Rules of Debate / Order and Decorum

Relevance: debate at report stage

March 21, 2013

Context

On March 21, 2013, James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake) rose on a point of order during debate on motions in amendment at report stage of Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. Mr. Bezan argued that comments by Jack Harris (St. John’s East) were not relevant to the amendments before the House, and that debate during report stage must focus on specific amendments rather than wide-ranging discussion of the Bill. Other Members made comments.

Resolution

The Acting Speaker (Barry Devolin) ruled immediately. He acknowledged that debate during report stage offered narrower parameters than did debate during second or third reading stage but confirmed that it was the practice of the House to allow Members considerable leeway to provide context for their remarks. Concluding that Mr. Harris’ comments were relevant, the Acting Speaker allowed him to continue.

Decision of the Chair

The Acting Speaker: The Chair thanks the hon. Member for Selkirk—Interlake for his intervention and the Members for St. John’s East and Saanich—Gulf Islands for their subsequent interventions.

In terms of general context, the hon. Member for Selkirk—Interlake is correct that the Standing Orders state that when Members rise to speak to a matter before the House, their comments ought to be relevant to that matter.

It is also fair to say that historically and consistently the Chair has granted what some would consider significant latitude to Members in the points they make in their presentations. From time to time, Members take very indirect ways to come to their point. It is a good reminder for all Members that they need to keep their comments relevant to the matter before the House.

On the second point, the hon. Member is technically correct in that the parameters or leeway granted ought to be narrower when the House is considering amendments as opposed to general legislation potentially during second reading or third reading. However, once again I would suggest the Chair recognizes that in the course of a 10- or 20-minute speech, hon. Members need to provide context to the comments they wish to make that are relevant to a matter before the House.

As an editorial comment, there are certainly times when Members wander far afield from the matter before the House and are possibly beyond the grey area. However, in this case, I would suggest that has not happened. The hon. Member for St. John’s East is certainly talking in the context of the Bill. I trust that before his 10 minutes expires, he will make all of the context relevant to the points that have to do with the amendments currently being debated.

Editor’s Note

Later during the debate, Mr. Bezan rose again on a point of order concerning the relevance of remarks by Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue).

The Acting Speaker: Once again the Chair thanks the hon. Member for Selkirk—Interlake for rising on this point of order and the Member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue for her reference to it as well.

I would like to reiterate a point I made earlier and possibly offer a suggestion on a go-forward basis.

The Member for Selkirk—Interlake points out quite correctly that there are rules of relevance in this place, in particular that when we are at report stage and the House is dealing with specific amendments that have been put forward, debate ought to be focused on those amendments rather than on a broad, general discussion of the entire Bill or the subject in general.

He has also suggested, if not stated outright, that in this way business before the House is in some ways similar to how a committee would deal with amendments. The points that he has made are all quite relevant.

The question becomes the latitude that the Chair grants to Members to discuss business before the House, such as what would be considered allowable context, preamble or reference to other pieces of legislation or other amendments that had been brought forward on the same piece of business, possibly at committee, or other experiences that the hon. Member has had.

Therefore, I would remind all hon. Members that it is in the collective interest of this place and of all Members that time in the House be used efficiently, that Members stick to the matter before the House, keep their comments relevant to it and avoid repetition of points that have been made to the same end in terms of the efficiency of this place.

I would suggest to the hon. Member for Selkirk—Interlake that the Chair will review the comments he has made today regarding the points of order related to the debate that is taking place in the House today and will return to this matter if it is deemed necessary. However, within that context I would like the House to resume debate on this matter and would state that the Chair will continue to exercise judgment of relevance in a way similar to the way it has been exercised in the past, rather than in the more restrictive way requested by this hon. Member. That will remain the practice of the Chair until the Chair has had an opportunity to review the matter. If changes to that practice of relevance are made, they will be announced in the House.

The point that the hon. Member for Selkirk—Interlake makes goes beyond this debate today and is a more general point. With all due respect to that point, it will be considered and if deemed reasonable or necessary, the Chair will return to this matter in the future.

Postscript

The Chair did not return to the House to announce any changes to the manner in which it would deal with matters of repetition or relevance.