Evidence of meeting #23 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Chair, I don't know why we don't just suspend, because that would achieve—
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Do we have unanimous consent to suspend until 3:30 tomorrow? Raise your hands, please.
We are suspending until tomorrow. This means we carry on with that motion, with this speaking list.
[Proceedings suspended until April 2, 2008]
[Proceedings resume]
3:42 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
I call the meeting to order, please.
Mr. Warawa, on a point of privilege.
3:42 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you, Chair.
I hopefully won't take too long on this point of privilege, but it's a serious matter that I want to address regarding a decision that was taken by this committee at the last meeting. It was the second time that this happened, and so we have a very serious precedent that has been set within this committee. It was a decision to pass a motion during a point of order.
Now, we all know that is not proper procedure. It's against the House rules. I'd like to share with the committee and remind them the first time this happened. It was on March 5, and I would like to read what happened.
On March 5, it's recorded in the blues at approximately 16:05 hours, so that's 4:05, and it begins with this.
Mr. Nathan Cullen is recorded as saying: Mr. Chair, on this point of order?
The Chair: Yes, Mr. Cullen, I have basically said that a point of order goes beyond what Mr. Warawa is dealing with, but because it's your bill....
Mr. Nathan Cullen: I'd just like to allow the Conservative members to have their interventions while respecting what you just said, in terms of staying focused and respecting time, and introduce a motion for a five-minute limit on any intervention on any clause.
Mr. Cullen introduced that motion.
The next speaker was me.
Mr. Mark Warawa: Do I have the floor?
The Chair: Yes.
I don't believe you can move on a point of order. You have to have the floor in order to move that and he has to move it once this clause has been dealt with.
Mr. Nathan Cullen: If that is your ruling, I'd like to challenge your ruling again.
Mr. Mark Warawa: It's not a ruling, that's the rules.
Mr. Nathan Cullen: To me, that's what it was.
Mr. Mark Warawa: That's the rules.
The Chair: So if it's a ruling, then, I would cede to my advisers here and say that they're suggesting that's the rules of the House that, in fact....
3:42 p.m.
Conservative
3:42 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Warawa is recounting a history that we were all collectively present at and saw the manifestation of, and again, he will take us through, I'm sure, a reading of what happened yesterday. If he is seeking to eventually challenge the chair on the way this committee is conducting itself, I would urge him to do it, but rereading old testimony that was going back and forth, which we were all present at and coming forward to....
Chair, I'm seeking, through you, what the point of this deliberation on privilege is.
3:42 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Mr. Cullen, let Mr. Warawa proceed to make his point. I think he's getting there. If he could, that would be appreciated.
Let's just finish hearing that, please.
3:42 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you, Chair.
My opening comments were that the rules were broken. There are the Standing Orders; there are procedures within the House that you do not move a motion during a point of order. It's not to be done. When it happened on March 5, I asked the Clerk in the House if that was proper; I was advised that it should not be happening. Then I talked to the Speaker about that.
The rules were broken. It happened once and it shouldn't have happened at that time, but now it's happened a second time. It happened yesterday, and without respect for the rules we have, we have dysfunctional committees. All members have to respect the rules.
Mr. Cullen, on a point of order, I have the opportunity through a point of privilege to share a serious concern, and eventually I am going to be asking that this be reported back to the House. I want to make a point of the seriousness of what Mr. Cullen did, so I will continue.
I said, “That's the rules”, and then:
The Chair: So if it's a ruling, then, I would cede to my advisers here and say that they're suggesting that's the rules of the House that, in fact, you can't make that when we're discussing a particular amendment.
Just so everyone understands, we're discussing your amendment number on clause 10--
Mr. Nathan Cullen: Yes, I appreciate that.
The Chair: --and that can only be done when we move on to clause 11. That would be what the rules of the House--
Mr. Nathan Cullen: Right, and we all know is the committees are masters of their own fate.
The Chair: That's true.
Mr. Nathan Cullen: You've made this ruling. I wish to challenge that ruling.
Mr. Mark Warawa: A point of order, Mr. Chair.
It went on to a recorded vote, with the opposition members agreeing with Mr. Cullen. It was a recorded vote, recorded in the blues, that they accepted a motion during a point of order.
I do not have the blues from yesterday yet--they are coming--but an almost identical situation happened. The difference is that the motion was limiting debate to two minutes instead of five minutes as requested, as moved on March 5.
I'm looking at Marleau and Montpetit. This is the procedure guide we use here in Parliament. These are the rules. On page 454, it says here:
Superseding motions can be moved without notice when any other debatable motion is before the House. The Member moving a superseding motion can do so only after having been recognized by the Speaker in the course of debate. It is not in order for such a motion to be moved when the Member has been recognized on a point of order or during the period of questions and comments.
What we've seen very clearly is a flagrant abuse of the rules of the House of Commons.
On page 129, under points of privilege,
Should a Member wish to raise a question of privilege in committee, or should some event occur in committee which appears to be a breach of privilege or contempt, the Chair of the committee will recognize the Member and hear the question of privilege,
--which you're doing right now, and I thank you--
or in the case of some incident, suggest that the committee deal with the matter. The Chair, however, has no authority to rule that a breach of privilege or contempt has occurred. The role of the Chair in such instances is to determine whether the matter raised does in fact touch on privilege and is not a point of order, a grievance or a matter of debate.
That is why I brought it up. This is the only recourse I have as a member of this committee when we see a flagrant abuse of the rules of procedure.
What is the recourse I have in bringing it to the committee as a point of privilege, and what are the recommendations in Marleau and Montpetit? The answer is found on page 858.
I could refer to a report from the Speaker of the House that was distributed a couple of days ago. Speaker Milliken was reporting to the House of Commons on how he is seriously concerned about the abuse of rules and the problems happening in the committees. The standing committees are very important, and if we're not obeying the rules, we have disorder. He expressed great concern.
On page 858, under the heading of “Disorder and Misconduct”, it says the following:
Disorder and misconduct in a committee may arise as a result of the failure to abide by the rules and practices of a committee or to respect the authority of the Chair.
We saw that demonstrated yesterday, and we saw it happen on March 5.
Disorder and misconduct also include the use of unparliamentary language, failure to yield the floor or persistent interruption of the proceedings in any manner.
That we saw also--persistent interruptions--and we are seeing it demonstrated again by Mr. Cullen. I would ask Mr. Cullen to please control himself.
These are the options for the chair:
In the event of disorder, the Chair may suspend the meeting until order can be restored or, if the situation is considered to be so serious as to prevent the committee from continuing with its work, the meeting may be adjourned.
That is my point of privilege. I am concerned that there has been disregard for the rules of Parliament. It was not accidental. It has happened a second time. The appropriate result of that, according to Marleau and Montpetit, would be that the chair consider this and that this be reported back to the House. The appropriate action at this time would be to adjourn, according to Marleau and Montpetit.
That is my motion.
3:42 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
I want to comment on your point of privilege, but obviously we've had a motion to adjourn. That's not debatable. I believe we need to vote on that first. Then, if we're still here, I will address your point....
Could you repeat the motion?
3:42 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
My motion was that the chair consider my point of privilege and that this be reported back to the House. That was the motion.
I then did recommend, but it was not a motion, that we adjourn.
3:42 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Okay. It's not a motion. That was my misinterpretation.
Basically, I do believe Mr. Warawa makes a point. I think I will follow the way the Speaker of the House handles this sort of thing--take it under advisement, look at all of the sides.
At this point I will take very brief comments on this point of privilege. I will now accept speakers for, again, very brief comments, please.
I see Mr. Watson--maybe I should have the clerk do this and let him get in trouble--Mr. Cullen, Mr. Vellacott, Mr. McGuinty, Mr. Harvey. Is there anyone else?
What we are addressing now are the points that Mr. Warawa has just raised, which, as I have said, I will take under advisement and come back with a ruling on. At this point, I just want some very brief advice on what Mr. Warawa has raised as a point of privilege.
We'll begin with Mr. Watson.
3:42 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To the point of privilege, as I understand it, the rules exist—and I've said it many times at this committee—to facilitate debate, not to shut it down. If we use the House as an example, of course, the prerogative for closure exists with the government, not with the opposition. Furthermore, this is an abuse of process.
If you'll recall, the opposition spent about an hour on points of order, fishing with the clerk for ways to stop the government from speaking. The advice that had come back to them, of course, was that there was no way to do it, and now they've manufactured or gone back to the old playbook to raise a bogus point of order to move a motion, which is an abuse of the process.
It shouldn't have been considered a valid motion. I don't think any ruling was necessary. I think you were very clear originally when you said this is simply what the rules say. Therefore, there's no interpretation or judgment being applied to the rules. If they don't like Marleau and Montpetit, the floor should have been ceded back and they could have taken it up with the authors of the book.
So I think the motion that Mr. Cullen brought is still out of order, but the point of privilege should be sustained. I think this should be reported back to the House.
The rules are to facilitate debate, not to shut it down, and that's the privilege and prerogative of every single member here. This committee shouldn't be functioning as a rogue committee but functioning within the parameters of what the Standing Orders set out. So we should be facilitating debate here, not shutting it down.
Thank you.
3:42 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Chair.
It's interesting, the language being used by the government today—most importantly, talking about privilege, talking about abuse of this place, talking about the efforts of parliamentarians to do their jobs. We have had this bill for more than five weeks. The government completed its seventh filibuster of this bill in its previous meeting, hour upon hour of delaying, denying tactics in order to prevent the rightful passage of a piece of legislation that a majority of Canadians would like to see. The government has the hubris to come before us today and talk about an abuse of power and privilege.
It is with great reluctance. The chair knows I have the greatest respect for his chairmanship of this committee. He has done an excellent job, and I continue to support his work. But to talk about privilege is also to talk about responsibility that members of Parliament all share, to their constituents and to this country.
This is a bill about climate change and this country's future, a bill that is sorely needed and demanded by Canadians. To talk about privilege in this moment, to lecture this committee about process when, hour after hour, the Conservatives have stalled and bailed—
3:42 p.m.
Conservative
3:42 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I thought we were talking about the question of privilege, not the bill. He's talking about the bill.
3:42 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I apologize for the anger that I feel on this. I was handed an article about the pine beetle plague going through my riding, destroying community after community right now. So you'll forgive me if I feel emotional about the issue of government stall tactics when it comes to climate change, because we've seen far too much of this and it has to stop.
I urge the Conservative members on this committee to earn their pay, earn the trust of their constituents, and work. By “work” I mean deal with the bill. Stop the filibustering. Do your jobs. That is the privilege given to you by Canadians when they cast their ballots.
3:42 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Mr. Cullen, I think you are getting outside the point of privilege that we are discussing. Thank you.
Mr. Vellacott.
3:42 p.m.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I speak to this point of privilege that my colleague Mr. Warawa has raised.
I was just appalled, when we went into the first episode of it earlier, when you in effect upturned the rules of the House and you called black white and right wrong simply because you're segueing in on a point of order and moving a motion. It's totally unheard of. It's bizarre and ludicrous, and it's a recipe for anarchy. I think it's a very dangerous precedent.
I understand that chairs have to rule sometimes where things are not that clear, where the House books that we use, the procedural books and so on, may tend to imply this or that, but what can be plainer and clearer, on the face of it, than that you cannot move a motion during a point of order? Anybody with an elementary school education would know that.
Mr. Cullen may well understand that we have great concerns about this bill, and we have that right. That is our privilege. It's our opportunity to raise those issues.
We don't need to take moralistic lectures from you in respect of what you feel is responsible. We think we're doing the responsible thing for taxpayers by closely scrutinizing a bill, a bill that's so badly written that the NDP, as you know, has had to introduce major amendments. This is pretty unheard of.
The NDP leader even admitted in committee that he had not bothered—
3:42 p.m.
Conservative
3:42 p.m.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
Yes, exactly, and that's why we need to stick to rules here and why, if this member wants to speak at great length in respect to it, it should not be shut down by some bogus point of order and then thereafter by this segueing into a motion.
He wants to speak. He has that right. That's his privilege. That's the question he raises here now. When we have so many things that need to be said in respect of this bill, he has the right to do that: the NDP leader admitting to the committee that he hadn't bothered to find out how much the bill would cost Canadians in increased gas and energy prices....
He wants to present many other things.
3:42 p.m.
Conservative
3:42 p.m.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
Exactly. I understand that. But it's uncosted, it's unconstitutional, and we want to raise those points. These very same targets in the bill from the NDP were set into the Clean Air Act previously, and the Liberals voted them down because they were so unrealistic. So we want to draw attention to that. That's our right, our privilege, as members to bring that forward. Months later now, the Liberals are supporting those unrealistic targets, because as with Kyoto, they plan to do nothing with them.
Our government in fact is moving forward. We want to present that on the record in respect of the Turning the Corner plan to regulate big polluters with absolute reductions of 20% in greenhouse gases by 2020.
But this bill before us is a dangerous and irresponsible piece of legislation. The cost here, because there are such exorbitant costs that would be imposed on the taxpayers by the NDP, on families and businesses, would be astronomical. Conservatives are standing up for Canadian families and businesses by trying to stop this bill in committee, by trying to do what we can to bring this to the attention of the government.
The bill, as it is, is badly and deeply flawed, and I think the member knows that, because he brings amendments forward.
What the NDP is proposing, a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from where we are today, is simply not possible without causing massive job losses and huge price increases in electricity and gasoline.