Evidence of meeting #55 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I just want to clarify with Ms. Boivin on that. I know she didn't have the floor and I don't mind her interrupting me at all, but I just want to clarify—
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I truly don't.
You always come forward with a thoughtful and good legal mind, obviously. Could you expand, Madame Boivin, on why it is at the discretion of the Speaker? I didn't realize that.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
That's what happens when somebody interrupts and they don't hear what we say.
What I said was that I'm not so sure that it's that definite.That's all I said.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Could we have the clerk or the analyst confirm that? Certainly that has something to do with how I will proceed. I would like to have that confirmed.
First of all, is it at the discretion of the Speaker as to whether or not he allows amendments at report stage?
Second, is anything that's voted on at committee reported that way?
Third, would the effect of the votes at this committee, in fact, be substantiated at that point?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
Just bear with us a moment.
Madame Boivin, are you sure you don't want the chair?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
According to the Standing Orders:
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 don't think that's the one you wanted.
Conservative
Kerry-Lynne Findlay Conservative Delta—Richmond East, BC
I think we should study the United Kingdom's procedure and take the committee on the road.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
As we look at the Standing Orders, I don't think anybody here in this room could definitively say what the Speaker would rule or how he would rule. I think there are reasons to believe that it could be either way, but the Speaker would obviously make that decision, and I wouldn't want to preclude his judgment.
Depending on how it's read at the time—and probably the Speaker would have the opportunity to take a longer time to study it—he would come to his own conclusion, and I think that's appropriate.
Mr. Jean, I wouldn't want to say—I couldn't say—what the Speaker would rule or wouldn't rule.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
The uncertainty does have some concern for me, but I understand it to be a discretion—and I am not quoting the words, but I would like them quoted back to me, though—that he will rule them out of order or in fact include them in votes if they're vexatious or if they're.... What was the exact wording? Could I have that wording, please?
Perhaps you could refer specifically to where it's found in the procedure.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
I will read, or attempt to read, from page 47. It reads: “The Speaker will not normally select for consideration”—
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I have a point of order on that.
I apologize that I have it in Internet format, so I don't have the page numbers. Is that under report stage and third reading? I have the subtitles.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
It's under “Report Stage at Second Reading”, Standing Order76(1).
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
December 6th, 2012 / 5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
Okay.
It's under “NOTE”. The note reads:
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 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. 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 will be able to express their concerns during the debate on another motion.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
To me, Chair, it sounds like if that is the case, we can put other amendments on notice, but if they have been voted on... Was it ruled out of order?
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
If it's been ruled out of order by the chair of the committee, which obviously none have been—except for the situation where they were ruled out of order specifically—would it be considered to be ruled out of order specifically because, for instance, in this case, amendment number one was voted upon, and then it made the difference in that I think CPC amendments CPC-3, CPC-4, CPC-5, CPC-8, CPC-9, and CPC-10 were then out of order as a result of only that clause 1 being passed?
