Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 22nd, 2011

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

Mr. Chair, this is on the same point of order.

Let me start by saying that in the House the rules are quite clear, the Standing Orders are quite clear. Unless we have adopted rules that are different from those in the House and that are not forbidden by the Standing Orders themselves, the rules of the House apply to this committee. And in the House you cannot come along and deal with something after it's already in debate; you have to raise it at the time.

This amendment was brought up, was circulated. The appropriate time to challenge it would have been at that time, and not after the debate has started to then decide that given that the debate isn't turning out the way we planned, we would now like to find that the whole thing has been out of order. There simply is no process for that. So you don't have to make a ruling in order for this to remain in order.

I want to make this point very clearly, because one of the tactics that I've seen used numerous times by the opposition, when they're acting as a coalition, is that they will insist, whatever is going on, that there be a ruling that it's in order, and then they'll declare that we override the chair, making it out of order, so that they can then go and suspend every single rule here. This misunderstands profoundly what the nature of a chair's ruling is and where the rules apply in the absence of rulings.

The rules exist, whether or not the chair says he's making a rule. When the chair is trying to interpret the rules, that's one thing. When the rules are written down and are black-letter, there's no way of overriding these things. There's no way of suspending them just because we decide, as a group or as a majority, that they are not permitted.

I'm just encouraging you, Chair, not to let yourself be bullied--not that I think you're subject to being bullied, quite frankly--or badgered into a position where you would be aiding and abetting this completely unparliamentary tactic of saying “I demand to know whether this is in order”, and then “I challenge your ruling”, and then we get the predictable vote.

It's not as if it's a mystery how the votes will go on this committee. They're always a one-person majority on that side, ramming through everything without any regard for what the minority thinks.

Anyway, there is no point of order, really no requirement for a ruling, nor can there be on this matter.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Reid.

Mr. Young, you have the floor on the amendment.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Just let me recollect my thoughts. I thought I was being persuasive. I'll try harder.

From Mr. McKay's definition, it's quite clear that Minister Oda never expressed or never showed any contempt for the House, because she never had any. There is no evidence that there was any intent to cause a misunderstanding or confusion. An intent is what the law requires. This is what the common law requires, this is what parliamentary law requires--that the person have intent.

If every minister or member of Parliament who caused a misunderstanding, who caused some confusion--

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

On another point of order, Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Chair, it's important. You've been asked to rule on the admissibility of this amendment--

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Since we are debating it, Mr. McGuinty, I think it's obvious what has been done there. It was read into the record by Mr. Lukiwski.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I asked for debate on the amendment, and we put a speakers list together, which even includes your name.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Not on this amendment, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I'm sorry, your name is down here. Okay, it includes some of the members of your party then, if not you. I see your name here, but maybe there's a second one here--

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

But not on this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

So we started discussing it. I think that certainly is self-explanatory, what we're doing here. We're speaking on the amendment.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I understand, sir, but I'm asking if you ruled on the specific question put to you by my colleague from the Bloc Québécois some ten minutes ago.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We keep coming back to it. The answer is that when the amendment was put forward by Mr. Lukiwski, I suggested we debate it. A speakers list was formed. We've started to debate it. That stands on its own, Mr. McGuinty. You can go from there.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Where in the Standing Orders, sir, does it say that my colleague from the Bloc Québécois does not have the right to first of all put the question to you once the debate has begun, and where in the Standing Orders does it say that he's not able to challenge your ruling once that question is put to you? Can you point out specifically in the Standing Orders--

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I'm sorry, I don't have the Standing Orders in front of me, Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I have them right here. I'll give them to you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

By all means.

The answer here is that we have certainly done business in this way for a long time. I recognize you're not normally here, but this committee tends to work in a fairly collegial manner and moves things forward. I don't remember in my time as chair ever having to say at the start of a debate, “Here's my ruling,” so that we can start the debate. That's not the case, and it isn't the case in our Standing Orders that the chair must make a ruling to start a debate.

Mr. McKay tabled a motion. Mr. Lukiwski amended it. Usually in a friendly manner in this committee that's what happens. Mr. McKay didn't say “No, no, no.” Nobody on the floor said “No, it's not in order.” I said “Let's debate it.” We made a speakers list and we started through it. Five or six speakers in, I started to get points of order. That's a fairly good recap of where we are.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

That's your side.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

As a standard practice this is exactly how this committee functions.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Except that you received, Mr. Chair, a specific request from my colleague from the Bloc Québécois to make a ruling on whether or not this is admissible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I am suggesting that because we are debating it, Mr. McGuinty, I have already said that.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Really? When did you say it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Let's say it's implied. I didn't say this morning, “Oh boy, I'm going to have toast.” I just had toast.