Evidence of meeting #30 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 chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:50 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
The Conservatives have been extraordinarily unruly. That behaviour is really unacceptable.
The reality is that you have the ability to make that decision. Ms. Thomas has the ability, of course, to appeal the decision of the chair and committee will decide.
I would impress upon you, Madam Chair, that you make that decision, and if Mrs. Thomas disagrees, she can basically challenge the chair and the committee will decide.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
It's Rick Perkins.
Just to clarify, the chair, if she wants to impose some sort of censure or closure, she can only do it on the speaker, not on the speakers list. She cannot move directly to the vote is my understanding.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I'm sorry. I didn't get what you were saying, Mr. Perkins. Can you please repeat?
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Certainly, Madam Chair.
Mr. Julian suggested on his point of order that he could go or you could go directly to the vote. I don't believe that to be the case in the rules. You have the power, if you choose—the extraordinarily rarely used power—to stop a member from speaking. I would suggest that's not appropriate at this time, but you do not have, as I understand it, the power to go straight to the vote and ignore the speaking list on this motion.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I agree with you that. We are speaking.... I thought I understood Mr. Julian and Mr. Housefather who intervened earlier on with regard to repetition, but I am speaking about a particular member who is being repetitive, and that is what I have the power to do. What I think I will do is ask this member not to continue with her...which has been so repetitive that I think I can repeat everything that the member has said, and I would like to move to the next in line to continue the debate on the amendment that was raised by Ms. Thomas.
Clerk, I do not know whose hands are up in order to do that.
5:50 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
Madam Chair, the speaking order is Mr. Perkins, Mr. Patzer and Mr. Uppal. Those are the hands that I've seen for now.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Madam Chair, I just feel that because there were multiple points of order on my colleague and was continually cut off, she was unable to establish what she was actually trying to say.
I think she was just trying to establish the reasoning and the rationale for the subamendment, which is perfectly in order. She was speaking to the reasoning for the subamendment and why the subamendment is important. I do think that it would be inappropriate to end her chance to speak at this point in time because she was speaking to the relevance of the subamendment.
I think Mrs. Thomas should be able to continue to speak.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I hear you, Mr. Patzer, but I have ruled. Thank you.
Mr. Perkins, please.
June 2nd, 2022 / 5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am very disappointed that you chose to shut off the discussion of the mover of the motion who was constantly interrupted by both the NDP and Liberal members, which prevented her from getting to her point.
The question going forward is the amendment on the amount of time that's given to committee members to put forward amendments to this important piece of legislation. We've already seen excessive use of closure in the House by the government with the support of their partner, the NDP. It's been 31 times, I believe, in six or seven months. They did it in this bill. In fact, two days ago they did it on a piece of legislation in the House after one opposition speaker and two hours of debate. Now—
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
This very much isn't relevant. I'm sorry to be interrupting the Conservatives, but they aren't relating it back to the amendment. This is well outside the scope of the amendment and if Mr. Perkins could get back to debate—
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Perhaps if Mr. Bittle had actually been listening instead of going through his phone, he might have heard the introduction to what I was saying, which is the issue of the amendment. Only allowing less than 24 hours to amend a very extensive bill obviously is consistent with the government's and their partner's, the NDP, desire to end democracy in any legislation and have any scrutiny over a bill that continues to have—
5:55 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I would cite relevance here, Madam Chair, but he's also factually incorrect. He knows he can bring amendments forward even up to consideration of clause-by-clause. It's on relevance and I'm seeing repetition from the Conservative side. I would call this, again, on repetition and relevance.
You have the ability, of course, to make a decision on the committee's behalf, Madam Chair.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Can people on the floor please mute their mikes? I cannot even hear myself speak. Thank you very much.
I made a ruling as the chair on Mrs. Thomas's relevance and repetition. Mr. Perkins has just begun to speak. I cannot accuse him of either at the moment, but Mr. Perkins knows that he needs to be speaking to the amendment. I think he's doing so as far as I can hear.
Mr. Perkins.