1

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding the 13th Report of the Standing Committee on Finance. I will endeavour to be succinct in my remarks. However, I feel it is important to make the Chair aware of serious and grave irregularities that took place during the Finance committees study of Bill C-45. On October 31, 2012 the Committee adopted a motion to limit debate at Committee during its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-45. I would like to draw the Speakers attention to paragraphs D, E and F of that motion which read, and I QUOTE: (d) the Committee shall proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-45 no later than Wednesday, November 21, 2012, provided that the Chair may limit debate on each clause to a maximum of five minutes per party per clause before the clause is brought to a vote;

(e) amendments to Bill C-45, other than the amendments deemed to be proposed pursuant to paragraph (c), be submitted to the Clerk of the Committee 48 hours prior to clause-by-clause consideration and distributed to members in both official languages; and (f) if the Committee has not completed the clauseby-clause consideration of Bill C-45 by 11:59pm on Wednesday, November 21, 2012, the Chair shall put, forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, each and every question necessary to dispose of clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill, to report the Bill to the House, and to order the Chair to report the Bill to the House on or before Thursday, November 22, 2012. Of particular important is the phrase, QUOTE without further debate or amendment. The Chair of the Committee, the Member for EdmontonLeduc, correctly interpreted that motion as follows. He said, QUOTE:

First of all, with respect to the timing, in section D of the motion adopted by the committee it states that "the Chair may limit debate on each clause to a maximum of five minutes per party, per clause, before the clause is brought to a vote. So it's five minutes per clause, this is prior to 11:59pm, not for amendments. The Member for Edmonton-Leduc continued by saying, QUOTE: The second is with respect to the end of debate; section F of the motion adopted by the committee states "if the committee has not completed a clause by clause consideration of Bill C-45 by 11:59pm on Wednesday, November 21st 2012, the Chair put, forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, each and every question necessary to dispose of clause by clause consideration of the Bill". So at that point I will deal with all of the clauses that are left if we have not completed our work by 11:59pm. He emphasized this point by saying, QUOTE:

To explain this so that everyone understands, if we go past 11:59pm, at that point I will just be putting the votes on the clauses. If we have amendments left to deal with, I will not be putting forward votes on those amendments. The Member for Edmonton-Leduc correctly interpreted the phrase without further debate or amendment as meaning that no amendments could be moved after 11:59pm on Wednesday, November 21, 2012. However, the Member for Fort McMurrayAthabasca disagreed with the Chair. He argued that all amendments for which notice had been given should be put to a vote. In effect, he argued that without further amendment actually means with further amendment. The Chair emphasized his interpretation by stating, QUOTE:

I will say though it is still my view, and it's the view based on advice from our clerks that the section you quote, section f, it says: The Chair shall put without further debate or amendment each and every question necessary to dispose of but it says without further debate or amendment so that is my view... Simply put Mr. Speaker, the interpretation of the motion by the Member for Fort McMurrayAthabasca is inconsistent with any proper understanding of the English language. By adopting the motion of October 31, 2012, the Committee showed a clear intent to prevent amendments from being moved after 11:59pm on Wednesday, November 21, 2012. The motion adopted by the Committee on October 31, 2012 was silent on when amendments proposed pursuant to paragraph E would be moved. As such, it falls to the normal practice of Committee.

Under the normal practice of Committee, it is a members choice to move or not move amendments for which proper notice has been given. When a member provides notice for an amendment at Committee, it simply preserves the members right to move that amendment. It does not require the member to move that amendment. Instead, it provides for the member to upon further reflection choose not to move that amendment in the end. At Committee, that is the members choice. If the Member for Fort McMurrayAthabasca had wanted to change the Committees rules while following due process, perhaps he should have tried to amend the motion that was adopted by the Committee on October 31, 2012. Or perhaps he should have moved a new motion to replace the motion that was adopted by the Committee on October 31, 2012. But the Member for Fort McMurrayAthabasca did not do either of those things. Instead, he challenged the ruling of the Chair in order to give the motion a meaning that is entirely inconsistent with its stated intent.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, a motion to challenge the chair at Committee is not debatable. As George Orwell said, the ability to change the meaning of language is a very dangerous power. But that is precisely what the majority of members at Finance committee did when they overturned the decision of the Chair. Mr. Speaker, I provided notice for 3,090 amendments to Bill C-45 pursuant to the rules of this House, the Committee, and, in particular, pursuant to paragraph E of the motion that was adopted by the Committee on October 31, 2012. By redefining without amendment to mean with amendment, all of the amendments that I had given notice for were retroactively deemed to have been moved, without my consent. That choice was taken away from me, and was done so in a manner that falls well outside the rules of Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned about the precedent that has been set as a result of what transpired at Finance committee on Wednesday, November 21, 2012. I am concerned that the majority of members can now challenge the chair and change the meaning of words, without any debate. I am concerned that the tyranny of the majority can be used to give a rule its opposite intent, effectively leaving individual members without the protection of any rules at Committee whatsoever. Under the rules of this House and its Committees, decisions are made by the majority of members. However, these same rules also protect the right of the minority to participate and to influence debate. At Finance committee, the majority of Members representing the Conservatives and the New Democratic Party conspired to overturn a fair and legitimate ruling by the Chair in a manner that was entirely inconsistent with a proper understanding of the English language.

The result was to retroactively deny my rights as a member of the Committee, without any proper debate. Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to raise a point of order about the acceptability of the motion of concurrence at report stage at the appropriate time. I thank you for your time.