Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order respecting six amendments that were adopted in committee during clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-11, an act that would amend the National Defence Act and other acts.
In late January and early February of this year, the Standing Committee on National Defence conducted clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-11. During the course of clause-by-clause consideration, six amendments were proposed that the chair of the committee ruled inadmissible on the grounds that these amendments either exceeded the scope and principle of the bill, as decided at second reading, or infringed on the parent act rule. In each of these cases, the ruling of the chair was challenged and overturned, and each of these amendments was adopted by a majority of members.
On February 9, Bill C-11 was reported to the House with amendments. Now that the bill is before the House, I am rising to challenge the admissibility of the six amendments that were ruled inadmissible in committee and that are now contained in the bill. The six amendments are CPC-1, CPC-10, BQ-2, CPC-16, NDP-4 and BQ-3.
CPC-1 would amend section 10 of the National Defence Act, which was not subject of the content of Bill C-11. In this case, the chair ruled that, pursuant to section 16.75 of the fourth edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, CPC-1 proposed to amend a section of the act that is not before the committee and that the bill did not seek to modify the appointment process of the judge advocate general. Therefore, the chair ruled the amendment was inadmissible on the grounds that it exceeded the scope and principle of the bill.
CPC-10 would have extended the appointment of a victim's liaison officer to assist a victim to the accused. The chair ruled that, pursuant to section 16.74 of the fourth edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, the amendment proposed a new concept that went beyond the scope of the bill.
BQ-3 would have expanded the class of persons who are eligible to be appointed as a military judge. The chair ruled that this concept proposed in BQ-3 went beyond the scope of the bill.
CPC-16 would require the chief military judge to be appointed within 90 days of the position's vacancy, and since Bill C-11 would not modify the appointment process of the chief military judge, this amendment seeks to exceed the scope of the bill. The chair ruled that, while the bill would not modify the appointment process of specific positions, the position of chief military judge was not included and therefore the amendment exceeded the scope of the bill.
NDP-4 seeks to ensure that every person involved in the investigation or prosecution has training or experience in trauma-informed approaches. The chair ruled that this amendment proposed a new concept that exceeded the scope and principle of the bill.
BQ-2 would have required the establishment of an inspector general for sexual misconduct in the Canadian Forces, which would not only exceed the scope and principle of the bill but could also infringe on the Crown's financial initiative. The chair ruled that the establishment of a new inspector general was a new concept beyond the scope of this particular bill.
I submit that the committee, in adopting these six amendments, exceeded the scope of the bill or infringed on the parent act rule. A bill that is referred to a committee after second reading may not exceed the scope and principle of the bill fixed at second reading and would obviate the ability to amend sections of the parent act that are not opened in the bill.
Page 649 of the fourth edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at section 16.74, sets the limitation of amendments moved in committee to a bill that is adopted after second reading. This limitation, which deals with the scope and principle of the bill, reads, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”
Page 649 of the fourth edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at section 16.75, provides that an amendment to a bill must always relate to the subject matter of the bill or to the clause under consideration. In respect to the parent act rule, section 16.75 states, “In the case of a bill referred to a committee after second reading, an amendment is generally inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent act”.
In light of the foregoing, I would request that the Speaker review the bill as amended and make a determination if the amendments proposed through CPC-1, CPC-10, BQ-2, CPC-16, NDP-4, and BQ-3 either infringe on the parent act rule or exceed the scope and principle of Bill C-11.
Should this be the case, I would request that the Speaker order that the bill be reprinted without the offending amendments for the House's consideration at report stage.