James Rajotte

[Points of Order, March 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a point of order to seek a ruling with respect to a decision made by the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology yesterday.

I want to say at the outset, Mr. Speaker, that I am raising this ruling to clarify rules with respect to committees, particularly as they pertain when there is a vote in this chamber.

I do want to acknowledge that all members of the committee, in my view, acted appropriately yesterday, as did the clerk. This is not to question any of their actions. The clerk of our committee was very helpful yesterday.

However, in my view, there are some rules that need to be clarified. I think you may help us in clarifying them.

The decision of our committee yesterday compromised the supremacy of the House and placed me and other members in a conflict between representing our constituents in the House and my responsibilities as a committee chair.

While we were debating a motion at committee yesterday, the division bells sounded to call members into the House for a vote. Accordingly, a motion to adjourn was moved but was defeated by the combined opposition.

The opposition wanted to continue the consideration of a motion that was proposed by an opposition member. After further discussion, a second motion to adjourn was attempted and also failed.

On page 857 of Marleau and Montpetit it is stated that the chair of a committee must ensure “that the deliberations adhere to established practices and rules, as well as to any particular requirements which the committee may have imposed upon itself and its members”.

As the chair of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, I have a duty to uphold the decisions of the committee and the measures it imposes on me and the other members of the committee.

This, Mr. Speaker, was in direct conflict with my duty to vote in the House of Commons. As you are aware, this House has first call upon the attendance and services of its members, and while committees are creatures of this House, they are in fact subordinate to it. If a conflict arises as to the attendance and services of its members, one would think the House should take precedence.

The rules and practices are not clear on this matter, which we are asking you to clarify. On page 857 of Marleau and Montpetit there are references to the chairman's authority to suspend or adjourn a meeting, but only in cases involving decorum.

The committee was engaged in a debate on a motion that was supported by the opposition and opposed by the government. The departure of government members from the committee would have had no impact on the quorum requirements and would therefore leave the committee operating without the customary safeguard balance between the opposition and the government. Staying out of the House for a vote compromised that same balance in the House.

The authorities on parliamentary process emphasize the great importance of the protection of this balance. As you can appreciate, Mr. Speaker, this is of particular concern in a minority Parliament.

If this decision had been brought about by unanimous consent, then I would have no concern, but it was brought about by a majority decision that compelled all members to stay at committee rather than return to the House to represent their constituents at the votes.

I therefore ask you, Mr. Speaker, to give a ruling clarifying the rules so that all committee members, and particularly committee chairs, may be guided by it in the future.

[Human Rights, March 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in October 1998, the House gave unanimous consent to a motion that called upon the government of Iran to end its oppression of the Iranian Baha'i community.

The government of Iran has not done so. Instead, it is increasing discrimination and other human rights violations against the Baha'is. Not only are the 300,000 members of the Iranian Baha'i community prevented from practising their faith, but its government continues to imprison Baha'is on the basis of their religious beliefs.

One hundred and twenty-five people have been detained since 2005, many of them young people who have been denied the basic right to post-secondary education unless they recant their faith, and the Iranian government is also stepping up its efforts to identify and monitor the Baha'is.

In December, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution on the situation of human rights in Iran that was sponsored by Canada. I encourage our government to continue working with the international community to denounce human rights abuses against the Iranian Baha'is and to encourage the government of Iran to respect its human rights obligations.

[Edmonton Oilers, February 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of the greatest Canadian athletes of all time, Mark Messier, whose number 11 is being retired tonight by the Edmonton Oilers.

Hockey fans will remember his talent, especially his patented play of picking up the puck in the neutral zone and, at full speed and on his off wing and from an impossible angle, releasing that deadly snapshot past the goalie into the far side of the net.

An individual is not supposed to score goals like that, but Messier did, for an incredible total of 694 goals over 25 NHL seasons. He is second overall in regular season points, playoff points and number of games played in the NHL, a testament to his vast talent and incredible stamina.

He was talented and he was tough, but what defined him above all else was his will to win. He was and is a leader.

Tonight, the pride of St. Albert, Alberta returns home to Edmonton to receive the recognition and appreciation he so richly deserves. On behalf of all members of Parliament, I would like to congratulate Mark on all of his achievements and send best wishes to him and to his family on this special day.

[Criminal Code, February 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my friend's speech laid out very well the rationale for this legislation. As well, he outlined the government's comprehensive justice package in this area. He mentioned a few of the bills, obviously addressing such things as age of consent legislation, which many of the parents in my riding have requested, changes to conditional sentencing and street racing.

The government has been busiest in the justice area. I think there are at least nine bills at some stage before Parliament, showing the government's view that we need to reform the justice system.

I appreciated the member not getting into the rhetoric, but taking a factual approach and showing how the reverse onus would be used for the very serious crimes in an effort to reduce gun and gang violence. I come from the best kept secret in Canada, the city of Edmonton, the most beautiful city in our country. Unfortunately, it has been plagued by some serious tragic incidents involving guns and gangs.

Would the parliamentary secretary reiterate, factually, exactly what this legislation will do to try to combat the serious growing problem we have within our nation?

[Committees of the House, February 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present today, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology in relation to our study on the challenges facing the Canadian manufacturing sector.

I would like to add that this is a unanimous report. I thank all members of the committee who put together this report.

[Petitions, December 13th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the second group of petitioners calls upon the government and this Parliament to investigate the treatment of Falun Gong practitioners in China.

[Petitions, December 13th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour today to present two petitions on behalf of the people of my riding. The first group of petitioners calls upon Parliament to immediately raise the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16 years of age.

[Committees of the House, December 13th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology regarding its order of reference of Monday, November 6, 2006, Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal interest rate).

The committee has considered Bill C-26 and reports the bill without amendment.

Merry Christmas, Mr. Speaker.

[Marriage, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to commend the member opposite for the tone in which he spoke this evening. I think it is very respectful. I certainly appreciate it.

I do want to ask him, though, about some of his arguments. He talked about same sex marriage being a fundamental human right and he talked about fundamental human respect. He wants full equality and full respect, but then he also says that religious communities will have or do have rights, presumably under section 2 of the charter, to not solemnize same sex marriage.

If we take the member's argument about it being a fundamental human right with fundamental human respect, I do not see, if we accept that argument, how religious communities can be assured that it will not be used to override the right of religious faiths to not solemnize same sex marriages.

I would like the member to address that on the human right side. If we follow the logical extension of his argument, I think the concern is that this would in fact override the rights of religious communities to not solemnize same sex marriages.

[Federal Accountability Act, November 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, today is a sad milestone. It is day 135 of the Liberal Senate's anti-democratic delay on the toughest anti-corruption law in Canadian history, the federal accountability act.

Canada's new government included a new section in the accountability act which would ban ministers and parliamentary secretaries from voting on or debating issues in Parliament which would put them into a conflict of interest.

What did Liberal senators do? Did they vote to preserve this important law? No. Unbelievably, they removed this section from the accountability act entirely.

Clearly, the Liberals have not learned one thing from the last election. Again, it is clear the Liberal senators are more interested in protecting the private interests of the Liberal Party rather than the public interests of Canadians.

Shame on the Liberals for standing up for conflicts of interest and against the accountability act.