Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 18th, 2019

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

On a point of order, Chair, I am ordering—

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

That is not a point of order, Madam. You can challenge my ruling.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

On a point of clarification—

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I am now ruling that you are out of order.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

I think you've misunderstood my point of order. My point of order was on decorum. I was making my case respectfully to you that I believe decorum has been breached in this committee. I was laying that out respectfully and with evidence in very calm language, because I believe it is very important that we talk about this here.

I would like to talk about why I think decorum has been breached, and I would like you to rule on that appropriately.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I'm going to suspend the meeting for a moment and consult with the clerk.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I'm going to call us back to order.

I will repeat what I have said to understand what has happened here.

Mr. Whalen raised a point of order, and I ruled that it was debate and did not entertain it. That ends the discussion about that. I have already ruled it out of order.

You're asking me to rule it out of order because it is breaking decorum. I have already ruled it out of order. It's now entering into debate about whether you like it or don't like it. It doesn't really matter to me whether anybody likes it or not. I have already ruled that it was inappropriate because it was not a point of order.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

On a new point of order on decorum with regard to the comment that you just made, you claimed in the Hansard that I was asking you whether I liked it or did not like it. I would like to clarify that was not my intent, and I would like to go back to the original point.

Let me start with my new point of order. I don't believe that it is in the decorum of this committee for the chair to put words in a member's mouth. That is not what I said, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I don't think I quoted you.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

You did, and, sir, with respect, what you are saying is not the point of order I was trying to make on decorum with the member opposite. If you would let me quickly and briefly finish my point of order to you on decorum, it's with regard to general decorum in the committee. I will be brief, but this is not about whether I like or do not like it. It's about decorum as it relates—

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

It was whether I liked it or did not like it. It didn't have anything to do whether you liked or didn't like it.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

You said “you”, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

It's about me.

If this is a new point of order—

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

No, Chair.

I have a point of order going back to my original point of order, if I can make it, so that you can then rule on it. It's a point of order on decorum in this committee with regard to how we treat the subject matter at hand. The subject matter that we are debating today is the supplementary estimates (B), and many of the questions today have related to the $114 million in supplementary estimates (B) related to the issue of people illegally entering Canada and then claiming asylum in Canada afterwards.

Repeatedly, my colleagues opposite from time to time have issued objections related to that terminology. We can have a debate on that. That's fine. Where I believe the decorum of this committee was violated today was in the insinuation that somehow using terminology to question government practices was related to a very horrific incident in New Zealand. I don't believe, Chair, that as parliamentarians—I will be brief—

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I've already ruled that was an inappropriate comment because it was a matter of debate.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

But I'm asking—

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Other than making your point, which you've made...it is not a point of order. We have had a debate in this committee numerous times about terminology. There are differences of opinion. I understand that, but I've ruled that something is out of order.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

But you're not letting me finish my point of debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

You're arguing with me, because I've agreed with you that it's out of order.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

No, I'm not arguing with you on this.

You have ruled that his point of order was not valid because it was a point of debate. The point of decorum that I am making is that it is not part of the decorum of this committee, because he had made an insinuation that questioning the aspects of this process was somehow related to what happened in New Zealand.

I just believe that we have to be very careful with making insinuations like that because they inflame and conflate debate, do a disservice and actually validate what that terrible terrorist did by raising it here in that way.

I believe that this was a valid point of decorum, and I would just ask if colleagues in here would refrain from doing that, because we have a responsibility here and I just feel, Chair, that this—

[An hon. member]

Be as careful with your words as you are with your actions. Ask your leader today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I would ask the committee members to please respect each other.

We are in debate on this issue, which is not what we should be doing. There is a difference of opinion, and I would respectfully ask that we move on in the discussion. I don't think we are going to solve the difference of opinion on that today.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Do you concede that it's a valid point of decorum? I would ask you to rule on it if you do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I have never heard of a point of decorum. I understand committee decorum, but there's no such thing as a point of decorum.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

A point of order on decorum. My apologies, Chair.

Do you see my point of order as valid? If so, I would ask for a ruling on it.