Environment Committee on March 4th, 2008

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

That I cannot continue?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I ruled that you were staying on topic, that the topic was the motion, and that I would let you continue. Mr. Cullen challenges my ruling; therefore, we're going to vote on that.

Is that clear to everybody?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We'll get the right wording here: shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, again, can I get clarification on what the motion is that we're voting on, because if it's that...?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Just hang tough with me here.

Just to clarify this, everybody has heard the ruling. Mr. Cullen's motion is out of order, but I now ask you if my ruling is sustained, which means that if you agree with my ruling, the vote then would be yes. If you don't agree with my ruling, the vote then would be no. So the question will then be put.

Those in favour of sustaining my ruling?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I have a point of order, Chair.

Can we have a recorded vote on this?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

A recorded vote, please.

(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 7; yeas 4)

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We now have a point of order from Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, I'm looking at page 948 of my Marleau and Montpetit. And the point of order I'm going to be making is a true point of order, not an interruption as we saw just previously. The record will show that I was on topic, and the NDP tried to keep the truth from coming out.

Page 948 addresses the point that “All persons or bodies affected by a private bill should be heard and the need for the bill demonstrated”. This is exactly what I was speaking about. It says that “Since a private bill makes certain assertions which are put forth in support of the request for legislation, they should be proven before” court “agrees to enact the legislation being sought”. It also says that “The legislative function of Parliament demands that each measure be given due deliberation and orderly consideration”. I'm sure that didn't happen. The paragraph ends with, “The judicial-like proceedings surrounding private bill practice demands, in addition, that those concerned be heard, or at the very least be given the opportunity to be heard.” And that just did not happen.

I'll quote further from Marleau and Montpetit:

The decision of the House to give second reading to a private bill does not mean that the House has approved the principle of the bill as is the case for a public bill. Rather, the House has given the bill a second reading conditional upon a committee's finding that the assertions contained in the petition and repeated in the bill's preamble have been proven.

Now, we haven't heard that. It has not been proven. Again, we heard time and time again that Bill C-377 is a hollow, empty, hypocritical, phony bill.

The quote continues:

While a preamble is optional in a public bill, it is essential in all private bills. The procedure thus requires that a private bill be sent to committee so that opponents of the bill may be heard.

We have a number of members over there who just cut off people being heard and who did not listen to that, so I'll repeat this:

The procedure thus requires that a private bill be sent to committee so that opponents of the bill may be heard.

Well, that just ended a moment ago, Chair.

The quote continues:

Another reason why it is sent to committee is so that Parliament can satisfy itself that the matters raised in the preamble of the bill are true and that the provisions of the bill are a proper response to those assertions. The bill as reported from the committee, with or without amendments, may be said to be the committee's decision on a petitioner's request.

What we have seen on pages 948 and 949, Chair, is the importance--

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

There is a point of order, and I have precedence.

I'm just going to finish--

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Warawa, I think his point of order is on your point of order, which he wants to clarify.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

The parliamentary secretary has chosen to reference private bills. This is actually a public bill. His references are not in order.

In our last ruling, in a motion of the committee, we chose to call the question. I believe we are seeking to call the question so that we can have the extension of this bill and then get back to work.

I don't think this is productive.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

What happened here should not have been permitted, procedurally. I have the floor as a point of order, do I not?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

You do.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

He has the wrong reference. He doesn't understand what he's saying. It's a public bill.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Again we've had Mr. Cullen interrupt. He has tried to interrupt and he has tried to stop comment, which is totally against Marleau and Montpetit. I would encourage Mr. Cullen that he has to follow the rules. Just because the rules are not to his liking it doesn't mean he has to ignore them.

Now, he has brought up a very important point. On page 896—Mr. Cullen is not listening, so I'm speaking through the chair for Mr. Cullen's edification—it says that “Bills sponsored by private Members fall into two categories”, the public and the private. So what I'm reading from page 896 is specifically about private members' bills—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Could I get the clerk to just clarify? I'll put him on the spot to just clarify this private, public, and what the rule exactly is.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Normand Radford]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It would seem, Mr. Warawa, that you are speaking about a private member's private legislation. An example of that would be that in years past people would seek divorce and it would have to be approved by Parliament. That was a private member's private legislation. This is no longer the case, of course, in Canada, whereas this bill is a private member's bill, but it's a private member's bill in a public domain.

Again, I'm simply referring to the issue that the chair asked me to clarify. I can't comment on your comments, sir.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Yes, on page 896 we have the private members' bills broken into two categories, both public and private, and it goes on. And it gives the process. As we move through Marleau and Montpetit, it has to provide guidance on private members' bills, as referenced on page 896—breaking them into two categories. It then follows in giving the process to deal with the private bills. Under private members' bills, there are public bills and private bills, and it gives guidance. What I was referring to on page 948 was how the private private members' bills are dealt with—the procedure. So what I had read into the record is referring to the private private members' bills. It's going to be one or the other.

So the process I'm reading is relevant, and it is a relevant point of order, Chair.

It happened previously in the choices of the witnesses. The government was not given an opportunity to speak and choose the witnesses. We've had a tactic of trying to keep the government from having an opportunity. We've now seen the NDP trying to cut out any criticism, and the end result is C-377. They're trying to move it forward and come up at the end of the day with an empty, hollow, phony bill that will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We've heard that from every witness.

So that's my point of order, Chair. I would ask, through you, for the clerk to just comment on that connect on page 896, how that process that is mentioned on page 948.... I think it is relevant.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Can we just let the clerk try to explain this?

[The Clerk]

It's difficult for me to comment if the comments of the members are relevant or not. I can only explain the difference between a private member's bill and a private member's private bill, and I've already explained both those differences. So I don't have anything else to add.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Warawa, do you take the clerk's point of view about the subtle differences between these two and that this is a public private member's bill as opposed to a private private member's bill?