House of Commons Hansard #82 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was transport.
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Speaker, you had notice of this point of order from the member for Toronto—Danforth, and you know the importance of making sure that the information is actually received by your office.
Also, we seem to have a lack of decorum from the other side again in the House. I hope that they will start to—
Government Response to PetitionsRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker Andrew Scheer
Order. I cannot hear the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster, and I do not think he is finished making his point. I will ask him to resume the floor.
I see the hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans, and I will go to him in just a moment.
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the member for Toronto—Danforth did provide notice. He did mention yesterday that he would be coming back on this matter. We understand your ruling is very important, but at the same time, it is important for the member for Toronto—Danforth to make the points that he wanted to make to help to guide the decision that you will making ultimately.
Government Response to PetitionsRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker Andrew Scheer
I understand the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster. When he and the member for Toronto—Danforth indicated they would like to return to the House yesterday, I did indicate that they would have to do so forthwith, knowing that the bill was likely to be called very soon.
I can assure the member that I am very confident that this is a comprehensive ruling that will address any concerns that he and the member for Toronto—Danforth may have.
The hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans is rising on a point of order as well.
Royal Galipeau Conservative Ottawa—Orléans, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am raising a point of order, probably a question of privilege that could be tomorrow. I am doing it while the opposition House leader is there.
I notice that the official opposition took their sweet time in voting today. As much as it is their right to behave as they did in the last vote, I want to serve fair warning that tonight—
Government Response to PetitionsRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker Andrew Scheer
Order. When the member for Burnaby—New Westminster was trying to make his point, there was some concern about the lack of decorum. I will ask members now, when the member for Ottawa—Orléans is raising a point of order, to show the same respect they were asking for just a few moments before.
The hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans
Royal Galipeau Conservative Ottawa—Orléans, ON
Mr. Speaker, we expect that tonight at six o'clock there will be six votes on private members' business. Each one of these votes will be called. None of them will be applied, and they will typically take seven or eight minutes.
The members of the House, including members of the opposition, know that I never miss a vote. They know that I come here from my hospital bed to vote, and sitting here in a crouched position is sometimes most painful.
Sitting here for seven votes that should take at the utmost 60 minutes I will endure. However, if those members do it at six o'clock the way they did it today, I will have to leave, and if I do, it is because they are infringing on my privilege to vote.
Government Response to PetitionsRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker Andrew Scheer
I appreciate the hon. member raising this issue. Of course, the Chair is ever mindful of these types of challenges and will endeavour to do all that I can to ensure an orderly flow of the proceedings later on today and, of course, any other time.
Report Stage Amendments—Speaker's RulingPoints of OrderRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker Andrew Scheer
Before addressing the selection and grouping of report stage motions for Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts, I would like to address the point of order raised on May 6, 2014, by the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
I would like to thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for raising this matter as well as the Government Leader in the House, the House leader of the official opposition, and the members for Toronto—Danforth, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, and Winnipeg North for their comments.
The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands raised concerns that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs adopted a motion requiring all remaining questions necessary to dispose of its clause-by-clause consideration of the bill to be put by a specified time, effectively creating a deadline for the debate to end. She argued that this motion contradicts an earlier committee order adopted on October 29, 2013, which gives members from non-recognized parties the ability to speak to their suggested amendments to bills before they are voted on by the committee. Because of the imposed deadline, the member's opportunity to speak to her amendments was interfered with, pursuant to the committee order of October 29, 2013. As such, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands suggested that substantive amendments, even if already voted on by the committee, should be selected for consideration at report stage. Several members rose in support of the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands' point of order.
The government House leader made two central points in response. First, he reminded the House that at report stage the Speaker's authority to select report stage amendments is limited to determining whether they were presented, or could have been presented at committee. Second, he pointed out that the deadline adopted by the committee affected all members the same way, so it is inaccurate to claim that members from unrecognized parties and independents were particularly penalized in this regard.
In examining the matter, it is useful to remind the House of the power of the Speaker to select amendments at report stage. To place the matter in its proper context, it is helpful to refer to the March 21, 2001, statement by Speaker Milliken, found at page 1991 of the Debates, which establishes the guidelines upon which I rely to discharge my responsibility to select amendments at report stage. Speaker Milliken was clear in his intent when he urged:
…all members and all parties to avail themselves fully of the opportunity to propose amendments during committee stage so that the report stage can return to the purpose for which it was created, namely for the House to consider the committee report and the work the committee has done…
These principles are also reflected in the interpretive notes attached to Standing Orders 76(5) and 76.1(5). House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, further expands on these principles, explaining at pages 783 and 784 that:
…the Speaker will normally only select motions in amendment that could not have been presented in committee.
I would remind all members that the guidelines for selection specify whether amendments could have been presented in committee and whether they were defeated in committee. In the case of the committee's consideration of Bill C-23, all members of the committee, as well as any interested independent member, were given the opportunity to present their amendments at committee, and a certain number of these amendments were defeated. The hon. member is now asking the Chair, in exercising its powers of selection, to evaluate whether the consideration afforded such amendments in committee was sufficient.
It is evident that the committee chose to handle its consideration of Bill C-23 in a particular way. A motion setting out the process to be followed was proposed, debated, and ultimately agreed to. Just as the opportunity to present and speak to amendments was decided by way of a committee motion, the deadline by which debate would end likewise was decided by a committee motion. Such decisions are the exclusive responsibility of the committee. I do not believe that it is for the Chair to second-guess how committees choose to manage their business.
The hon. member has asked that I select motions for consideration at report stage because she was not able to debate them in committee. In doing so, she referred to a ruling I gave on December 12, 2012, whereby I noted that I would continue to select motions from independent members at report stage until such time as a satisfactory method was found for them to participate in the clause-by-clause consideration at committee. I understand that the hon. member found unsatisfactory the opportunities afforded to her at the procedure and House affairs committee in relation to Bill C-23. Other members of the committee echoed they too were not satisfied that certain amendments were not debated once the committee's self-imposed deadline was reached. That said, it remains clear to me that the committee considered and voted on all amendments she is asking me to select.
In 2006, Speaker Milliken dealt with a somewhat analogous situation in relation to Bill C-24, the Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act.
On November 6, 2006, the hon. member for Burnaby-New Westminster raised a point of order regarding the decision of the Standing Committee on International Trade to limit debate and set a strict deadline by which point debate would end.
Though the situation was different insofar as he was a member of the committee concerned, I believe Speaker Milliken's response, found on page 4756 of Debates, was instructive:
I do think that committees are masters of their own procedure. They are entitled to make provisions in adopting orders in the committee that govern the way they are going to conduct their business...The committee is allowed to make amendments to the bill. The committee has imposed rules on how those amendments will be dealt with in the committee and how members will be able to address the issues raised by the amendments. It seems to me that [it] is entirely within the jurisdiction of the committee and indeed [it] is [a] quite normal exercise of its powers.
When the bill was taken up at report stage, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster submitted a large number of the amendments that had been defeated in committee, and asked the Chair to select them on the basis that they had not been debated in committee.
In a ruling I gave as Acting Speaker on November 21, 2006, found on page 5125 of Debates, I declined to do so, reminding the House that:
...the Chair selects motions which further amend an amendment adopted by a committee, motions which make consequential changes based on an amendment adopted by a committee and motions which delete a clause.Aside from this, the Chair is loath to select motions unless a member makes a compelling argument for selection based on the exceptional significance of the amendment.
As far as the Chair is concerned, in keeping with past precedents, I cannot see how the imposition of a deadline for the end of the debate could constitute a justifiable argument for the selection of amendments at report stage that were already presented and defeated in committee.
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, as reported with amendment from the committee.
Speaker's RulingFair Elections ActGovernment Orders
The Speaker Andrew Scheer
There are 145 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of C-23.
Motions Nos. 55, 58, 60, 63, 86, 87, 90, 92 to 95 and 100 will not be selected by the Chair because they were defeated in committee.
All remaining motions have been examined and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note in Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at the report stage.
Motions Nos. 1 to 54, 56, 57, 61, 62, 64 to 85, 88, 89, 91, 96 to 99, and 101 to 145 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.
I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 54, 56, 57, 61, 62, 64 to 85, 88, 89, 91, 96 to 99 and 101 to 145 to the House.
Before I do so, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, Infrastructure; the hon. member for Malpeque, National Defence.
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 1.
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 2.
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 3.
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-23, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 17 on page 5 with the following:
“(2) The mandate of the Chief Electoral Officer is renewable once only; however, a person who has served as Chief”
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
moved:
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 4.
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
moved:
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 5.
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-23, in Clause 5, be amended
(a) by replacing line 6 on page 6 with the following:
“Chief Electoral Officer within 20 days after the”
(b) by replacing line 20 on page 6 with the following:
“subsection (5) within 65 days after the day on”
(c) by replacing line 22 on page 6 with the following:
“65-day period coincides or overlaps with the”
(d) by replacing line 25 on page 6 with the following:
“65 days after polling day for that election.”
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-23, in Clause 5, be amended
(a) by replacing line 11 on page 7 with the following:
“Chief Electoral Officer within 20 days after the”
(b) by replacing line 16 on page 7 with the following:
“(4) Within 65 days after the day on which the”
(c) by replacing line 21 on page 7 with the following:
“expiry of that period. However, if the 65-day”
(d) by replacing line 24 on page 7 with the following:
“notice shall be published no later than 65 days”
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-23, in Clause 5.1, be amended by replacing line 35 on page 8 with the following:
“under this Act, including information relating to the commission of an offence against a law of Canada or a province by an individual if, in the Chief Electoral Officer’s opinion, there is evidence of such an offence.”
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 6.
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 7.
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-23, in Clause 7, be amended by adding after line 22 on page 9 the following:
“(2) The Advisory Committee of Political Parties, established pursuant to subsection 21.1(1), shall provide the Chief Electoral Officer with its opinion on the impact of this section within two years after the first general election held after the coming into force of this section.”
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-23, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 9 with the following:
“levels or to any targeted groups.”
Motion No. 14
That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 8.
Motion No. 15
That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 10.
Motion No. 16
That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 18.
Motion No. 17
That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 19.
Motion No. 18
That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 20.
Motion No. 19
That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 21.
Motion No. 20
That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 22.
Motion No. 21
That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 25.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
moved:
Motion No. 22
That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 26.
Motion No. 23
That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 30.
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
moved:
Motion No. 24
That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 31.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
moved:
Motion No. 25
That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 32.
Motion No. 26
That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 37.
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
moved:
Motion No. 27
That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 39.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
moved:
Motion No. 28
That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 41.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
moved:
Motion No. 29
That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 43.
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
moved:
Motion No. 30
That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 48.
Motion No. 31
That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 49.
Motion No. 32
That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 52.
Motion No. 33
That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 53.
Motion No. 34
That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 54.
Motion No. 35
That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 56.
Motion No. 36
That Bill C-23, in Clause 56, be amended by deleting line 9 on page 32.
Motion No. 37
That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 57.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
moved:
Motion No. 38
That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 58.
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
moved:
Motion No. 39
That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 59.
Motion No. 40
That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 62.
Motion No. 41
That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 64.
Motion No. 42
That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 67.
Motion No. 43
That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 67.1.
Motion No. 44
That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 69.