The Chair is now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the member for York—Durham on June 16 regarding the admissibility of Government Business No. 13.
In his point of order, the member for York—Durham argued that this motion introduces an unprecedented measure by imposing a retroactive deadline for the submission of committee amendments during consideration of Bill C-22, an act respecting lawful access. In the member's view, imposing a retroactive deadline for the submission of amendments and making it impossible for members to submit further amendments at either committee or report stage is contrary to the fundamental principles of parliamentary law that protect the rights of the minority and ensure appropriate review of legislative measures. He called on the Chair to rule Government Business No. 13 out of order.
The member for Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon made similar arguments. She said that the motion grants an unfair advantage to government members, who were able to submit amendments before opposition members knew about the retroactive deadline. She further contended that the motion deprives members of their right to debate and amend the bill.
In response, the chief government whip submitted that the motion falls under the House’s power to regulate its own proceedings and internal affairs. He argued that the House can adopt motions to govern the consideration of a bill and give direction to its committees. In his view, Government Business No. 13 is a legitimate exercise of this power and is entirely within the House’s powers to organize its legislative agenda.
To decide this matter, the Chair must first review the provisions of the motion before the House. Government Business No. 13 is essentially designed to expedite consideration of Bill C-22. It imposes on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security a time frame for completing its consideration of that bill, including by limiting the amendments the committee can consider to those that were submitted before 4:30 p.m. on June 15, 2026. As some members pointed out, this deadline had already passed when the motion was published in the Notice Paper. The motion provides that report stage is deemed to have been completed automatically. It also limits debate at the third reading stage and requires voting to immediately follow, with no possibility of deferral.
The Chair would like to begin by noting that it is not unusual for the House to adopt orders governing the various stages of consideration of bills, for purposes that include restricting how much time is allotted for debate and how committees dispose of amendments.
The legislative process, as set out by the Standing Orders, is not immutable. It can be adapted to the needs and choices of the House.
As Speaker Milliken stated in a ruling on a motion to manage proceedings on a bill that he delivered on February 23, 2007, which can be found on pages 7242 and 7243 of the Debates, and I quote:
The most fundamental privilege of the House as a whole is to establish rules of procedure for itself and to enforce them. A few rules are laid down in the British North America Act, but the vast majority are resolutions of the House which may be added to, amended or repealed at the discretion of the House. It follows, therefore, that the House may dispense with the application of any of these rules by unanimous consent on any occasion or, by motion, may suspend their operation for a specified length of time.
Section 14.26 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, describes the content of these motions when they deal with bills as follows:
These motions may also govern the time allotted to the various stages of the legislative process as well as the putting of questions and the holding of related recorded divisions. They may contain provisions concerning consideration in committee of a bill, including setting deadlines for the submission of amendments, when clause‑by‑clause consideration of the bill is to begin and end, how amendments are to be voted on and how the committee's report is to be presented to the House.
In recent years, the House has, on many occasions, adopted motions that set aside or temporarily changed the usual rules in order to dispose of a bill more quickly, sometimes in a more drastic manner than the current motion does. For instance, we have seen motions that provided for skipping committee consideration and report stage altogether.
The main issue this point of order raises is the retroactive imposition of a deadline for submitting amendments. The provisions of programming motions normally apply once they are adopted and are not intended to constrain past events. The Chair shares the concern that some members could have benefited from privileged information, enabling them to submit amendments while other members were unaware that they would not have that chance. In the absence of evidence, this remains a supposition. However, there is reason to question the potential inequities of this approach, but the fundamental question is whether including such a limitation makes the motion inadmissible. In other words, does this provision go beyond the limits of what the House can do in a motion of this kind?
It is true that Government Business No. 13 limits the time available to consider Bill C-22 and the opportunities to amend its contents, but these are decisions the House is empowered to make. If members find that these restrictions are too harsh or that the motion grants an inappropriate advantage to the government, they can propose amendments during debate to change its terms. It is through such decisions that the House specifies the balance to be struck between the government's right to advance its legislative agenda and the opposition parties' right to debate that agenda.
However, this balance is quite relative. As Speaker Fraser said on December 15, 1988, in a decision on the admissibility of a government motion to suspend the application of various standing orders governing the consideration of bills, which can be found at page 78 of the Debates, “Both the minority and the majority have rights; however, primacy cannot be given to both.”
Additionally, the Chair notes that the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security has already begun its clause‑by‑clause consideration. Based on the wording of the motion, it appears that some amendments have already been submitted as part of this process. If the motion is adopted, the bill would be considered in accordance with the terms of the motion. The committee will have the opportunity to vote on a certain number of amendments, but perhaps not on all the amendments members would have liked to present. After that, there will be a debate and vote at third reading. It is up to members, not the Chair, to decide whether they wish to consider this bill under the process proposed by Government Business No. 13, to change that process or to defeat the motion and follow the usual process.
In conclusion, the Chair is of the view that Government Business No. 13 is in order and may be moved for debate.
That said, given the reservations I expressed a little earlier, I encourage the government to keep fairness in mind when it prepares these programming motions. While the government can legitimately propose to accelerate the consideration of bills, we are all legislators, and the legislative process functions best when there is debate and opportunities for amendments, and when everyone demonstrates openness and restraint. It is also vital to remember that, one day, the roles may be reversed, so it might not truly be a good idea to keep limiting the legislative options available to members through this type of motion.
I thank all members for their attention.