaker’s rulings where motions in amendment at report stage were selected on the basis that Members involved did not have the opportunity to present motions during the committee consideration stage. Specifically, he cited a ruling given on January 28, 2003, regarding Bill C-13, An Act respecting assisted human reproduction, and a ruling given on November 6, 2001, regarding Bill C-10, An Act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada.

In his intervention on Friday, May 9, 2008, the hon. Deputy Government House Leader also reviewed the sequence of events surrounding the Committee consideration of the Bill and referred to the two rulings just cited. He went on to argue that, in his view, the Committee’s decision to report the Bill back to the House prior to the May 7, 2008 deadline represents a conscious decision of the majority of the Committee not to make full usage of the time remaining and thus to forego further opportunities to propose amendments at the committee stage. On this basis, he concluded that the motions at report stage should not be selected.

Four report stage motions have been submitted. These motions are identical to committee amendments which were not considered due to the impasse, as described in the Committee’s report and the adoption by the Committee of the motion to report the Bill. The motions relate to clauses of the Bill which were deemed carried at the committee stage, quite clearly as a way out of the impasse.

The Chair is now faced with the matter of selection. The note accompanying S. O. 76(5) reads, in part: “The Speaker… will normally only select motions which were not or could not be presented [in committee].”

Having carefully reviewed the sequence of events and the submissions made by the hon. Member for Windsor–Tecumseh and the hon. Deputy Government House Leader, the Chair is of the opinion that we are facing very exceptional circumstances. The Committee recognized that the impasse was significant and wanted to bring that situation to the attention of the House. It did so in a report which states in part:

Given the impasse, the Committee opted not to consider the remaining clauses and parts of the Bill….

Therefore, I am satisfied that these motions could not be presented during the Committee consideration of the Bill, and accordingly I have selected them for debate at report stage. Accordingly, Motions Nos. 1 to 4 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the Table.

I shall now propose Motions numbered 1 to 4 to the House.