Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 29th, 2011

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

If I may, the Constitution says that the concept of proportional representation is the driving factor behind this, and we have achieved that to the same extent as Bill C-20.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I'm not going to enter into debate on the ruling. The ruling is....

[Ruling of the chair sustained [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clauses 2 to 7 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 8)

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We're at NDP-3.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Are you looking now for my amendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

NDP-3, amending clause 8.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

But are you going to let me place it and debate it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Yes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Okay. We're making headway.

Thank you, Chair.

I move that Bill C-20 in clause 8 be amended by replacing line 20 on page 6 with the following: “at least 75 days before the day on which the”.

That ends the amendment. May I speak?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Sure.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Based on the testimony that we've heard—there was conflicting testimony, granted—we believe there was enough testimony that not only is the government going in the wrong direction by limiting the time, but we think this is an important opportunity to expand the time.

We're talking about giving the public an opportunity to have their feedback. We're very concerned about reducing it, and that's the reason for the amendment.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

I want to go back to your ruling, and I want to say this because you ruled before any chance was given to either Mr. Christopherson, in his case, or in my case to actually discuss our amendment. You ruled right away, and that is not, in my opinion, within your mandate to do so.

It is within your mandate to rule on a point of order, but to come out and immediately declare your position and for it not to be debatable is not an acceptable position for the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

In each case, Mr. Garneau, I allowed you to move your motion, at which point I made my ruling. So you moved your motion—

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

And you did not allow any discussion to occur and it was not debatable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

That's usually how a chair's ruling would go. You'll move the motion and I rule whether the motion is in order or out of order. If it's in order, then discussion will take place, as Mr. Christopherson is doing right now on this clause 8.

If it's out of order, then after you've moved it I immediately share with you the ruling.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

You immediately basically shut down the whole thing by your ruling.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way, Mr. Garneau, but I made the chair's ruling on whether the amendment was acceptable to the chair—in this case, it was contrary to principle. So that's when the ruling should be made, after you've moved it.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Which I don't agree with, but we didn't have a chance to debate that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Lukiwski.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I'm sorry, Mr. Lukiwski.

Mr. Christopherson, were you finished? You moved it and—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I wasn't, but I'm assuming you're now dealing with the point of order that was raised, and I'm fine with that. I'm assuming you will come back to me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Well, then I will come back to you now.

Oh, are you on the point of order? Sorry, go ahead.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

A point of order.

Marc, with the greatest of respect, because I don't think you're doing this in a manner to try to just unduly delay the procedures, but I've been through a number of clause-by-clause examinations on various bills, as I'm sure many of the members who have been around this place for a long time have, and what the chair has done is procedurally quite correct. That's exactly how these things are handled in committee.

When the clause or amendment is introduced, if the chair makes a ruling that it is outside the scope or it doesn't confine with the principle and it's ruled out of order, that is the time. There is no debate and we move on.

I know you don't like it, but he's dealing with it exactly as the procedures dictate he deals with it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

David, back to you.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I think I've said my bit. If anybody else has any comments, I'll respond to them, Chair. Thank you for the opportunity.