Environment Committee on March 5th, 2008

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, the clerk explained to Mr. Vellacott what had happened, and I wasn't privy to that discussion, so through you to the clerk, could you please explain to the committee what has just happened?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I think the clerk went upstairs to the people supervising the game and got the word that in fact he was to go on and call the vote. If someone did not answer or said they needed more time, or whatever, he would go to the next person. And so that's what he did. Those are instructions from the supervisor of committees, to whom both clerks talked and explained the situation, and they got the ruling from them.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

My further point of order, then, is that while the clerk was talking to the superiors, did he share with those people what had happened, what had precipitated this issue, the fact that the motion Mr. Cullen tried to put on the table was against the Standing Orders? He's basing his decision from on high on Standing Orders, I am assuming. I just wanted to get that confirmed. Can he share with us whether he also mentioned what had precipitated your ruling?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I will ask the clerk to just clarify that, but I think we should get on to the motion and go ahead.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I think it's important, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

My ruling was overruled. I lost the vote.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

This is my point order, and I get to have an answer for it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Okay.

Norm, could you clarify and answer Mr. Warawa's question?

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

Mr. Warawa, here is the question that was put to the table officers: In the case of a vote such as this, if a member did not vote, by what mechanism, if any, could a chair continue with the vote? If the previous issue of the decision of the chair and Mr. Cullen was not deemed pertinent to the actual question of the vote itself, how do you conduct that vote? What happens in the case of a member who decides that he wants to reflect, that he wants time?

The answer given to me, if I can summarize here briefly, was that we should follow the model in the House. In the House--correct me if I'm wrong--I don't believe members would stand and say, “I need time to vote.” And that was the advice given to us.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, in this case, we're following the model of the House, but in previous rulings we have heard from the clerk that the committees are masters of their own. So why in this case would we have the procedure of the House apply here? Could the clerk please answer that, when in every other circumstance, for example, what happened with Mr. Cullen—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I did rule Mr. Cullen out of order—

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I know, but I'm asking the question to the clerk.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

—and then we put that to a vote.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I'm asking the question to the clerk, through you, sir.

[The Clerk]

The answer to that, Mr. Warawa, is that the committees are masters of their own procedure within the outlines of the House itself. An appeal to a decision of the chair is in order. That's a standard acceptable approach, which is what happened in this case. In that instance, you put the question immediately to a vote.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I'm sorry for the confusion.

My question was referring to what happened when Mr. Cullen presented a motion during a point of order. It was improper. It goes against the Standing Orders, the procedure that is in the House. We cannot have rules that apply in almost all the circumstances when we've heard repeatedly from the Speaker of the House that the committees are masters of their own.

We've seen that Mr. Cullen has moved a motion totally against the Standing Orders, and you've ruled properly, and that was challenged. What has happened--and it is setting a very dangerous precedent--is that the committee has totally ignored the last meeting and this meeting.... And it is totally on record. The names of those who voted to ignore the Standing Orders are recorded.

So my question is, through you to the clerk, when does the clerk give the committee the authority? The Speaker of the House has said we're masters of our own, and yet in this specific instance you're saying we're applying the House rules.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

As I see it, basically, the difference is that in a minority government there is a major difference here. Obviously in 13 years of being here there was a majority government and so the chair was never once overruled, because the party supported the chair. In this situation, obviously, every single ruling that the chair would make could be overruled, and I guess when you get to that point, then the chair obviously should be replaced.

I don't take this as a confidence vote. I don't believe anyone has said that, and yet this is a way to proceed with the issue at hand. I made a decision. It was overruled, and so we go to that vote, and I believe that's the procedure we have to follow. Whether you like it or anyone else here likes it, I think that's the situation we find ourselves in until we have an election, and if that changes things, then obviously we operate under a different format.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, I asked for an answer from the clerk and I think I deserve an answer from the clerk.

The decision that was just given regarding the vote was applying for the first time House rules in a committee, as opposed to the fact that every other ruling has been that committees are their own.... So is this going now to be the new standard, that we're going to be using House rules?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Well, again, I tend to agree with some of the comments I've heard that in effect that's a challenge to the chair as well. Yesterday I said we were masters of our own fate, which I believe we are within reason. In this situation, I don't believe anybody in this room has seen it that someone has said, “I have to think about how I'm going to vote.”

I know in the House I have never seen someone stand up and, with the clerk looking at them, calling their name, the person says, “Wait, don't count me yet, because I'm thinking about it.” I don't know what would happen. Maybe we have the opportunity to try that this afternoon. We have 13 votes, and maybe that would....

I think we are masters of our own fate. Both clerks have done their very best to get us an answer, and I think their answer is that the vote should proceed so we can proceed. Now, I guess that can be challenged as well. But I am saying that in fact, on this subject that we got a ruling, we verified that ruling, and we have now, I believe, to proceed and ask Mr. Cullen to repeat his motion, and then we go back to clause 10.

Mr. Cullen's motion is debatable. So I would say that we have Mr. Cullen present his motion and then we debate his motion.

I think Mr. Godfrey was next.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Let the record reveal that had the Conservatives present decided to support the decision of the chair, because the Bloc was also supporting the decision of the chair, then you would have been sustained. The only reason we're in this situation is because the Conservatives chose not to support your decision. So they had the opportunity and they blew it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Harvey is next.

Mr. Harvey, very quickly.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Chairman, when Mr. Vellacott was asked to vote, he said that he needed some time to think about it. As I was about to say when I was preparing to vote, it is quite paradoxical. I do not want to play that kind of game. On the other hand, I do not want to abstain, because I was elected here to vote. Maurice has been given time to vote. As for myself, I only had time to say one word and I was passed over… Maurice got several minutes even if only to say what he thought about the challenge to your ruling.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

You can't speak during a vote.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I was not aware of the Clerk's ruling, which was to proceed rapidly to a vote. Maurice had several minutes to make a decision. I believe that the Clerk should have informed all members before calling the vote, because Maurice had several minutes when I had exactly one second and a half to vote. I am asking for the opportunity to vote, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I think it's time that we move on to hear the motion and then debate the motion.