Mr. Chair, this is on the same point of order.
Let me start by saying that in the House the rules are quite clear, the Standing Orders are quite clear. Unless we have adopted rules that are different from those in the House and that are not forbidden by the Standing Orders themselves, the rules of the House apply to this committee. And in the House you cannot come along and deal with something after it's already in debate; you have to raise it at the time.
This amendment was brought up, was circulated. The appropriate time to challenge it would have been at that time, and not after the debate has started to then decide that given that the debate isn't turning out the way we planned, we would now like to find that the whole thing has been out of order. There simply is no process for that. So you don't have to make a ruling in order for this to remain in order.
I want to make this point very clearly, because one of the tactics that I've seen used numerous times by the opposition, when they're acting as a coalition, is that they will insist, whatever is going on, that there be a ruling that it's in order, and then they'll declare that we override the chair, making it out of order, so that they can then go and suspend every single rule here. This misunderstands profoundly what the nature of a chair's ruling is and where the rules apply in the absence of rulings.
The rules exist, whether or not the chair says he's making a rule. When the chair is trying to interpret the rules, that's one thing. When the rules are written down and are black-letter, there's no way of overriding these things. There's no way of suspending them just because we decide, as a group or as a majority, that they are not permitted.
I'm just encouraging you, Chair, not to let yourself be bullied--not that I think you're subject to being bullied, quite frankly--or badgered into a position where you would be aiding and abetting this completely unparliamentary tactic of saying “I demand to know whether this is in order”, and then “I challenge your ruling”, and then we get the predictable vote.
It's not as if it's a mystery how the votes will go on this committee. They're always a one-person majority on that side, ramming through everything without any regard for what the minority thinks.
Anyway, there is no point of order, really no requirement for a ruling, nor can there be on this matter.
