Evidence of meeting #101 for Canadian Heritage in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was c-18.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
Thank you.
Do I have unanimous consent, then, to move on? No, I'm not hearing it on this side. I don't.
Then I think we need to suspend—
12:40 p.m.
NDP
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
12:40 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I challenge your ruling. The witnesses are here. We have questions. If the Conservatives are blocking again, that's their problem, but I would like to continue asking questions. The best way to do that, with all the respect that I owe you, is to challenge your ruling, which allows us to go back to the questioning.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
Thank you for that, Mr. Julian. We'll go to the vote on the challenge of the chair.
Go ahead, Geneviève.
12:40 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Ms. Geneviève Desjardins
I'll just clarify. The vote is challenging the chair's ruling that the motion is currently admissible.
12:40 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
I think it's the decision to suspend debate that's being challenged.
12:40 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
No, Mr. Chair. It was actually on your decision to accept the motion at this time. I support the motion, and I'll certainly support bringing it back, but I challenge that because challenging that decision allows us to go back to the witnesses.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
Okay. I'm just going to turn it over to the clerk for understanding here.
Go ahead, Geneviève.
12:40 p.m.
The Clerk
My understanding is that a motion was moved. It was ruled admissible, and that decision is being challenged. The vote is on the challenge to the chair. If you vote yea, you agree that the motion is admissible, and we would move to debate. If you vote nay, we do not proceed to debate.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
Mr. Coteau and Mrs. Thomas have their hands up.
Go ahead, Michael.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
It's a clarification. It is totally not clear what is being challenged here.
Unanimous consent was sought, and it was not granted. Is that what is being challenged?
12:40 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
No, I am challenging the decision of the chair to allow the motion.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Excuse me. I'm sorry, Chair. My conversation is towards you. Thank you.
Then, Chair, the challenge would be to your ruling that Mr. Champoux's motion is in order.
12:40 p.m.
The Clerk
Yes.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
It is.
Can we call for the vote?
(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 6; yeas 4)
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
That means my ruling is defeated. We move on for two and a half minutes.
Mr. Champoux, you have a minute left.
12:45 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to take this opportunity to make a comment for my committee colleagues. With all due respect to everyone on this committee, this is the second time recently that a decision of the chair has been challenged, despite the fact that decision was based on the rules and usages governing committee proceedings. This isn't a matter of interpretation of the standing orders. Rules regarding our practices do exist, and they must be obeyed. Once again a decision of the chair has been challenged and overturned because we prefer to continue. Which is absolutely right and legitimate; we want to continue questioning the witnesses.
I call on this committee to exercise great caution. There are rules, and it is all well and good for the committee to be sovereign and the master of the decisions it makes regarding how it operates, but we are on extremely slippery and dangerous ground when we overturn decisions that are clearly consistent with the rules based on the Standing Orders of the House.
This happened a few weeks ago when the decision on a motion to adjourn was challenged. This time, a decision on the admissibility of a motion has been challenged.
I'll stop there.
Mr. Chair, I want it recorded in the minutes of this meeting that I encourage this committee to exercise considerable caution with regard to all the parliamentary tools we have at our disposal.
Thank you.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
That's fair.
Thank you, Mr. Champoux.
On a point of order, I have Mr. Noormohamed.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
I'd like to register two things.
One is that I share Mr. Champoux's concerns that there have been moves in this committee that have made it very difficult for the work of the committee to be done.
Mr. Champoux was very gracious in offering to translate the motion and for us to continue. It's certainly disappointing that this is not where we went. It's important for us to recognize that it would be great for us to be able to ensure that things move in way that allows us to get to where we need to get to, rather than obstructionist tactics that seem to be the way of the world.
