Debates of Feb. 6th, 2004

Points of Order

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, for greater clarity, I would like to ascertain that from this point on the names of the members who I am reading will be those who are to be omitted from all of the members of the House up to this point. I have already omitted some. From this point on, in an alphabetical listing of the members, these are now the ones who I am going to propose be omitted from membership in this committee.

[The Speaker]

Is the hon. member saying that his motion contains a list of members who are to be on it and a list of members who are not?

[Charlie Penson, Canadian Alliance, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me as a member of the House that I would like to hear whether my name is on that list and what the substance of that point of order is before I can make a decision on whether I want to give consent to the motion.

I want to hear if my name is on it. I want to hear the substance of the motion, what it is in regard to, before I decide whether I want to give consent.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it has just been pointed out to me in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, the consolidated version of November 5, 2003, under “Unprovided Cases” that:

In all cases not provided for hereinafter, or by other Order of the House, procedural questions shall be decided by the Speaker or Chair, whose decisions shall be based on the usages, forms, customs and precedents of the House of Commons of Canada and on parliamentary tradition in Canada and other jurisdictions, so far as they may be applicable to the House.

I hope that is enlightening to you, Mr. Speaker, in view of what is occurring here today.

[The Speaker]

I thank the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville for his assistance, and it was exactly the customs and practices of the House that I explained a moment ago with which I trust the hon. member for Elk Island will comply.

I have never seen a motion in the House that listed members of the House who were not members of a committee. In my view that is not part of the custom of the House, and it only confirms my suspicion that the hon. member's list and this attempt is a delay tactic rather than an effort to put a motion to the House which the House can accept or reject on consent.

I have indicated our practice and our custom and that is to hear a brief motion from a member and then give consent or not. This motion is not that way. I have asked for the substance of it. The hon. member for Elk Island persists in reading a list and my patience is running out. It had better be short because I cannot have a list of all the members of the House read out once or twice as we go through those who are on and those who are off.

The normal practice is to name 15 members to a special committee. This list is apparently much, much longer. It appears to be in alphabetical order and I am not prepared to listen to a list of all the members of the House.

If the hon. member wants to refer to a committee of the whole, fine. I would like to hear the rest of the substance of the motion.

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, would you please kindly reference where in the Standing Orders it indicates that points of order should be brief.

[The Speaker]

I did not say that points of order should be brief. I said motions should be brief. The member has risen on a point of order asking for consent to move a motion. In my view the motion has gone on already too long.

Our normal practice, when consent is requested for a motion, is that the motion be brief. The hon. member apparently does not have consent for the motion. We are getting that impression very loudly in the House from time to time and the motion is not brief.

That is my point, and I am sure the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke appreciates that.

[Brian Pallister, Canadian Alliance, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect I would like to make the observation that I believe someone was wanting to time the amount of time that we have spent with the interventions of the government members, with interventions from the Chair, and so on.

I think we have occupied considerably more time of the House in talking about the motion than we have in listening to the motion be read.

Personally, I would prefer to hear the motion, and I would suggest that if we are interested in the use of the House's time effectively, we listen to the member's motion.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is my right to place the motion. The motion, in its entirety, requires that somehow or other I be permitted to indicate the members that I would like to be eligible. If you were to listen to my whole motion, the very last part of my motion gives clarity to exactly what you are objecting to, but you are not permitting me to get to it, and that is causing me some distress.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue. I think it will be confusing to members who read the record and look to see whether their name is on the list as being eligible for membership on the committee that I am proposing.

I said before that I would shorten it by indicating the members from the total list that I would like to exclude. However, having begun by reading the actual members who I am proposing, I think that would add a lot of confusion. Therefore I would like to actually revert back to reading the names of the members.

I do not have here a list of all the members of the House. I have chosen specific members and I am just going to carry on with it. The motion continues:

Hon. Yvon Charbonneau, member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Quebec; Hon. Denis Coderre, member for Bourassa, Quebec--

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe we are wasting an enormous amount of time when, really, there is a very simple solution to it all.

The motion should be considered as a whole. Any one of the names listed in the motion is therefore part of the motion. One of these people has already said there will not be unanimous consent. Therefore, the whole motion is not admissible because his name is part of the motion.

[Charlie Penson, Canadian Alliance, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that seems to me to be a very illogical argument because the member has not heard the terms of the motion itself. All he has heard is his name. Members have no idea what the motion refers to until the member is able to put the motion before the House.

Therefore it seems to me that the House leader is out of order here.

[Brian Pallister, Canadian Alliance, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, just as an observation. I think that would be a very dangerous precedent to set, to allow members to rise at any particular point in time when another member is bringing forward a motion and prematurely giving their personal opinion on it as to whether they would or would not give unanimous consent. It would pre-empt the ability of any member of the House to bring forward such a motion.

Of course it would be a tremendously dangerous precedent to set. I think the government House leader should consider that before he implies that it would be possible for any of us in the House to use such a tactic as a way to block the ability of any other member of the House to bring forward a motion.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague from Elk Island saying, a few moments ago, that he wanted to read the names of the members eligible to sit on this committee. To my knowledge, we are all eligible.

That said, I respectfully submit to the Chair that if we had let the hon. member finish reading his list of members, he would already be done and we could finally move on to something else.

[The Speaker]

In my opinion, we face some difficulties here.

The hon. member for Elk Island is trying to move a motion, and I read from page 391 of Marleau and Montpetit. Under motions and routine proceedings it states:

The motions [under routine proceedings] which are considered under this rubric are often moved without notice by unanimous consent and adopted without debate. Examples of motions moved under this rubric include those to:

manage the proceedings and business of the House or its committees;

concur in a committee report;

establish a special committee;

It goes on and on. I could read the whole list but I will not.

In other words, this kind of motion is normally moved during motions under routine proceedings. We are not at motions under routine proceedings. We are two hours before that happens. What the hon. member is seeking to do is get unanimous consent to do something that normally is done under motions for one thing, but then he is seeking unanimous consent for a motion that we already know will not get unanimous consent.

Accordingly, I think we have heard enough. I have invited the hon. member to put the substance, which is our usual practice, so we hear it and accept or reject it. However, in this case he is persisting in reading a list. He has offered to read two lists and, in my view, it is an abuse of the practice of the House. We already have an indication that the answer is no, and, accordingly, I suggest we move on to the next item.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions. Do I understand now that the point of order is done and you have ruled that it is finished? If that is the case, I would like to raise another issue that I discussed with you briefly.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I urge you to hear me out. This issue is one of huge importance. We have had piles of petitions on this question. It is a matter of great urgency to protect our children from further sexual exploitation.

My motion at the end will indicate that substitutions on this committee can be made from time to time, but I am specifically stating the members because I know there are some members who are on the wrong side of this issue. I am not prepared to say that everybody is eligible to be on this committee. That is--

[The Speaker]

The hon. member knows that motions to establish committees normally have to be done on 48 hours notice. He is seeking unanimous consent of the House to avoid that notice requirement. It has been denied. It has been refused. Accordingly, I am not prepared to entertain further motions on it at this time.

If he wants to give notice of a motion and put it on the Order Paper he is free to do that and then he can move it under the rubric “Motions” when it is eligible for debate in the House. However, he is seeking the House's permission now to waive the notice requirement, to do it at an unusual time and to propose a motion that I have indicated is highly unusual in its terms.

We have heard a clear no from the government House leader in respect of this. There will not be consent for it even if the member finished reading his motion, so I am not prepared to let him continue because, in my view, he is wasting the time of the House and we cannot have that.

[Brian Pallister, Canadian Alliance, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, just on a point of clarification that you might want to give us. If your ruling is based on the intervention of the member opposite, who rose in his place and said that he would not give unanimous consent, if that is in fact the basis of your ruling, I would like you to clarify that to the House at this point in time. If it is not the basis of your ruling, sir, then I would ask you to rise in--

[The Speaker]

I have given my ruling to the House and I gave my reasons. I gave a number of reasons pointing out the practices of the House and actually I have given reasons about four times.

I have indicated that, among other things, there is a refusal. There is no consent. The motion is for unanimous consent to waive a number of practices of the House and there has been an indication that will not happen. The motion, in my view, is highly irregular and I have said that in argument with the hon. member for Elk Island already. It was particularly irregular and it contains a list of all the names of the members who are not on the committee. Accordingly, I am saying that we should move on.

The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville has another point and I am prepared to hear him on that.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I raised this issue with you. I indicated before this session opened that I wanted to speak to the motion that I made. I stood here waiting for that debate but I guess you did not see me.

Mr. Speaker, I would like you to revisit your decision to not allow me to address the issue on which you ruled and on which you allowed me to pass my motion. I am asking for you to reconsider that because at this point it seems that there was a problem with the procedure. I think you know what I am referring to. I would like to address the motion that I put and I was not allowed. I think people opposite saw me stand on debate, but you, sir, did not.

[The Speaker]

No, I did not. When I put the question to the House I asked the usual question, is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion, and everyone said yes, so I declared the motion carried. The hon. member, it is my recollection, was sitting in his seat at the time. I know he thinks he was standing but I did not see the hon. member standing. I saw him sitting. Accordingly, I did not proceed with him at that point. I am sorry that did not happen. However, is there agreement that we go back to that and have the hon. member make a speech?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker]

I am afraid the motion is carried and that is that. I put the question and the normal practice is that if a member wishes to debate the member stands up and says “debate”, but nobody did. I know the hon. member had indicated an interest but I thought he had given up because he had made all his comments before. I am sorry. I think we will have to move to orders of the day.

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when the question was asked I did say no, but perhaps Mr. Speaker did not hear me.