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.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
Further to what Martin said, and I don't know whether this is a point of order or a point of information—
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
We will also be submitting our amendments by four o'clock tomorrow.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you so much, Madam Chair. It's Anthony.
I was just going to ask you to rule on whether or not the subamendment is receivable. I think it's void due to uncertainty. It does not suggest what minister is supposed to appear before the committee, and given the fact that there are many ministers, I don't believe that amendment is receivable. I think it's void due to uncertainty.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
All right. You have heard that.
I think that is a point of order, and perhaps we will have to rule that subamendment out because it does not specify the minister.
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Madam Chair, on a point of order, it's Tom Kmiec here.
You already ruled that the subamendment was in order. You cannot then change your mind afterwards.
You made a ruling as a chair of the committee, so we have to deal with the subamendment. We already started debate on it with Mr. Perkins. You cannot then go back and change it. Just as in the chamber, when speakers make a ruling, they cannot go back and change that ruling after the fact.
June 2nd, 2022 / 6:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
—for informing me of what I can and cannot do.
I would like to suggest that we have a member of this committee challenge that I should not have ruled it in order for a very specific reason of clarification of which minister it is. I am entertaining that.
We have had people raising points of clarification during the course of hearings on Bill C-11. People have wanted things in writing, wanted them in both official languages, because they did not understand what these meant.
A member is now suggesting that he does not understand what the subamendment means. The subamendment is not necessarily out of order, but there is a point of clarification being raised by one of our colleagues, and I am listening to it. Mr. Perkins also heard it.
While in theory this subamendment is in order, I think that the degree of uncertainty about the minister is a very important point.
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
On the procedural matter, you made a ruling as the chair, and there was debate already commenced by Mr. Perkins. Therefore, you ruled that the subamendment was in order. The member, Anthony, for whom I have a great amount of respect—he and I have talked many times, and we have a great shared love for Yiddish proverbs. However, on the merits of the subamendment, he can debate the merits of it, and perhaps the confusion is that it doesn't say the specific minister there, although colloquially we all know who we're speaking of....
On the procedural matter, if you look to the book, you have already made a ruling. You've determined that it was in fact in order. Debate commenced, and now a member is saying they don't understand the subamendment that was sent around by the clerk.
He is free, when the moment comes, to vote down the subamendment, but the ruling you made initially is the ruling that now is binding on the committee. That's my understanding of how the procedures are to work. I would welcome it if you were to consult with the clerk on this matter, if you choose to.
However, since we've started debate on it, we should thereafter continue debate until the matter is resolved with a vote, either recorded or on division.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Just a minute, I would like to answer Mr. Kmiec's point. That point is simply this: we did not begin debate on the subamendment. We were just passing the subamendment around before there were speakers, so there you go.
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
On a point of order, Madam Chair, this is MP Perkins, I had started and was speaking to my subamendment when I was interrupted by points of order, which were really just points of information and not points of order on their desire to put in their own amendments, which is fine. I had started my explanation. If you check the blues you will see. If you want to suspend to ask the clerk to check the record, I had started my explanation of my subamendment.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Mr. Perkins, you had not. Everyone asked that you put it in writing, which you did give—
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I will challenge your ruling on that, and I would ask the clerk to check the record.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I would like order, please. Order.
Thank you very much.
I would like to suggest that we suspend. We could not accept your wording, and I asked you to send it so that it can be very clear. You sent it to the clerk in both official languages. The clerk then sent it to everyone else. Not everyone in the room had received it. Mr. Kmiec and somebody else had not—I think you had not received it. You had not really begun debate. I had not really said that it was in order until I got to read it. That all happened after a suspended moment.
Now, before you began to discuss your subamendment Mr. Housefather asked for some clarity, and that is—
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
That's totally incorrect, Madam Chair. You ruled it in order. I was speaking—
