Private Members’ Business / Votable and Non-votable Items

Bill designated votable: adoption of an amendment to discharge the Order for second reading and refer the subject matter of the bill to committee

May 9, 2002

Debates, pp. 11457-8

On February 18, 2002, during debate on the motion for second reading of Bill C-344, An Act to amend the Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (marihuana), standing in the name of Keith Martin (Esquimalt–Juan de Fuca), John Maloney (Erie–Lincoln) moved an amendment to discharge the Order for second reading and to refer the subject matter of the Bill to the Special Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs^[1]. Ken Epp (Elk Island) immediately rose to object to the proposed amendment, arguing that a Member on the Government side should not be allowed to “hijack” a private Member’s bill.^[2] At the conclusion of Private Members’ Business for that day, the Speaker ruled that the amendment was in order. It was agreed to by the House on April 17, 2002 and the Order for second reading of Bill C-344 was accordingly discharged, the Bill was withdrawn and the subject matter was referred to committee.^[3]

On May 9, 2002, Réal Ménard (Hochelaga–Maisonneuve) submitted to the Chair a letter signed by 81 Members which maintained that when a private Member’s bill deemed votable is not voted on, a breach of parliamentary privilege has occurred and an unfortunate precedent has been set.^[4]

The Speaker ruled immediately, reiterating that the amendment and the majority decision of the House approving that amendment had been in order. He indicated that he would forward the letter to the Chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, with the suggestion that the Committee examine the proposals contained in the letter with a view to modifying the rules governing Private Members’ Business. He noted that Mr. Ménard and his co-signatories could appear before the Committee to present their arguments. He concluded by reminding all Members that his role as Speaker was to implement the rules the House makes for itself, not to change them.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: Order, please. This is not debate. This is a point of order. The Chair is ready to put an end to this discussion at this time.

The hon. Member for Hochelaga–Maisonneuve has submitted a letter to the Chair. I have received it and read what it said.

However, the issue raised in the letter really concerns Private Members’ Business.

Mr. Réal Ménard: It concerns the Speaker and the Members.

The Speaker: The hon. Member says that it concerns the Speaker and the Members. But the Speaker has already ruled on the admissibility of the amendment to this Bill that was put to a vote in the House.

The Member for Hochelaga–Maisonneuve knows full well that the Speaker always has to draw the line between the rights of various groups of Members, on either side of the House or in [a]^[5] party.

In this case, it has been suggested that the decision of the majority on the question put to the House regarding the amendment to the motion at second reading stage of this Bill was somehow out of order.

I have already ruled otherwise. I think that the important thing here is that, if some Members insist that this type of amendment is out of order, then other Members will make the argument that it is in order. The Speaker is always in the middle of these arguments and has to decide.

Based on the precedents that I have examined in order to rule on this matter, I have come to the conclusion that such an amendment to any bill before the House is in order.

A study on Private Members’ Business is currently underway at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The Government House Leader strongly suggested that the Committee undertake this kind of study, and the study will continue.

The hon. Member for Hochelaga–Maisonneuve may have attended the Committee meeting last week. I do not recall the date though. There will certainly be other opportunities for the Committee to examine this issue.

What I can do—and will do so immediately this afternoon—is to send this letter to the Chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, suggesting that the Committee examine the proposals contained in this letter to change the rules concerning Private Members’ Business, as suggested by the Member for Hochelaga–Maisonneuve.

I am certain that the hon. Member and his colleagues who signed the letter can appear before the Committee to encourage it to rule on that point and, perhaps, recommend changes to the Standing Orders of the House.

These are the rules that the Speaker has to enforce here in the House. I do not have the authority to change them. I have to follow the rules and be the servant to the House.

The rules whereby amendments are deemed in order or out of order are made by the House. If the House wants to change the rules, as Speaker of the House, I will be happy to implement the changes.

I can assure the hon. Member that I will immediately send the letter to the Chair of the Committee.

At this point, Mr. Ménard rose to ask whether the Speaker would ensure that remedial action was taken for the benefit of Mr. Martin. The Speaker replied immediately.

The Speaker: I have indicated that the amendment to the motion at second reading stage of the Bill put forward by the hon. Member for Esquimalt–Juan de Fuca was in order and admissible. The House decided to adopt it. I am not the one who came to that decision, but the majority of Members, in a division in this House.

If the hon. Member wishes to see a vote on the motion at second reading stage, the majority can reject that motion and refer the whole matter to committee. The majority, however, decided otherwise. As the hon. Member knows very well, it is hard for the Chair to change this.

The matter will therefore be reviewed in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I am sure that the hon. Member, who has some very persuasive arguments, can go before the Committee in order to persuade the Members that his position is the right one, the accurate one, and the one the House needs to adopt.

The Standing Orders of the House of Commons were subsequently amended and Standing Order 93(3) thereafter specified that “amendments to motions and to the motion for second reading of a bill may only be moved with the consent of the sponsor of the item”.

The subject matter of Bill C-344 was referred to the Special Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs, which presented its final report (Policy for the new Millennium: Working Together to Redefine Canada’s Drug Strategy) to the House on December 12, 2002.^[6]

In the Second Session of the Thirty-Seventh Parliament, Mr. Martin introduced Bill C-327, An Act to amend the Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (marihuana), on December 5, 2002.^[7]

At the time of the deferred division on Mr. Maloney’s amendment on April 17, 2002, Mr. Martin attempted to remove the mace from the Table in protest. He subsequently apologized to the House for his action.^[8] See Debates, October 31, 1991, pp. 4271-8, 4279-80, 4309-10; Journals, October 31, 1991, p. 574, for another instance of a Member attempting to touch the mace.