Mr. Chair, I'm greatly concerned by this. I will explain why.
In what I have been given, on page 47 it states that,
The Speaker will not normally select for consideration any motion previously ruled out of order in committee, unless the reason for its being ruled out of order was that it required a recommendation of the Governor General...
In particular, this is what I am interested in, Mr. Chair:
...in which case the amendment may be selected only if such Recommendation has been placed on notice pursuant to this Standing Order. The Speaker will normally only select motions that were not or could not be presented in committee.
“Presented” is the key word I am interested in today. That's my question. Have the amendments by Mr. Rathgeber been presented? They certainly haven't been defeated. Have they been presented? I don't remember him presenting them. Is that what it means when...?
It doesn't say “ruled out of order”. I want to go on, Mr. Chair. I have quite a bit of information here, especially because this actually refers to the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, which I have looked up on the Internet. I found some more information that is very, very telling on this particular issue.
A motion, previously defeated in committee, will only be selected if the Speaker judges it to be of such exceptional significance as to warrant a further consideration at the report stage. The Speaker will not normally select for separate debate a repetitive series of motions which are interrelated and, in making the selection, shall consider whether individual Members...
—of which, Mr. Chair, there are another 298 or so who I'm sure would like to have some say in this particular bill—
...individual Members will be able to express their concerns during the debate on another motion.
My first question is, have Mr. Rathgeber's amendments been presented? Is it considered that they were previously defeated?
Then I go on, Mr. Chair:
For greater certainty, the purpose of this Standing Order is, primarily, to provide Members who were not members of the committee with an opportunity to have the House consider specific amendments they wish to propose. It is not meant to be a reconsideration of the committee stage.
Mr. Chair, I would argue that it can't be called a reconsideration because I never had the opportunity to consider, in the first place, Mr. Rathgeber's amendments, which I think make a better bill.
I continue with my quotation, Mr. Chair. I am not sure if I should stop or not so you could hear this, in particular, for a ruling.
For greater clarity, the Speaker will not select for debate a motion or series of motions of a repetitive, frivolous or vexatious nature or of a nature that would serve merely to prolong unnecessarily proceedings at the report stage and, in exercising this power of selection, the Speaker shall be guided by the practice followed in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom.
I would like to read a couple of issues in relation to the United Kingdom and what they have said in making laws—