Rob Anders

[Points Of Order, May 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am responding to the point of order made by the government House leader earlier today.

It seems that he is looking for ways or mechanisms to weasel his way around routine proceedings. He seems rather fond of that. He is looking to procedurally disable his own caucus members and their bills.

We heard from the members for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Davenport, Lac-Saint-Louis and Peterborough.

I would like to add that this was done without notice. It is something that our opposition House leader mentioned and I think therefore merits 24 hours of notice.

Finally I would like to add that the government House leader seems to enjoy following the rules when it is convenient for him. Yesterday he asked for unanimous consent and I denied it.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, May 29th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not see quorum.

And the count having been taken:

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, May 29th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am wondering if there is quorum. I count 18 members.

And the count having been taken:

[Points Of Order, May 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, am I to take it by the actions of the government House leader that this almost in a sense served as an order in council and that basically the House has no say or discretion with regard to what he has done? He tried to get it done in the House but was deprived of unanimous consent. Is it deemed to have been adopted anyhow?

[Points Of Order, May 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to simplify my question. In regard to the actions of the government House leader, if he does not require unanimous consent, and you have made that ruling, does the action that he took in the House this morning allow him to put forward the MP compensation package without needing to have a vote and a say by the members of the House of Commons?

[Points Of Order, May 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I still have questions with regard to the difference between the tabling of documents and the motion put by the minister.

Does the tabling of documents by the government House leader or the minister allow him also, therefore, with regard to this issue of MP compensation, to group the three readings of a said bill in that tabling of documents? Does it allow him to group votes?

Does it allow him to go ahead and allow something to pass on division without votes by members of the House of Commons? Does it fast track committee of the whole so that it happens here in the House rather than in various committees such as, for example, the committee on procedure and House affairs?

[Points Of Order, May 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that when the government House leader stood he was doing two things if I understand it correctly. My understanding is that he was, first, putting forward a motion and, second, tabling a document.

When he stood after I challenged him, saying that he did not have unanimous consent of the House, he then said that he did not need unanimous consent of the House.

The question with your ruling, Mr. Speaker, is whether or not you are saying that the government House leader does not need unanimous consent, hence my consent, to be able to go ahead and table documents. Does that also apply with regard to his motion? Where does it stand with regard to his motion?

Based on some discussions with the clerks and my general understanding of the rules, since the minister did not do this with a front door mechanism during routine proceedings he was to do it by the back door. My understanding is that when he does these types of things via the back door, like he did in the last session of parliament with regard to the MP pension plan, he requires unanimous consent of the House to do so. He asked for it and was deprived of it.

Therefore, my understanding of the rules and what I was led to believe half an hour ago was that he did not have the ability to do it via the back door without unanimous consent. Since he did not have unanimous consent, I have some serious questions about this.

I wonder whether or not there is a splitting of hairs with regard to the idea of tabling documents versus the motion that the minister was putting forward. I am somewhat at a loss because I think I am doing as much as I can possibly do to try to raise the issues with regard to procedure and House affairs here. I am very frustrated.

Basically my feeling is that the government minister is fast tracking the MP compensation package in a way that no other bill has been fast tracked in this place. I am trying to do my best so that he lives up to the rules that even he tried to somehow live up to last time with the MP pension changes in the last session. I am very frustrated by this.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, May 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is there quorum in the House?

And the count having been taken:

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, May 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder whether or not there is quorum in the House.

And the count having been taken:

[Points Of Order, May 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The government House leader recently tried to move a motion to table a document. He claimed that he did not need unanimous consent of the House of Commons to do that.

I am raising a question with regard to the actions taken by the government House leader and to what he claims. I am reading from House of Commons Procedure and Practice with regard to the daily program, chapter 10, page 371, where it reads:

A Minister or Parliamentary Secretary acting on behalf of the Minister may table documents in the House during Routine Proceedings when the rubric “Tabling of Documents” is called. This method of tabling is often referred to as “front door” tabling.

In my understanding of the rules, since the government House leader did not present his motion and his document during routine proceedings he does not have the ability to go ahead and table the document without unanimous consent of the House.

I am calling the government House leader on this matter of procedure.