Justice Committee on Dec. 6th, 2012

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

So you're 99% correct. Does that meet the test?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

I think it does.

I have Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

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—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Mr. Jean, we have a point of order.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Chair, we have a lot of people listening. We have transgendered people here today. My question is this: when does the point come when the chair would rule that interventions by members on the other side are simply frivolous and vexatious and designed to frustrate the process, rather than to advance the bill? I believe that's what we faced here today. I am very concerned about that.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I take exception to that.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

As do I.

It's a breach of parliamentary privilege.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I would like an answer on my presented and previously defeated questions as well, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

The problem is that you are dealing with the report stage in the House, and here we're dealing with an amendment to a motion. We really should focus on that amendment to the motion. What you are talking about is what the Speaker may or may not rule, based on a variety of things at the report stage in the House.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

With respect, I am not. I'm asking if Mr. Rathgeber's amendments, which I think make better law in this particular case, were presented in committee. That's my question. Were they presented to the committee? I never saw them presented.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

What I am saying to you here and now is that the Speaker will decide that at the report stage in the House. I will not decide it, nor will the legislative clerks here be able to decide that. There will be advice given to the Speaker; he will make that decision.

What we're dealing with is the amendment to the motion. That's what we need to deal with.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would like to respond to that point of order raised. I am going to say that I sat here with this committee through deliberations on the Safe Streets and Communities Act, during which members on that side of the committee spoke and continued debate on that motion for about nine hours because they didn't like it and didn't want to pass it. I find it quite rich for someone to be saying that what is happening here today is frivolous and vexatious.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

We're getting really close to Christmas, folks, and—

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I don't feel the Christmas spirit, but I would like to address that because how many clauses, Mr. Garrison, does your bill have?

To have the Safe Streets and Communities Act compared to a bill of about four clauses I think is a bit rich, in all Christmas spirit.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Madame Boivin, just step back a little bit and realize we're not going to get through this anyway. I see the clock has—

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

There are two minutes left.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

—two minutes left. I think if we focus on what's before the committee—

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Maybe we can vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

I have Mr. Casey.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

I'll be supporting the motion and the amendment. It's clear that both sides feel the bill can be improved. Why we would send it back to the House without having a chance to discuss those amendments is frankly beyond me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Scott.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I'd like to ask whether we can put the question. Failing that, I'd like to apologize to everybody attending and watching for how this session has ended up.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

From my angle, seeing the clock shows 5:30, the meeting is adjourned.