Speech (House debate)

{
    "time": "2012-11-26 16:00:00",
    "attribution": {
        "en": "Hon. Scott Brison (Kings\u2014Hants, Lib.)",
        "fr": "L'hon. Scott Brison (Kings\u2014Hants, Lib.)"
    },
    "content": {
        "en": "<p data-HoCid=\"3087392\" data-originallang=\"en\">Mr. Speaker, I rise on a separate point of order regarding the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Finance. I will endeavour to be succinct in my remarks.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3087393\" data-originallang=\"en\">I do think it is important to make you, Mr. Speaker, and other members of the House aware of serious and grave irregularities that took place during the finance committee's study of Bill <a data-HoCid=\"5754371\" href=\"/bills/41-1/C-45/\" title=\"A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures\">C-45</a>.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3087394\" data-originallang=\"en\">On October 31, 2012, the committee adopted a motion to limit debate at committee during its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill <a data-HoCid=\"5754371\" href=\"/bills/41-1/C-45/\" title=\"A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures\">C-45</a>, what was effectively a time allocation motion. I would like to draw the Speaker's attention to paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) of that motion, which read:</p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"3087395\" data-originallang=\"en\"> (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; </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3087396\" data-originallang=\"en\"> (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 </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3087397\" data-originallang=\"en\"> (f) if the Committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-45 by 11:59 p.m. 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. </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"3087398\" data-originallang=\"en\">Of particular importance is the phrase \u201cwithout further debate or amendment\u201d. The chair of the committee, the member for <a data-HoCid=\"170439\" href=\"/politicians/james-rajotte/\" title=\"James Rajotte\">Edmonton\u2014Leduc</a>, correctly interpreted that motion as follows. He said, as indicated in the blues, that \u201cFirst 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\u201d.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3087399\" data-originallang=\"en\">The member for <a data-HoCid=\"170439\" href=\"/politicians/james-rajotte/\" title=\"James Rajotte\">Edmonton\u2014Leduc</a>, the chairman of the finance committee, continued by saying, \u201cThe 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.\u201d</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3087400\" data-originallang=\"en\">The chair further emphasized his point by saying, \u201cTo 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\u201d. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3087401\" data-originallang=\"en\">The member for <a data-HoCid=\"170439\" href=\"/politicians/james-rajotte/\" title=\"James Rajotte\">Edmonton\u2014Leduc</a> correctly interpreted the phrase \u201cwithout further debate or amendment\u201d as meaning that no amendments could be moved after 11:59 p.m. on Wednesday, November 21, 2012.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3087402\" data-originallang=\"en\">However, the member for <a data-HoCid=\"170650\" href=\"/politicians/brian-jean/\" title=\"Brian Jean\">Fort McMurray\u2014Athabasca</a> 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 \u201cwithout further...amendment\u201d actually means \u201cwith further amendment\u201d.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3087403\" data-originallang=\"en\"> The chair emphasized his interpretation by stating, \u201cI 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...\u201d.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3087404\" data-originallang=\"en\">Simply put, the interpretation of the motion by the member for <a data-HoCid=\"170650\" href=\"/politicians/brian-jean/\" title=\"Brian Jean\">Fort McMurray\u2014Athabasca</a> was inconsistent not only with any proper understanding of parliamentary procedure but also with any proper understanding of the English language. The phrase \u201cwithout further...amendment\u201d cannot be interpreted as meaning \u201cwith further amendment\u201d. Further, by adopting the motion of October 31, 2012, the committee showed a clear intent to prevent amendments from being moved after 11:59 p.m. on Wednesday, November 21, 2012. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3087405\" data-originallang=\"en\">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, that would fall to the normal practice of committee.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3087406\" data-originallang=\"en\">Under the normal practice of committee, it is a member's 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 member's right to move that amendment. It does not require the member to move that amendment. Instead, it provides the member with a choice to move or, upon further reflection, not to move that amendment in the end. At committee, it is the member's choice.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3087407\" data-originallang=\"en\">If the member for <a data-HoCid=\"170650\" href=\"/politicians/brian-jean/\" title=\"Brian Jean\">Fort McMurray\u2014Athabasca</a> had wanted to change the committee's rules while following due process, perhaps he ought to have tried to amend the motion that was adopted by the committee on October 31, 2012, or perhaps he ought to have moved a new motion to replace the motion that was adopted by the committee on October 31, 2012. However, the member for Fort McMurray\u2014Athabasca did neither of these things. Instead, he challenged the ruling of the Chair, the member for <a data-HoCid=\"170439\" href=\"/politicians/james-rajotte/\" title=\"James Rajotte\">Edmonton\u2014Leduc</a>, in order to give the motion a meaning that was entirely inconsistent with its stated intent. As members know, a motion to challenge the Chair at committee is not debatable. As George Orwell noted, the ability to change the meaning of language is a very dangerous power, but that is precisely what the majority of the members of the finance committee did when they challenged the Chair and overturned his decision. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3087408\" data-originallang=\"en\">I provided notice for 3,090 amendments to Bill <a data-HoCid=\"5754371\" href=\"/bills/41-1/C-45/\" title=\"A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures\">C-45</a>, pursuant to the rules of this House, to committee and, in particular, pursuant to paragraph (e) of the motion that was adopted by the committee on October 31, 2012. By redefining \u201cwithout further...amendment\u201d to mean \u201cwith amendment\u201d, 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 and traditions of committee.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3087409\" data-originallang=\"fr\">I am extremely troubled by the precedent that was set at the Standing Committee on Finance meeting on November 21, 2012.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3087410\" data-originallang=\"en\">I am concerned that the majority of members can now challenge a 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.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3087411\" data-originallang=\"fr\">Under the rules governing the House and its committees, decisions are to be made by the majority of members. However, the rules also protect the right of the minority to take part in and influence the debate.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3087412\" data-originallang=\"en\">At the 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, the member for <a data-HoCid=\"170439\" href=\"/politicians/james-rajotte/\" title=\"James Rajotte\">Edmonton\u2014Leduc</a>, in a manner that was entirely inconsistent with a proper understanding of the English language and without any respect for the traditions or rules of the House.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3087413\" data-originallang=\"en\">The result was to retroactively deny my rights as a member of the committee, without any proper debate. The result was also to help the government speed through passage at committee. This is entirely consistent with the government's view of how Parliament ought to be handled or mishandled, but what I have difficulty understanding is why the official opposition would act as the handmaiden for the government at committee and effectively support the government and aid and abet the government running roughshod over Parliament at committee.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3087414\" data-originallang=\"en\">I will raise a point of order about the acceptability of the motion for concurrence at report stage at the appropriate time but I am thankful for the time today. What happened at committee last week was probably the worst abuse of the committee process that I have seen in 15 years in this place. To see the official opposition being complicit with the Conservatives on this perhaps reflects a misunderstanding of the rules at that time, in which case, the New Democrats should simply say that they did not understand what was going on and that they did not intend to support the government on this. That would be entirely acceptable. In fact, given the confusion at the committee at the time of some of the New Democrats, perhaps that is what happened, but it would better if they simply acknowledged that and then joined with us in opposing the government's continued disrespect for Parliament and committee.</p>",
        "fr": "<p data-HoCid=\"3087392\" data-originallang=\"en\">Monsieur le Pr\u00e9sident, j'invoque le R\u00e8glement pour une autre raison concernant le 13<sup>e</sup> rapport du Comit\u00e9 permanent des finances. J'essaierai d'\u00eatre bref.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3087393\" data-originallang=\"en\">Monsieur le Pr\u00e9sident, je crois qu'il est important de porter \u00e0 votre attention et \u00e0 celle des autres d\u00e9put\u00e9s de graves irr\u00e9gularit\u00e9s qui se sont produites lors de l'\u00e9tude du projet de loi <a data-HoCid=\"5754371\" href=\"/bills/41-1/C-45/\" title=\"A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures\">C-45</a> par le Comit\u00e9 des finances.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3087394\" data-originallang=\"en\">Le 31 octobre 2012, le comit\u00e9 a adopt\u00e9 une motion tendant \u00e0 limiter le d\u00e9bat \u00e0 l'\u00e9tape de l'\u00e9tude article par article du projet de loi <a data-HoCid=\"5754371\" href=\"/bills/41-1/C-45/\" title=\"A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures\">C-45</a>. Il s'agissait en fait d'une motion d'attribution de temps. J'aimerais porter \u00e0 l'attention du Pr\u00e9sident les paragraphes d), e) et f) de cette motion:</p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"3087395\" data-originallang=\"en\"> d) le Comit\u00e9 amorce l'\u00e9tude article par article du projet de loi C-45 d'ici le mercredi 21 novembre 2012, sous r\u00e9serve de d\u00e9cision, par le pr\u00e9sident, de limiter le d\u00e9bat sur chaque article \u00e0 un maximum de cinq minutes par parti, par article, avant la mise aux voix de l'article; </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3087396\" data-originallang=\"en\"> e) les amendements au projet de loi C-45, autres que ceux r\u00e9put\u00e9s \u00eatre propos\u00e9s conform\u00e9ment au paragraphe c), soient pr\u00e9sent\u00e9s au greffier du Comit\u00e9 dans les 48 heures pr\u00e9c\u00e9dant l'\u00e9tude article par article et qu'ils soient distribu\u00e9s aux membres dans les deux langues officielles; </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3087397\" data-originallang=\"en\"> f) si le Comit\u00e9 n'a pas termin\u00e9 l'\u00e9tude article par article du projet de loi C-45 le mercredi 21 novembre 2012 \u00e0 23 h 59, le pr\u00e9sident met aux voix sur-le-champ et successivement, sans autre d\u00e9bat ni amendement, toute question n\u00e9cessaire pour disposer de l'\u00e9tude article par article du projet de loi, faire rapport du projet de loi \u00e0 la Chambre et demander au pr\u00e9sident de faire rapport du projet de loi \u00e0 la Chambre au plus tard le jeudi 22 novembre 2012. </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"3087398\" data-originallang=\"en\">L'expression \u00ab sans autre d\u00e9bat ni amendement \u00bb est particuli\u00e8rement importante. Comme l'indique la transcription, le pr\u00e9sident du comit\u00e9, le d\u00e9put\u00e9 d'<a data-HoCid=\"170439\" href=\"/politicians/james-rajotte/\" title=\"James Rajotte\">Edmonton\u2014Leduc</a>, a bien interpr\u00e9t\u00e9 les d\u00e9lais \u00e9tablis au paragraphe d) de la motion adopt\u00e9e par le comit\u00e9, qui dit que le pr\u00e9sident peut limiter le d\u00e9bat sur chaque article \u00e0 un maximum de cinq minutes par parti, par article, avant la mise aux voix de l'article. Le pr\u00e9sident a d\u00e9termin\u00e9 qu'il s'agissait de cinq minutes par article, avant 23 h 59, et que cela ne s'appliquait pas aux amendements.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3087399\" data-originallang=\"en\">Le d\u00e9put\u00e9 d'<a data-HoCid=\"170439\" href=\"/politicians/james-rajotte/\" title=\"James Rajotte\">Edmonton\u2014Leduc</a>, le pr\u00e9sident du Comit\u00e9 des finances, a poursuivi en disant: \u00ab Ensuite, il est question de la fin du d\u00e9bat. Le paragraphe f) de la motion adopt\u00e9e par le comit\u00e9 pr\u00e9cise que: \u201csi le Comit\u00e9 n'a pas termin\u00e9 l'\u00e9tude article par article du projet de loi C-45 le mercredi 21 novembre 2012 \u00e0 23 h 59, le pr\u00e9sident met aux voix sur-le-champ et successivement, sans autre d\u00e9bat ni amendement, toute question n\u00e9cessaire pour disposer de l'\u00e9tude article par article du projet de loi [...]\u201d. Par cons\u00e9quent, \u00e0 partir de l\u00e0, je m'occuperai de toutes les questions qui restent si nous n'avons pas termin\u00e9 notre travail avant 23 h 59. \u00bb</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3087400\" data-originallang=\"en\">Le pr\u00e9sident a insist\u00e9 en indiquant: \u00ab J'explique ce point de mani\u00e8re \u00e0 ce que tout le monde comprenne. Si nous d\u00e9passons 23 h 59, je ne ferai que mettre les articles aux voix. S'il reste des amendements \u00e0 \u00e9tudier, ils ne seront pas mis aux voix. \u00bb</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3087401\" data-originallang=\"en\">Le d\u00e9put\u00e9 d'<a data-HoCid=\"170439\" href=\"/politicians/james-rajotte/\" title=\"James Rajotte\">Edmonton\u2014Leduc</a> a correctement conclu que l'expression \u00ab sans autre d\u00e9bat ni amendement \u00bb signifiait qu'aucun amendement ne pouvait \u00eatre pr\u00e9sent\u00e9 apr\u00e8s 23 h 59, le mercredi 21 novembre 2012.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3087402\" data-originallang=\"en\">Toutefois, le d\u00e9put\u00e9 de <a data-HoCid=\"170650\" href=\"/politicians/brian-jean/\" title=\"Brian Jean\">Fort McMurray\u2014Athabasca</a> \u00e9tait en d\u00e9saccord avec le pr\u00e9sident. Il a fait valoir que tous les amendements dont il avait \u00e9t\u00e9 donn\u00e9 avis devraient \u00eatre mis aux voix. En fait, il a argument\u00e9 que \u00ab sans autre [...] amendement \u00bb signifiait en r\u00e9alit\u00e9 \u00ab avec d'autres amendements \u00bb.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3087403\" data-originallang=\"en\">Le pr\u00e9sident a r\u00e9it\u00e9r\u00e9 son interpr\u00e9tation en d\u00e9clarant: \u00ab Je dois dire qu'\u00e0 mon avis, et selon les greffiers, dans le paragraphe que vous citez, le paragraphe f), on lit que: \u201cle pr\u00e9sident met aux voix sur-le-champ et successivement, sans autre d\u00e9bat ni amendement, toute question n\u00e9cessaire pour disposer de l'\u00e9tude [...]\u201d. Cela dit bien \u201csans autre d\u00e9bat ni amendement\u201d, donc je suis d'avis [...] \u00bb</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3087404\" data-originallang=\"en\">Autrement dit, la mani\u00e8re dont le d\u00e9put\u00e9 de <a data-HoCid=\"170650\" href=\"/politicians/brian-jean/\" title=\"Brian Jean\">Fort McMurray\u2014Athabasca</a> a interpr\u00e9t\u00e9 la motion montre non seulement que ce dernier ne comprend pas grand-chose \u00e0 la proc\u00e9dure parlementaire, mais qu'il n'entend rien non plus \u00e0 la langue fran\u00e7aise. L'expression \u00ab sans autre [...] amendement \u00bb ne peut pas vouloir dire \u00ab avec d'autres amendements \u00bb. Qui plus est, la motion adopt\u00e9e le 31 octobre 2012 montre que le comit\u00e9 voulait clairement \u00e9viter que de nouveaux amendements soient propos\u00e9s apr\u00e8s 23 h 59 le mercredi 21 novembre 2012.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3087405\" data-originallang=\"en\">La motion adopt\u00e9e par le comit\u00e9 le 31 octobre 2012 ne pr\u00e9cisait pas quand il \u00e9tait possible de proposer des amendements en vertu de l'alin\u00e9a <em>e</em>). On peut donc supposer que les r\u00e8gles habituelles des comit\u00e9s s'appliquaient alors.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3087406\" data-originallang=\"en\">Or, selon les r\u00e8gles habituelles des comit\u00e9s, chaque d\u00e9put\u00e9 a le choix de pr\u00e9senter \u2014 ou non \u2014 les amendements dont il a donn\u00e9 avis. Quand un d\u00e9put\u00e9 donne avis d'un amendement au comit\u00e9, il conserve tout simplement le droit de le pr\u00e9senter le moment venu. Rien ne l'oblige \u00e0 le pr\u00e9senter. Il a au contraire le choix de faire comme il l'avait annonc\u00e9 ou, apr\u00e8s r\u00e9flexion, de ne rien faire. Au comit\u00e9, le choix revient aux d\u00e9put\u00e9s.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3087407\" data-originallang=\"en\">Si le d\u00e9put\u00e9 de <a data-HoCid=\"170650\" href=\"/politicians/brian-jean/\" title=\"Brian Jean\">Fort McMurray\u2014Athabasca</a> avait voulu modifier les r\u00e8gles du comit\u00e9 tout en respectant le principe de diligence raisonnable, il aurait peut-\u00eatre d\u00fb chercher \u00e0 amender la motion adopt\u00e9e par le comit\u00e9 le 31 octobre 2012. Il aurait \u00e9galement pu proposer une nouvelle motion pour remplacer celle adopt\u00e9e par le comit\u00e9 le 31 octobre 2012. Or, le d\u00e9put\u00e9 de Fort McMurray\u2014Athabasca n'a rien fait de tout \u00e7a. Il a plut\u00f4t contest\u00e9 la d\u00e9cision du pr\u00e9sident du comit\u00e9, le d\u00e9put\u00e9 d'<a data-HoCid=\"170439\" href=\"/politicians/james-rajotte/\" title=\"James Rajotte\">Edmonton\u2014Leduc</a>, et tent\u00e9 de donner \u00e0 la motion adopt\u00e9e le sens contraire de ce que disait le texte. Comme les d\u00e9put\u00e9s le savent, les motions de contestation de la pr\u00e9sidence ne peuvent faire l'objet d'un d\u00e9bat. Comme le disait George Orwell, la capacit\u00e9 d'alt\u00e9rer le sens des mots est un pouvoir redoutable; or, c'est pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment ce que la majorit\u00e9 des membres du Comit\u00e9 des finances ont fait en contestant la pr\u00e9sidence et en renversant sa d\u00e9cision.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3087408\" data-originallang=\"en\">Conform\u00e9ment aux r\u00e8gles de la Chambre et \u00e0 celles du comit\u00e9 et plus particuli\u00e8rement en vertu de l'alin\u00e9a <em>e</em>) adopt\u00e9 par le comit\u00e9 le 31 octobre 2012, j'ai donn\u00e9 avis de 3 090 amendements au projet de loi <a data-HoCid=\"5754371\" href=\"/bills/41-1/C-45/\" title=\"A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures\">C-45</a>. Malheureusement, en changeant le sens de l'expression \u00ab sans autre [...] amendement \u00bb, tous les amendements dont j'avais donn\u00e9 avis \u00e9taient r\u00e9troactivement r\u00e9put\u00e9s avoir \u00e9t\u00e9 pr\u00e9sent\u00e9s sans mon consentement. On m'a priv\u00e9 de mon droit de choisir, et la mani\u00e8re dont on s'y est pris va \u00e0 l'encontre de toutes les r\u00e8gles et traditions des comit\u00e9s.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3087409\" data-originallang=\"fr\">Je suis profond\u00e9ment inquiet face au pr\u00e9c\u00e9dent qui a \u00e9t\u00e9 cr\u00e9\u00e9 au Comit\u00e9 permanent des finances le mercredi 21 novembre 2012.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3087410\" data-originallang=\"en\">Je m'inqui\u00e8te du fait que la majorit\u00e9 au comit\u00e9 peut maintenant contester les d\u00e9cisions du pr\u00e9sident et changer la signification des mots sans nullement en d\u00e9battre. Je trouve tr\u00e8s pr\u00e9occupant que la majorit\u00e9 tyrannique puisse changer l'interpr\u00e9tation d'une r\u00e8gle au point de lui donner un sens contraire, de sorte que les r\u00e8gles n'offrent plus aucune protection aux simples d\u00e9put\u00e9s membres d'un comit\u00e9.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3087411\" data-originallang=\"fr\">En vertu des r\u00e8gles de la Chambre et de ses comit\u00e9s, les d\u00e9cisions sont prises par la majorit\u00e9 des d\u00e9put\u00e9s. Cependant, ces r\u00e8gles prot\u00e8gent \u00e9galement le droit de la minorit\u00e9 de participer et d'influencer le d\u00e9bat.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3087412\" data-originallang=\"en\">La majorit\u00e9 des d\u00e9put\u00e9s conservateurs et n\u00e9o-d\u00e9mocrates membres du comit\u00e9 des Finances a maniganc\u00e9 pour renverser une d\u00e9cision \u00e9quitable et l\u00e9gitime du pr\u00e9sident, le d\u00e9put\u00e9 d'<a data-HoCid=\"170439\" href=\"/politicians/james-rajotte/\" title=\"James Rajotte\">Edmonton\u2014Leduc</a>, en se fondant sur une interpr\u00e9tation erron\u00e9e de la langue fran\u00e7aise et sans aucun respect pour les traditions ou les r\u00e8gles de la Chambre.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3087413\" data-originallang=\"en\">R\u00e9sultat: on a ni\u00e9 r\u00e9trospectivement mes droits en tant que membre du comit\u00e9, sans tenir de v\u00e9ritable d\u00e9bat sur la question, et le gouvernement a r\u00e9ussi \u00e0 acc\u00e9l\u00e9rer l'adoption du projet de loi au comit\u00e9. Voil\u00e0 qui est conforme \u00e0 la fa\u00e7on dont le gouvernement g\u00e8re, ou plut\u00f4t malm\u00e8ne, le Parlement; par contre, j'ai de la difficult\u00e9 \u00e0 comprendre pourquoi l'opposition officielle se fait la soubrette du gouvernement, son complice, et l'aide \u00e0 fouler aux pieds le Parlement durant les travaux des comit\u00e9s.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"3087414\" data-originallang=\"en\">J'invoquerai le R\u00e8glement en temps et lieu au sujet de la recevabilit\u00e9 de la motion d'adoption \u00e0 l'\u00e9tape du rapport. Je suis toutefois reconnaissant d'avoir pu prendre la parole aujourd'hui. En 15 ans, je n'ai pas vu de plus grave entorse \u00e0 la proc\u00e9dure que ce dont j'ai \u00e9t\u00e9 t\u00e9moin au comit\u00e9 des Finances la semaine derni\u00e8re. Que les repr\u00e9sentants de l'opposition officielle se soient rendus complices des conservateurs d\u00e9note peut-\u00eatre une incompr\u00e9hension des r\u00e8gles; dans ce cas, les n\u00e9o-d\u00e9mocrates devraient simplement admettre qu'ils n'ont pas compris ce qui se passait et qu'ils n'avaient aucunement l'intention d'appuyer le gouvernement. Ce serait tout \u00e0 fait acceptable. En fait, \u00e9tant donn\u00e9 l'\u00e9tat de confusion dans lequel se trouvaient certains n\u00e9o-d\u00e9mocrates au comit\u00e9, c'est peut-\u00eatre bien ce qui s'est pass\u00e9. Il serait pr\u00e9f\u00e9rable de simplement l'admettre et de se joindre \u00e0 nous pour s'opposer au gouvernement, qui bafoue continuellement le Parlement et ses comit\u00e9s.</p>"
    },
    "url": "/debates/2012/11/26/scott-brison-2/",
    "politician_url": "/politicians/scott-brison/",
    "politician_membership_url": "/politicians/memberships/1336/",
    "procedural": false,
    "source_id": "7805770",
    "h1": {
        "en": "Routine Proceedings",
        "fr": "Affaires Courantes"
    },
    "h2": {
        "en": "Points of Order",
        "fr": "Recours au R\u00e8glement"
    },
    "h3": {
        "en": "Standing Committee on Finance",
        "fr": "Le Comit\u00e9 permanent des finances"
    },
    "document_url": "/debates/2012/11/26/",
    "related": {
        "document_speeches_url": "/speeches/?document=%2Fdebates%2F2012%2F11%2F26%2F"
    }
}