Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 17th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

The clerk has asked for some time to research your point, Monsieur Guimond.

We will continue debate on the first motion until the research on this amendment comes back to us. Is that acceptable?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

No. In my opinion, it's just talking for the sake of talking. This is not a bridge club. I want to know whether it's in order. Adjourn the committee meeting until the clerk makes a decision.

I find Mr. Lukiwski's comments very interesting when he talks about his father and the values he drilled into him. However, I have other things to do. I would suggest that you suspend the meeting until the clerk has had time to do serious research. I therefore suggest that we suspend the meeting until the clerk returns. This is not a bridge club, and I don't want to talk...

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I appreciate that.

If it's the will of the committee--and it makes sense to me--we will suspend this committee meeting until the clerk has time to review this matter and give me her final opinion.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

I understand that we should hang around until she has the decision. If she does not have it by...

How long are we supposed to stay here, Mr. Chair? Until one o'clock?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

In reviewing the Standing Orders last night, again, for the third time, it's my feeling that this debate does not end until we have to break for question period or a motion is put on the floor that we adjourn the meeting or suspend the motion. That can't be done unless the person has the floor at that time.

Right now, Mr. Lukiwski has the floor. Mr. Lukiwski could put the motion forward that we adjourn the meeting, but the suggestion has been made that we at least suspend the meeting until we get a ruling on Monsieur Guimond's concern. That's what I'm prepared to do right now. But when we reconvene the meeting, we will continue until we have to break for question period.

Is it acceptable to the committee that we suspend the meeting until the clerk has offered me her research opinion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Could we specify a time?

Lucile, how long is it going to take?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Lucile McGregor]

I should have something in fifteen minutes, I would think.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Let's break for twenty minutes then, just to make absolutely sure.

The meeting is suspended for twenty minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I'm going to bring the meeting back to order. I remind members that we are still in public, having adjourned for twenty minutes. That time is now up.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have had an opportunity to consult with the clerks, who have consulted with other folks. On Monsieur Guimond's recommendation, we have reviewed page 453 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice. May I read it to you? It says, “An amendment must be relevant to the main motion. It must not stray from the main motion but aim to further refine its meaning and intent. ... An amendment is out of order procedurally, if...”, and it lists a number of events.

In particular, what caught my attention is point number four—and yours, Monsieur Guimond, and I appreciate the fact that you have pointed this out:

An amendment is out of order procedurally, if...it is the direct negative of the main motion and would produce the same result as the defeat of the motion.

Having read the original motion and the amendment, I therefore rule that the amendment is not in order, as it does result in a direct negative of the main motion.

I must remind the committee that Mr. Lukiwski still has the floor, but I will speak to my ruling at this point.

Mr. Hill, please.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We, too, have had the opportunity to review Marleau and Montpetit, as did Mr. Guimond. I would refer the chair and the clerk to the—

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

On a point of order, given that the chair has ruled, I believe anything pertaining to the chair's decision can only be a challenge to that decision, with no debate. My understanding of the rules is that if the chair has ruled on an issue, there is no debate on that ruling. The only procedure that can take place is that a member of the committee, if he or she so wishes, may contest that ruling by challenging it, period. The member may put in a motion right now that he or she challenges the chair's ruling, and there's an immediate vote—

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Why didn't you raise this when Mr. Guimond challenged the earlier ruling? What are we getting to here?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Order.

In fact, Monsieur Guimond asked me to make a decision as to whether or not the amendment was procedurally accurate. I have done the research on it and have consulted with the staff, and I have indeed made a ruling.

Madam Jennings is correct. My ruling is not open for debate. However, a member of the committee can challenge my ruling, can ask for an appeal. That question will be put forward to the committee. If the committee chooses to overrule me, then we will consider the amendment as if it were in fact procedurally correct. If the committee supports the chair's ruling, then we obviously proceed.

There is one option for the committee, as Madam Jennings has pointed out, and that is to appeal my ruling. That would require a motion to challenge it, and there's no debate on it. We just put a motion on the floor to challenge my ruling, and then we take a vote on it.

Mr. Hill, if you would like to do that, I'm open to accepting that motion. No? Then what I would recommend is that we continue debate on the main motion.

Mr. Lukiwski, you have the floor.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

Again, just perhaps for the benefit of people who thought the amendment was critical, I can assure you it is not, in my esteemed opinion, because as I mentioned earlier, that is not the issue to which I wish to speak. The issue is the more primary issue of what one's word means in this place.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Do you have a point of order, Mr. Proulx?

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

It may be more a point of information, Mr. Chair.

Once an amendment is on the table, any discussions or any member addressing would be addressing that particular amendment, would he or she not? Therefore, I am questioning the relevance or the legality of the fact that we now have the same speaker we had before the amendment was ruled out of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

That sounds like debate to me. Can you get to a point of order?

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

From my recollection, our colleague started speaking after the amendment had been tabled. Otherwise, he wouldn't have the floor. You recognized him after the amendment was tabled. Now you're recognizing that the amendment was not receivable. Therefore, I'm just asking you for an explanation. How come he still has the floor?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Let me just refer to my clerk to get that answer. I think I know the answer to it, but let's double-check.

I accept Mr. Proulx's comment, and I have discussed it with the clerk. It seems we're breaking some new ground here.

My ruling will be to accept Mr. Proulx's argument that because Mr. Lukiwski began his speech after the subamendment, which has now been ruled out of order, the floor must in fact be taken from Mr. Lukiwski and be given to the next speaker on the list.

I will remind members that debate will not close until everybody has spoken to it.

Next on the list is Mr. Proulx. If there's another point of order...Mr. Guimond had his hand up on a point of order, mais perhaps you're satisfied now.

Mr. Lukiwski, I saw your hand go up.

Mr. Guimond.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to indicate that Mr. Proulx was the next speaker.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Are there any other points of order? No?

Mr. Proulx, you now have the floor, please.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you.

I would like to propose the adjournment of this meeting. It is one o'clock, and I would wish that we take a vote on adjourning this particular meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I'm able to accept that motion, so let's deal with that motion first.

There is a motion on the floor that the meeting be adjourned at this time.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

The meeting is adjourned.