Industry Committee on Dec. 12th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

On the same point of order, Monsieur Crête.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I am trying to unravel all that.

The Conservative member tabled a motion, and I amended it. The motion and the amendment were both deemed in order. Now, Mr. McTeague is saying that the motion is not in order.

I would like the clerk or the chairman to tell me how they can determine whether the motion is in order. It was deemed in order, and so it remains. We cannot all of a sudden decide that a motion is no longer in order. I must confess, despite my experience as a parliamentarian, that I do not know of any way of annulling a motion's receivability. I have never seen anything like it.

Could you share your expertise or the clerk's expertise with us regarding this issue?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Monsieur Crête.

I'm quickly becoming a procedural expert here.

It's correct. I did rule on the motion, and I ruled the amendment in order. I'm advised that it is in order, unless a member of this committee challenges the ruling of the chair. Mr. McTeague can, if he chooses, challenge my ruling that both the motion and the amendment are in order.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Chair, with great regret, I would challenge the chair on this. If you look at the substance of what has been put forward, this is not a normal motion. This is in fact an argument. It's an argument that gives rise to a debate and that has had the consequences of one particular member in effect filibustering.

My concern, substantively, is that I think in the ruling you gave--if you look at your initial comments--as to whether you could receive it as a motion within the context--

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Excuse me. Allow me to finish my point.

Within the context of being able to receive it, Mr. Crête felt that he probably couldn't receive it. You did not rule on the question of substantiality but on the question of argument.

I therefore believe the challenge is placed before you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

On a question of privilege, Monsieur Crête.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. McTeague said that I was filibustering. In fact, I explained for the first time an amendment to a motion that had not yet been debated and I set out my position.

I've just received a note that is personally addressed to me, that comes from the minister's office in Quebec. They fully support my position. As I have it here, I could share it with you, but I do not want to get into that.

With regard to privilege, I have not tried to filibuster in any way. This is not the third day, but it is the first half hour of a debate on a bill that will change the way things currently work all over Canada and Quebec. In that sense, I do not think that I am filibustering.

Mr.McTeague, you do not know what a real filibuster is.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Monsieur Crête, I'm advised that it is not in fact a question of privilege. We have a challenge of the ruling.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

What is this about?

Are we entitled to debate the protest?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. McTeague has challenged the chair's ruling with respect to the admissibility of the motion and therefore the admissibility of the amendment.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

On a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Point of order.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

We have been debating this motion for three quarters of an hour to an hour. We cannot contest an opinion after such a long time. We would need the committee's unanimous consent, but as far as I am concerned, I will not give my consent.

Mr. Chairman, please check with the clerk.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Crête, the clerk is free to add, but the advice he gave me is that I ruled the motion and the amendment in order. The only way it would not be in order is if the ruling of the chair was challenged. Mr. McTeague has subsequently challenged the ruling of the chair.

Do you wish to add to that?

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I also added that a motion be put forward that we immediately go to a vote on clause-by-clause, without amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Let me deal with one member and one motion.

We have to deal with the challenge to the chair first. We will deal with the motion Mr. McTeague is making after the challenge to the chair, depending on the outcome of that vote.

We're moving to the vote on the challenge of the chair.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

The point of order is about an objection. A debate was raised about this motion that had been deemed in order. We've been debating it for three quarters of an hour now. How can we judge whether it is in order when the debate has already gone on for three quarters of an hour?

Personally, I will feel deeply frustrated.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Crête, with due respect, a point of order was raised by Mr. McTeague, that the motion was out of order. I responded by saying that I ruled the motion in order and I ruled the amendment in order. The only way for that ruling to be changed was for the chair to be challenged. Mr. McTeague subsequently challenged the ruling of the chair. He has done so according to, procedurally, every correct means. He has the authority to challenge the ruling of the chair and he has done so, so we're moving to a vote on that. We are proceeding in a manner that is procedurally correct, according to the best advice that I'm given. We're moving to the challenge of the ruling of the chair.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

If we create such a precedent today, we could dredge up resolutions that are two or three months or even a year old to contest them. The same rules apply here. They are pretending that they can challenge a decision that was already adopted. I hardly find this acceptable. I can hardly see how this could be justified.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Crête, I'm relying on the advice of a clerk with an awful lot of procedural experience in the Parliament of Canada. I have full confidence in his advice on this matter, so I'm going to the question.

Shall the chair's ruling that the motion is in order be sustained?

(Ruling negatived: nays 8; yeas 2)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I've been challenged and I've been overruled.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

I therefore move that this committee move to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-26 as amended.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Carrie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

On the word “immediate”, I would like to agree with that, as an amendment.