Public Bills: report stage; motion beyond scope of bill; acceptability

The Deputy Speaker: I would first like to thank the honourable Member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, the honourable Member for Nickel Belt and the honourable Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Jim Hawkes) for their representations concerning the amendments at report stage. The Chair has taken the representations into consideration and is now ready to make a decision on Bill C-82. There are 11 motions in amendment at the report stage of Bill C-82. These motions in the names of the honourable Members for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, and Nickel Belt, cause the Chair some difficulty. The majority of these motions were dealt with in the legislative committee which studied the Bill. Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 attempt to introduce a further element into clause 5. This is of course with respect to the representation made by the honourable Member for Nickel Belt. Clause 5 states in part that "every individual who for payment undertakes to arrange a meeting or to communicate with a public office holder shall file". Thus, it appears that the principle or scope, and those words are used interchangeably, of clause 5 is to restrict registration to items based upon arranging meetings or communicating with public office holders. In addition, the Bill makes no reference, among other items, to mass mailing, advertising campaigns, collecting information, or summary of costs. Accepting this point, that the scope of the said clause is as stated, then to insert additional items not previously covered would indeed take the clause beyond what was originally envisaged at second reading. Accordingly, as paragraph 1 of citation 773 of Beauchesne [Fifth Edition] states, an amendment is out of order if it is beyond the scope of the clause under consideration. That reference is further supported by Erskine May, Twentieth Edition, page 555. I thus find that the proposed motions numbered 1, 2 and 3 are beyond the scope of the clause and therefore are inadmissible and consequently will not be put to the House. Motions Nos. 4, 6, 7 and 8 were considered at length in the legislative committee. Nevertheless, after consultation, honourable Members have made the case that this matter of requiring lobbyists to register certain items is of enough significance that it warrants further consideration as permitted under Standing Order 114(10). Accordingly, Motions Nos. 4, 6, 7, and 8 will be debated together but voted upon separately. Motions [Nos.] 5 and 9 were moved, debated but negatived at the committee stage. Therefore, in accordance with Standing Order 114(10), they shall not be selected for the consideration of the House. Motion No. 10 is similar to Motion No. 9 and as a consequence will not be put to the House. Motion No. 11 standing in the name of the honourable Member for Nickel Belt attempts to give the registrar more powers than those that were envisaged when the House gave the Bill approval in principle at second reading. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 1 of Beauchesne, citation 773, I declare it inadmissible. To summarize for honourable Members, Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 10 and 11 are not admissible and will not be selected. Motions Nos. 4, 6, 7 and 8 are in order. F0517-e 33-2 1988-07-15. [1] Debates, July 15, 1988, pp. 17602-3, 17616-7.