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.