Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 22nd, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We'll tread lightly.

Mr. Young.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I thank my colleague for the motion. I think it prevents us from going down a road that we do not want to go down with regard to parliamentary precedent and law.

When Mr. McKay first read his motion to me, I was actually shocked. He talked about an act or an omission that obstructs the House. I guess the researchers searched high and low to find this definition. They ended up in New Zealand, which has a vibrant Parliament. I'm not saying it's not a good decision, except he changed the decision.

We heard the other day from expert witnesses. We heard last week that it's Parliament that defines what contempt is. There is no section anywhere, no statute you can go to that says to every parliament in the world, “Here is contempt. Here it is. It's all clear for you.” In fact what we're doing today is defining it.

But what he brought forward was an essential element of contempt, which is that the person being accused of contempt knew--

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Monsieur Laframboise

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

This amendment completely distorts the meaning of the proposal. It is not an amendment, it is a proposal in itself. This amendment should not be ruled to be in order, Mr. Chair, because passing it would be just like negating the motion. I have no problem with the Conservatives being against the motion; all they have to do is vote against it. The problem is that this amendment does not serve to amend the proposal, it serves to destroy it and to put a completely new one in its place. I think you should take that into consideration, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I will rule that Mr. Young has the floor.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What Mr. McKay has done, and I will direct committee members to number 4—

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Monsieur Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

What is your decision? I am telling you that this amendment is out of order. What is your decision?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

At the beginning, when it was handed to me, I would have ruled it out of order if I felt it was. We went to discussing it and that's where we are now.

Mr. Blaney, did you also have a point of order?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

I challenge your decision, Mr. Chair, as I have the right to do. I challenge your decision.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You're challenging a decision that hasn't been made, I suppose.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Yes, your decision means that we are continuing to discuss this amendment even though it is out of order. That is what I am telling you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Let's do a whole round of points of order. Let's get one from each party. We had Mr. Laframboise. We're going to go to Mr. Blaney next and then we'll come back.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Laframboise has now raised two points of order. Earlier, a motion was introduced that you ruled out of order, but members decided to consider it anyway. In the course of an exchange about the purpose of the motion, Mr. Laframboise intervened. I feel that is more a debate than a matter of procedure. I feel that your ruling on the matter was very clear.

At the moment, Mr. Chair, we are considering an amendment and Mr. Laframboise is interrupting the discussion with what is basically procedural nitpicking. I am telling you that I too would like to express my opinion on the motion now that it has been ruled in order. I think your decision was legitimate and fair.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

You can't debate a point of order. It's either in or out.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We're getting there.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

That is not true, John.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We are on the same point of order.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

You can't debate it.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Chair…

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

But I can take other conversation on the same point of order.

Mr. Godin, you are speaking on the same point of order.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

…my comment is about the point of order from the members of the governing party. Mr. Chair, you yourself said that, if the question had been raised at the outset, you would have said that the amendment was out of order. You did not hesitate to declare the first motion out of order. When a member feels that an amendment is out of order because it goes contrary to the main motion, I believe he can make the chair aware of that fact at any time. As chair, you have already said that, if you had been asked the question earlier, you would have said that the amendment was out of order. But that did not happen. You did not hesitate to rule the first motion out of order. Mr. Chair. This amendment really is out of order. It is contrary to the intent of the motion and you have to tell us now whether it is in order or not.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You put words in my mouth. I did not say that.

We are on the same point of order.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Check the blues.