Madam Speaker, I thank the NDP member for allowing me to interrupt him.
At noon today, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons put forward a motion pursuant to Standing Order 56.l that would prevent any new amendments to Bill C-23.
In my view, moving this type of motion pursuant to Standing Order 56.1 is out of order for the following reasons.
Standing Order 56.1 has to do with any routine motion for which unanimous consent has been denied. Standing Order 56.1(b) defines a routine motion. It may be required, and I quote:
—for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings, the establishing of the powers of its committees, the correctness of its records or the fixing of its sitting days or the times of its meeting or adjournment.
I do not think that a motion to prevent an amendment or subamendment to a motion for second reading of a bill can be classified as a routine motion based on the definition in Standing Order 56.1(b). I believe that it is a motion to limit debate much as moving the previous question would, and, I should add, Marleau and Montpetit consider the previous question to be a motion to limit debate.
I would like to bring to your attention a ruling you made on September 18, 2001, in which you stated:
The expanded use of Standing Order 56.1 since 1997 causes the Chair serious concern. The government is provided with a range of options under Standing Orders 57 and 78 for the purpose of limiting debate. Standing Order 56.1 should be used for motions of a routine nature, such as arranging the business of the House.
I am certainly willing to recognize that the government is being innovative with the wording of its motion, but the fact is that this motion is basically designed to limit debate. In that sense, I believe it should be ruled out of order, since it was introduced pursuant to Standing Order 56.1.