Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 3rd, 2014

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

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I'm not sure why there are bells, but I'm suggesting we suspend and come back. This is to inform the committee that the government will not be giving consent to adjourn the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Okay, we will suspend, and come back here after whatever it is we're going to the House to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

The committee will resume, following its suspension.

We're on to committee business.

I have Mr. Lukiwski, first, on that piece.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

It's actually a fairly straightforward motion. Although my colleagues in the NDP feel that this is—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Chair, I thought the member was going to read the motion, but if he's going to jump right into debate, then I have a point of order right off the top.

Procedurally, I just need to know when my cue is to signal you that I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Okay, when you catch my eye again....

We'll let Mr. Lukiwski get into his motion, and then by all means, David.

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

I'm easy. Did you want me to read it into the record, David, or does it matter to you?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I just want an opportunity to make my point of order before you begin your debate, that's all.

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

Go right ahead.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Go ahead, David.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

If I may, I had mentioned this previously and I'll raise it again only as the major focus. Before, I made it just one of my reasons.

I'm suggesting to you, Chair, with the greatest of respect, that this motion is out of order. The main reason is that this whole matter of the study that this committee has undertaken, based on a motion that passed in the House—and that's important in this context, that we are under the orders of the House here, so to some degree we're not masters of our own destiny with regard to this. On that point of the motion, we have a point of order before the Speaker, which the Speaker has taken under advisement, meaning that there has to be some merit to it, prima facie, that the Speaker feels he needs time to review it and consider it. We are waiting for that ruling.

I would suggest to you, Chair, that it is entirely appropriate, in order, and it makes all the common sense in the world that before we continue with a motion at this committee on this matter, we allow the Speaker and give him the respect to deem whether or not that motion was actually in order. If it wasn't, the work in front of us now dissolves because, given that it originated in the House and the Speaker has claimed significant jurisdiction by virtue of at least being willing to consider it right now, it seems to us that the right thing and the respectful thing to do, Chair, would be to hold this motion at least in abeyance until such time as the Speaker has made a final ruling on the originating motion that took place some weeks ago.

That would be my point of order, Chair, in terms of the relevance and whether or not this motion is actually in order, and I respectfully submit that it is not.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Christopherson.

On that point of order, Mr. Lukiwski.

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

I would point out that really the point of order that the NDP raised was on the use of Standing Order 56.1 to compel Mr. Mulcair to appear at committee. That is the issue before the Speaker. However, there is absolutely nothing that precludes the procedure and House affairs committee from conducting a study on anything it wishes to.

Based on the testimony of Mr. Mulcair, which was allowed through the House reference, we heard conflicting testimony, which I will speak to in a few moments. Based on that conflicting testimony, I brought forward a motion to expand the study to try to get to the bottom of the testimony that we heard from Mr. Mulcair.

If the use of Standing Order 56.1 is ruled to be out of order, that may preclude this committee from forcing or inviting Mr. Mulcair to come back again, but it certainly does not do anything to stop this committee from conducting a study on any subject that it wishes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Lamoureux, on the same point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chair, I notice the government representative wanted to move a motion, and then explain the motion and the purpose behind the motion, but even prior to our hearing the motion and getting that explanation, there is a point of order that has been raised.

It makes me reflect on the time when I was trying to get some questions asked of the Speaker. Through points of order, there is this disruptive force where the NDP is trying to avoid accountability on what I think is a very important issue. We have been charged with trying to get a better understanding and coming up with a report at the end of the day on some very serious matters, matters on which we've had professional civil servants draw up some conclusions.

I've had the opportunity to read through those confidential documents that have been provided to me. I think it behooves all of us to not only read through these documents, because there are very serious allegations that we need to investigate and look into. My concern is that we're witnessing the beginnings of some sort of a filibuster.

I would suggest to you that it is not a point of order, and that Mr. Lukiwski should go ahead and move his motion and then provide some sort of an explanation to it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Christopherson, very quickly on the point of order. This is not debate time.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Agreed. In fact, it will be specific to the comments of Mr. Lukiwski, wherein I think he made my best case.

He made reference to the fact that this committee can do what it wishes on its own. I have no umbrage with that issue. However, Mr. Lukiwski's motion, Chair, says specifically “the committee continue its study pursuant to its order of reference”. It's the order of reference that the Speaker is now deliberating on.

If anything, Chair, with respect, Mr. Lukiwski strengthened my hand by pointing out that the pivotal piece is that this is pursuant to an order of reference from the House, and that order is now the matter of a deliberation by the Speaker to make a ruling.

If separate and apart Mr. Lukiwski wants to come in after the fact, or instead of, and make the case we can do whatever we want, that's a very different debate and it wouldn't be this point of order.

I am making this point of order specifically on the fact, and I appreciate Mr. Lukiwski focusing in on it for me, that it's the pursuant part that makes this out of order because it is referring to an action, a reference from the House, and that ruling, that decision, that motion of the House is now in the hands of the Speaker who is deliberating as to whether or not it was in order and appropriate when it happened.

If he upholds that, there is no motion because it's pursuant to what? There will be nothing to be pursuant to. Therefore, the only thing that makes any common sense in my respectful submissions, Chair, is that this matter be held in abeyance until such time as the ruling is made by the Speaker.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I'm going to rule that the motion is in order and can be debated today. Mr. Lukiwski, you still have the floor.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I have another point of order. It's different.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Let's keep it as a short point of order rather than debate this time.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

The motion that Mr. Lukiwski has put forward effectively amends the House order because in the last sentence it says that “provided that it shall be deemed to be a continuation of his appearance on May 15”.

The House did not provide for the committee to take one date that they put as a deadline, which we honoured, and allow the committee to just say at will every day is May 15.

That is out of order in our opinion, Chair, because if I may—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

No, you may not.

Mr. Christopherson, I've already ruled that the motion is in order. Now you're picking another part of it suggesting that I think about it. The answer is, I ruled the motion in order and we will go to debate on that.

Mr. Scott.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

You know it's tough enough with the heavy hand of the government.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Chair, I honestly think, with all due respect, and you know I do respect you as Chair, that's an unfair ruling. I mean the overall point—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

There's nothing that you can do. The only one thing you can do if you're not loving the Chair at the moment—