The Legislative Process / Stages

Passage of Senate amendments: motion to concur in Senate’s message to divide a bill not considered a stage; time allocation

April 10, 2003

Debates, pp. 5363-4

On April 7, 2003, John Reynolds (West Vancouver–Sunshine Coast) rose on a point of order with respect to a motion to concur in a Senate message purporting to divide Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act.^[1] Mr. Reynolds argued that the motion to concur in the message from the Senate regarding Bill C-10 could not be considered a stage of a bill nor could the Senate’s division of Bill C-10 be considered an amendment to the Bill. He maintained that the motion to concur in the Senate message should therefore not be listed on the Order Paper under Government Bills as a motion in response to an amendment made to a bill, but rather should be listed as a Government motion. He added that consequently an ancillary time allocation motion, for which notice had been given by the Government, would be invalid as this was not permitted on a Government motion, and since the motion would not be worded properly since it was as a motion to concur in the Senate message regarding an amendment to a bill. Mr. Reynolds requested that the Speaker refuse to allow a time allocation motion to be moved, and defer any vote on the motion with respect to the Senate message until the matter was resolved. After hearing from other Members, the Speaker took the matter under advisement.^[2]

On April 10, 2003, the Speaker delivered his ruling. Referring to his previous ruling on this same matter delivered on December 5, 2002,^[3] he reiterated that the motion to concur in the Senate message was a proper motion properly before the House. He stated that, having considered the arguments presented in this unusual circumstance, he was of the view that the motion was intrinsic to the legislative process for this particular Bill. He stated that a decision must be taken by the House either to concur in or defeat the motion to concur in the Senate proposal to divide the Bill. Accordingly, he concluded that the Government would be permitted to give notice of and move time allocation on this motion.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I wish now to indicate to the House that I am ready to rule on a point of order raised on Monday, April 7, by the hon. Member for West Vancouver–Sunshine Coast concerning the motion on the Order paper to concur in the Senate’s message to divide Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act.

I would like to thank the hon. Member for West Vancouver–Sunshine Coast for raising the issue. I also wish to thank the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the Member for Vancouver East for their interventions on the matter.

The hon. Member for West Vancouver–Sunshine Coast raised a number of interesting points, stating that the message from the Senate regarding Bill C-10 could not be considered a stage of a bill nor could the Senate’s division of Bill C-10 be considered an amendment. He went on to argue that the motion to concur in the Senate’s message should therefore not be listed on the Order Paper under Government Bills as a motion in response to an amendment made to a bill but rather should be listed as a motion under the heading Government Motions.

In consequence, the hon. Member argued that the notice given by the Government to time allocate the motion was invalid since Standing Order 78 can only be used to curtail debate on motions related to the stages of bills and not on a Government motion.

At the time this point of order was raised, I indicated that this matter had previously been before the House in December 2002, when questions were raised about the admissibility of the motion and the possible breach of the privileges of the House in relation to the actions taken by the other place in dividing the Bill.

In my ruling delivered on December 5, 2002, I stated that there was no basis for a prima facie question of privilege, and I made the following point at that time:

—while the Speaker agrees with the view of Mr. Speaker Fraser that privileged matters are involved where the Senate divides a House bill without first having the House’s concurrence, this is not the case in this instance. Our concurrence has in fact been requested—

See House of Commons Debates, December 5, 2002, p. 2336.

Given the conclusions delivered in my ruling in December, the motion to concur in the Senate message to divide the Bill is a proper motion and it is properly before the House, and accordingly I consider the issue of the admissibility of the motion closed.

In my December ruling, I also pointed out to hon. Members that they would have the opportunity to debate the motion when it was brought before the House and to propose amendments as they saw fit. That process is well underway. Debate on the motion to concur in the Senate’s request to divide Bill C-10 commenced on December 6, 2002, and Members of the Official Opposition have since proposed an amendment and a subamendment to the motion.

On February 14, the Government gave notice of time allocation on consideration of the motion to concur in the message from the Senate, and this is the issue to which I would now like to turn. In his arguments, the hon. Member for West Vancouver–Sunshine Coast questioned whether the Senate message seeking concurrence to divide Bill C-10 could properly be considered an amendment and treated as a stage of a bill under the provisions of Standing Order 78. The December ruling on this matter found the motion to be in order and therefore properly before the House.

After full consideration of the arguments presented in this unusual circumstance, I have now concluded that the motion to concur in the Senate message to divide Bill C-10 is indeed intrinsic to the legislative process for this particular Bill.

The hon. Member for West Vancouver–Sunshine Coast sought to draw a parallel with the case of a motion from the House instructing one of its committees to divide a bill. Whereas it might be argued that such a motion is complementary to the legislative process already in train and not integral to it, in the case before us, the motion to waive House privileges and permit the other House to divide Bill C-10 is, in my view, clearly part of the critical path of the legislative process with regard to this Bill.

For this Bill to proceed down its unique and admittedly unprecedented legislative path to Royal Assent and proclamation, a decision must be taken by the House either to concur in or defeat the motion to concur in the Senate proposal to divide the Bill. I therefore feel that this motion is part of the legislative process on this Bill, not an additional motion introduced to do something to a bill otherwise before the House.

Given this set of circumstances, I find that it is in order for the Government to give notice and move time allocation pursuant to Standing Order 78 on the consideration of this motion. I draw the attention of Members to page 563 of Marleau and Montpetit, where the following point is made regarding the use of time allocation:

… although the rule permits the government to negotiate with opposition parties towards the adoption of a timetable for the consideration by the House of a bill at one or more stages (including the stage for the consideration of Senate amendments), it also allows the government to impose strict limits on the time for debate.

In conclusion, I would concur with the hon. Member for West Vancouver–Sunshine Coast that this is indeed an unprecedented case. Absent a definitive rule or practice of the House with respect to the Senate’s proposed division of House bills, the Chair believes it prudent to act with an abundance of caution. The Senate has properly sought the concurrence of the House in its proposed course of action and now awaits the decision of the House before proceeding further. This motion clearly seeks the concurrence of the House to divide Bill C-10, thus responding to the Senate request. This dialogue is intrinsic to the legislative process for Bill C-10 and the Speaker is thus bound to accept that the procedure being followed is acceptable in this case.