Evidence of meeting #96 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was c-26.
A recording is available from Parliament.
8:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
I ask for your indulgence, colleagues, while I confer with the clerks.
Mr. Bachrach, with regard to that, unfortunately, what has been explained to me by the clerks is that challenging the chair on this would essentially equate to your putting forward a motion to impede another member from being able to speak.
There's a direct way of doing things and an indirect way of doing—
8:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
I didn't think it was, but that would be the conclusion. That would be the result of allowing you to challenge the chair on this.
8:40 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
It would be result of challenging the ruling on relevance?
8:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
That's unfortunate.
I will turn the floor back over.... Well, fortunately, you were overruled. I will turn the floor back over to Mr. Strahl, whom I look forward to, once again—
8:40 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
May I get clarity so that I don't make this same grievous error in the future? Can the chair's ruling on relevance not be challenged?
8:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
The chair can rule that a member is out of order because there's no relevance. However, for a chair to say that they are allowing a member, because it is relevant, to be challenged gives the power to the committee to put forward a motion—a quasi-motion, if you will—to deny another member's right to speak.
8:40 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
You are saying that we can challenge a ruling, but it de facto prevents Mr. Strahl from speaking further.
8:40 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
8:40 p.m.
Conservative
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
You can't move a motion on a point of order.
8:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
It's not a motion, but the result of it would be the same as if you put forward a motion to adjourn debate or stop Mr. Strahl from speaking, which we're not allowed to do.
8:45 p.m.
NDP
8:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
I've already ruled that what he is saying is linked to this piece of legislation.
Unfortunately, from what I've gathered from the clerk, you cannot challenge that, because by challenging it, if it were to win, the committee would be denying this member the right to speak, which is something that only the chair has the power to do if the chair decides that what he is saying is not relevant to the topic at hand.
8:45 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'm just a little bit unclear on that, Mr. Chair.
We can put forward a motion that a member be heard, but we can't put forward a motion that a member not be heard. It seems asymmetrical.
8:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
According to the clerk, motions have to be worded in the affirmative, which currently is not the case.
Does that clarify things for you?
8:45 p.m.
Conservative
8:45 p.m.
Conservative
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
You should figure this out so that we can stop wasting our time.
8:45 p.m.
Conservative
8:45 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Okay, I just wanted clarity. I was surprised by the inability to challenge the chair's ruling on certain things.
8:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.
I'll turn the floor back over to you, Mr. Strahl.
