Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 22nd, 2011

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

But your first reaction this morning when Mr. McKay put forward his motion was to say you wanted to rule it inadmissible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

As the chair, when I see something that I think is inadmissible, I will rule. When I see something that isn't, we'll carry on and function as a committee.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

So your decision is that it is admissible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Yes, or we wouldn't be discussing it, Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

So as a result of that, you are challenged in terms of your decision, which you've just now formally given.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I guess I'm challenged well after the fact, but I guess that's the case.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

And that is admissible. Our reading of the rules is that there is nothing precluding your ruling being challenged, and as a result of that being put to you, Chair, there can be no further debate. A vote must be taken in terms of the rules.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

On the same point of order, we can take another view. We'll not debate on it, but....

Mr. Reid.

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

On the same point of order, Mr. McGuinty has very convincingly demonstrated to everybody in the room that the Standing Orders indeed are in the room. He said “I'll show them to you.” Good for him. But he hasn't shown the actual rule that he appears to have just invented saying that if anybody calls for a ruling on anything, interrupts on a point of order to say they want a ruling on something, they can use it, for example, to shut down and terminate debate.

If that were actually allowed in the rules, we wouldn't have debates. Everything would get shut down right away. Once a group within had decided that they had a majority, they would get someone to.... This is completely outside the practices and rules of this place. That's why he hasn't actually cited anything from the Standing Orders to back up his quite frankly preposterous case.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Reid.

Monsieur Laframboise, on the same point of order.

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

Yes, I want to comment on the same point of order, Mr. Chair.

We can ask whether an amendment is in order at any time, accepting that the decision is yours to make. Even more so because, since this morning, the rules we have always abided by have not been followed. We waited an hour for the Liberal motion to be translated. The Conservative party was able to bring forward a motion that was accepted on the spot. Normally, documents are sent beforehand.

In my opinion, you should have declared this amendment out of order, as you first did with the motion. I am giving you the opportunity to ask the committee to consider whether this motion is in order. I think that the committee should discuss the decision you have made.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Since we're debating an amendment to Mr. McKay's motion, I will defer to the will of the committee and ask that question. I consider the amendment to Mr. McKay's motion to be in order, and I hear from you that you do not.

Mr. Lukiwski, on that? I'm about partway through.

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

Yes, on that.

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

Excuse me, Chair.

As much as I would like to speak on this--

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I'm about to go to the decision.

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

I thought you just made the decision, actually--

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

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I thought you recognized me, not Mr. McKay.

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

--in which case, neither Mr. Lukiwski nor I can speak on this. It is simply will it be sustained or not.

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

He doesn't say it should be now. He doesn't say “I've ruled, this is my ruling”.

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

He just did.

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

No, he didn't actually. This is like Simon Says. If you don't hear the magic words “Simon Says”--

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

Why does he have the floor, Mr. Chair?

[An hon. member]

Are you chairing this meeting?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We all seem to be able to just speak over the chair when he starts speaking, so I'll just wait for order.

Thank you very much.

I was in error. I did recognize Mr. Lukiwski when Mr. McKay's name was up next, but I've suggested that we can perhaps resolve this by saying that I've ruled this amendment in order, and we'll carry on with debate, if that's the case, if you're all happy with that.

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

Now, that is challengeable. It is not debatable. Your decision now is not debatable, and therefore I along with Mr. Laframboise, whoever, challenges that ruling--