Transport Committee on Dec. 12th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I think the member, being a former committee chair, would recognize that this is the process that has been followed, and if a member submitting an amendment has a concern, he is to check that out. It is his responsibility to check that out with legal counsel.

I cannot comment on an amendment until it is before the committee. Therefore, I have to have the presentation of the amendment, which I allowed Mr. Laframboise to do, and then I made a comment on it that it was out of order.

Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to take a leap of faith and assume that the same rationale that was used by you, Mr. Chair, to rule Monsieur Laframboise's amendment out of order may be applied to subsequent amendments in this package of amendments dealing with noise.

Picking up on Mr. Hubbard's comments, it may be that I have the rules wrong, but I assume there's a prima facie understanding that when this goes through the drafting process of the legislative clerk of the House of Commons, who has drafted, after all, all these amendments, these amendments would at least pass the first hoop of legal opinion and legal opprobrium.

Secondly, I don't know what it is that Mr. Laframboise would have to have done to satisfy the committee. I read this in French, and I understand that the person writing this memo is Mr. Francis DesCôteaux, who is an employee of the House of Commons, not an employee of any particular member of Parliament—

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

He's a drafter.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

—who is a drafter, who was relaying the agreement of two legal counsel that this motion would be acceptable, that this amendment would be receivable—I'm sorry, “admissible” in English.

So when I first heard you speak to this, I thought maybe the third party was a staffer, for example, of one of the members of Parliament.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

But I would advise you, Mr. McGuinty, that Mr. DesCôteaux is not a part of the legal counsel. He is merely a drafter of legislation. Legal counsel—pardon me, a legislative clerk—will then review that legislation, or that amendment, and make that decision.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

The only comment I would make is the fact that it would appear that Mr. DesCôteaux is making a comment on behalf of two of the legislative counsel, and I would think that wouldn't be acceptable.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

If I could just translate it loosely for anybody who might want it, it says that the two individuals, both legislative counsel—

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

But they're not saying it; someone else is saying it on their behalf.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

May I finish?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Yes.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thanks—confirm that the amendments would be admissible. So it's important for us as a committee to understand this I think, because we're now moving into another territory, if I understand Mr. Laframboise, who has invoked his right to appeal your decision.

I just want to make sure that we understood what this might have said in French and in English. I think that's what it says. It says that a third party—you're right, Mr. Chair, thank you—an employee of the House of Commons, has relayed the views apparently of two legal counsel saying that these amendments would be admissible.

But I want to pick up on something Mr. Hubbard said, because this would be the second or third time that my amendments have been proposed here, I arrive at committee, and they are rejected out of hand as inadmissible, and I'm not sure that is the right of the chair.

Maybe we ought to send a message back up the flagpole to the House of Commons procedural committee that we ought to work in a different way going forward, as a recommendation of this committee. But I want to get this clear, because before we even get into this question of further debate, or continue with this debate, I really need to know in terms of procedure where we might be going in terms of where we are now.

If we are now debating the admissibility or the appealability of your ruling, maybe you could help us understand where we're at in terms of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We are currently debating the proposal put forward by the government, and as stated, the amendments that are being put forward would deal with the amendments on the righthand side, would encompass it.

The two that stand outside of these amendments would be amendments NDP-12 and NDP-13.

I did ask the committee if they were prepared to look at this document and discuss it. There was no disagreement, and that is what we are currently debating.

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Actually, I'm not sure if it's even—

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

On a point of order. I am appealing your decision. Whether or not you decide to reject my motion is not serious. Am I entitled to appeal the decision? I think so. It's up to the clerk to tell us. I had the opportunity of meeting with government officials today, and I was not told that my amendments were going to be set aside and that they were not in order.

I am disappointed. I had looked into this matter, Mr. Chairman. I had asked that this amendment be verified to ascertain whether or not it was in order. I had asked the legislative director to do this. I have no difficulty accepting the fact that my motion may be defeated. I want to know whether or not I am entitled to appeal your decision. I would like the clerk to tell me if I have the right to do this. There will be no hard feelings. If the motion is defeated, it isn't any more serious than that. If I can't, I can't.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Again, I'm going to ask the clerk, and I would suggest that you did not ask legal counsel directly for this response; you asked a drafter for his opinion, and that's what we have in front of us. We do not have the words of two legal counsel members. We have the word of the drafter of the amendment, who suggests that he believes it is in order. Those are not their words, but his.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I asked the drafter to ensure that the amendments were in order. That is the mandate that I gave to the drafter. You are entitled to tell me that I did not do this. However, in my opinion, my amendment is in order. You have an opinion to the contrary. If I can appeal your decision, I will do so. I am appealing your decision, and my appeal may be dismissed. That does not bother me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I do have a problem with asking a drafter a legal opinion, and that's what we have in front of us. I'll check with the clerk if it's doable.

I'm told in order for you to appeal my ruling, you would need unanimous consent of the committee, simply because we have moved on to this document, this amendment, presented by the government.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I'd like to make one point.

At the point in time that Mr. Laframboise raised the issue, I was already a little concerned, because in our haste to move on with the government's amendment, Mr. Laframboise really didn't have any opportunity to request an appeal.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Then we can do it through unanimous consent, if it's the will of the committee.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Chair, in the interest of fairness, I'm not sure we followed proper protocol. It's not your fault; we were very anxious to move on to the government amendment.

Mr. Laframboise did have the right to request an appeal of your decision. I think it's fair for him to continue to have that right, and I'm not sure it should require unanimity at this table. It would be unfair to the process. Again, it's no reflection on you, Mr. Chair; it's no reflection on anyone at this committee. Let's be fair about this and deal with the merits of it.

My second point is that if we're going to deal with it, I want to make sure that the document that was submitted to you here in French is read verbatim into the record so that I can hear the translation of our translators and have it on the record.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I'd like to speak to the point of order, Mr. Chair.

I want to back up Mr. Fast's point here. Unless my ears really failed me, I do recall that before we moved on to the government's agenda, Mr. Laframboise declared that he would like to appeal. I heard that very distinctly and very clearly, before we moved on to another agenda item.

I think that in all fairness we should be on that discussion, and I don't think it requires unanimous consent to go back to it. He did raise his objection at the time; I did clearly hear that.