Evidence of meeting #36 for International Trade in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Conservative
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, I have asked you to consider the point of order. Please consider that point of order. It is, of course, my right to do so, Mr. Chair, and I would like you to consider that point of order. Otherwise you are breaching parliamentary privilege and parliamentary procedure. It is the right of a member of Parliament to propose a motion that challenges a chair's ruling.
You have made a ruling. I have challenged that, and I would like you now, Mr. Chair, to allow the committee to hear that challenge to the chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Julian, please indicate how you are voting or we'll assume that you are abstaining.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, I have asked you for a—
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Julian's motion NDP-15 has been defeated. We now go to the vote on clause 19.
Mr. Cannan.
Conservative
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
I spent nine years in local government, and as a citizen and as a taxpayer of this country, I'm just appalled by the waste and disorganization. This is our federal government, and the leaders are supposed to be running this country. You have no respect another. We're supposed to be working together for the betterment of our government.
I'd ask the clerk if there is any way we can bring decorum to this committee.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
The answer, Mr. Cannan, is that the only way is either for Mr. Julian to show that respect or for us to suspend the meeting. I have no indication from anyone that they'd like to suspend the meeting.
NDP
NDP
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, you cannot decide to ignore points of order. You cannot do that. That is a question of parliamentary privilege. You absolutely have to acknowledge points of order, Mr. Chair. For five minutes now I've been trying to raise a point of order, and you know full well that I have the right to do so.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Julian is abstaining from the vote, so clause 19 is carried.
(Clause 19 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Julian, you now have the floor on a point of order. I had called the vote beforehand, Mr. Julian.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
This is absolutely the most despicable chapter I've ever seen from the government. The point of order is that when parliamentarians raise a point of order, you must acknowledge that. I raised a point of order about five minutes ago regarding time allocation. It was my right to do so. Subsequent to that, I challenged your decision. It was my right to do so. From there, Mr. Chair, rather than pretending the point of order doesn't exist, you have the responsibility...in fact, you have the obligation to submit that challenge against the chair to the committee. That is what you must do.
If what you are saying is that there are no longer any rules of parliamentary procedure, then this committee should not continue meeting. It's very simple. You've already imposed extraordinary degrees of punitive actions by not allowing a member of Parliament to actually intervene, but you have to recognize points of order. If you endeavour to do that, we can continue. If you are saying that points of order will not be recognized, then this committee should suspend.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Julian, I have to say that you have raised a point of order on a ruling that doesn't exist, because as I've said before, based on the advice of the clerks, they have indicated that a simple matter of time is not something on which you can challenge the chair. I went ahead, Mr. Julian. I recognized your point of order. I've found out since then that your point of order is not a valid point of order because it's on a non-ruling, so let's continue with the meeting.
(On clause 23—Registration)
We are now on NDP-16.
Mr. Julian, on clause 23, page 34, of the amendment booklet.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
This is....
I am going to raise a point of order, Mr. Chair:
A point of order is a question raised by a Member who believes that the rules or customary procedures of the House have been incorrectly applied or overlooked during the proceedings. Members may rise on points of order to bring to the attention of the Chair any breach of the relevance or repetition rules, unparliamentary remarks, or a lack of quorum. They are able to do so at virtually any time in the proceedings, provided the point of order is raised and concisely argued as soon as the irregularity occurs. Points of order respecting procedure must be raised promptly and before the question has passed to a stage at which the objection would be out of place. As a point of order concerns the interpretation of the rules of procedure, it is the responsibility of the Speaker to determine its merits and to resolve the issue.
And when recognized on a point of order, members should state the standing order under which the point of order is raised.
Mr. Chair, by refusing to acknowledge points of order, what you are doing is essentially countermanding the privilege of parliamentarians. You cannot do that. You already have an enormous amount of tools at your disposal. This is turning into a farce of a committee hearing.
The reality is that one thing you have to do--one thing that is very clearly in the rules of order and decorum--is you have to recognize points of order. That is what you have to do. And I want you to commit--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
You're repeating yourself, Mr. Julian.
I'd like to say that I certainly do recognize points of order, Mr. Julian. I also recognize that you have now raised a point of order on an issue that has been settled.
There is no point of order here. Therefore, let's continue.
We are now going to NDP-16, which is on page 34 of our amendment booklet.
You have one minute, Mr. Julian, if you would like to move that amendment.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I will move the amendment, Mr. Chair, but I want an undertaking from you--that's why I raised the point of order--that you will recognize points of order.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Julian, you know I do that. I have done that faithfully, in spite of some very trying circumstances, because I respect procedure. You know that, Mr. Julian.
Let's continue, please.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
You have not. But we will come back to this issue later on.
I will now move NDP-16, which reads as follows:
The Minister shall register any person applying for registration who meets the prescribed requirements and shall notify the person
What we have is an extremely punitive bill, unparalleled--like this committee--irresponsible beyond belief, making decisions that are punishing the softwood industry right across the country. We need to take a look at the amendments that are present and try to soften what is an egregiously draconian, meanspirited, dictatorial bill.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Mr. Julian. Your time is up.
Would anyone else like to speak to amendment NDP-16?
Yes, Ms. Guergis.
Conservative
Helena Guergis Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON
Mr. Chair, we do not support this amendment. It should be rejected. The amendment would remove discretion from the minister. In addition, registration would be available on demand. Therefore there is really no need for prescribed requirements.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you for your very concise input, Ms. Guergis.
Anyone else?
Then we will go to a recorded division on NDP-16, which is on page 34 of the amendment booklet.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1)