Evidence of meeting #94 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 point.
A recording is available from Parliament.
8:55 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I'm saying that I am challenging your decision. I think the committee should decide whether or not they uphold your ruling.
8:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
Mrs. Thomas, you had a—
Mr. Coteau, I see your hand is still up. Do you want to speak to this?
8:55 a.m.
Conservative
8:55 a.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There are a couple of problems here. If I may have your attention.... I'll just wait.
8:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
Mr. Julian, you—
We're going to come back here, Ms. Gladu. Just let me say one thing.
Because Mr. Julian said that he said “a point of order”, you can't, as the clerk said, move a motion on a point of order, and the motion was that you were challenging the chair. You can't do that.
8:55 a.m.
Conservative
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
Yes, and you can't do that under the book, as the clerk just read, so I'm going to go back, if you don't mind.
Mrs. Thomas had the floor, and I'm going to try to bring everyone together, if I can.
Do you have a point of order?
9 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
On a point of order, you've had both Mr. Champoux and me raise concerns with your ruling, which we are challenging.
9 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Yes. As you know, the practice in this committee—and the chair has been very good about this, I think—is that every time a ruling is challenged—it often comes from the Conservatives—the chair moves immediately to asking, “Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?” That's a very simple procedure. It's something that has been practised in our committee for as long as I've been on this committee.
I'm simply challenging your interpretation—with respect, because I believe you do a very good job—so the committee can make that decision as to whether or not they believe that your interpretation is the right one.
9 a.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to make a comment.
I want to make sure that it's well understood by the committee, and by the public, that we are having this discussion because there was a mistake in the procedure regarding the notice of meeting for this meeting. There was also some confusion in understanding the agenda for today's meeting.
I want to make sure that we don't replace one mistake with another, and that's why I want us to follow the Standing Orders clearly. I want the decision to be made beyond any opinion, any partisanship, in the current debate, that the decision not be another procedural error, but a fair decision. That is actually why I want to know the facts concerning what we are about to do. I don't want us to make a mistake twice, after all.
The impression I had at the beginning of today's meeting was that, in the absence of the CRTC representatives, we had suspended the previous meeting. But that is not the case. I thought Ms. Thomas still had the floor on the subamendment that we were debating at the last meeting, which doesn't seem to be the case.
So there is confusion right now, and I want us to fix it. I want to get this right. A new motion has been moved. In my opinion, this motion was proposed while we were debating another motion, which is not in order.
I want to hear from the clerk. Before we proceed to any votes, Mr. Chair, I want things to be clear for everyone. I repeat, an injustice, or a mistake, cannot be corrected with another mistake.
Thank you.
9 a.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
Thank you, Mr. Champoux.
I would ask Mr. Noormohamed to wait.
I'm going to get the interpretation from the clerk. We have been in a brief discussion here.
Jacques, if you don't mind, could you say it in French?
Mr. Champoux has asked the question. We've looked at the green book and we have a decision.
October 26th, 2023 / 9 a.m.
The Clerk
I will explain how I see the chair's ruling in the context of the start of the meeting.
He called the meeting to order, explained the rules of procedure for virtual attendance, and then we got to committee business. Before we resumed debate on the motion that the committee discussed last time, Ms. Thomas asked to speak, the chair recognized her, and then she moved her motion.
Until the committee resumes debate on the motion from the last meeting, we can use the floor for another discussion. That is my understanding of the chair's ruling, given the timeline of events. As the chair explained, the debate on the motion was adjourned at the last meeting. So the committee was not required to resume debate on this motion. It could debate something else.
That is how I interpret the current situation.
9 a.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
Mr. Champoux, you have the ruling.
Yes, go ahead very quickly.
9 a.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
I understand, but the fact that the chair of the CRTC is not appearing this morning has added to the confusion. That is why we are in a special situation and why we are a bit caught off guard, if I may use that expression, Mr. Chair. We all assumed that the absence of the chair of the CRTC meant that we were continuing the debate on the subamendment.
Instead of being suspended, the last meeting was adjourned and we're back to square one; I understand that. I would still like to point out that this confusion is the result of a mistake and poor communication.
I hope that doesn't happen again.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
That was well documented.
Ms. Gladu, you're on the list first, and then it's Mr. Noormohamed.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate the clerk's explanation of how we got here.
Mrs. Thomas had the floor. Then there was a point of order by Mr. Champoux, but you can't interrupt somebody who has the floor with a point of order. Then there was a point of order by Mr. Julian. Again, you can't interrupt Rachael Thomas, who had the floor. Then, on a point of order, Mr. Julian tried to challenge the chair, which is a dilatory motion. I don't believe you can make a motion on a point of order. That's where we are.
I think you're correct. What we need to do is return to the person who had the floor, which was Mrs. Thomas.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
Thank you, Ms. Gladu.
Mr. Noormohamed, you've had your hand up for a little while now, so the floor is yours for a second.
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With the greatest of respect, this has nothing to do with points of order. Decisions by the chair, everyone says, are not debatable, but, according to the book, they can be appealed to the committee. To appeal a decision of the chair, a member must inform the committee of his or her intent to do so, which Mr. Julian did. There is an expectation, then, that the chair will call that to a vote in order to determine whether or not the chair's ruling will be upheld.
This has nothing to do with points of order. While Ms. Gladu's timeline may or may not be accurate, it's not relevant to the point Mr. Julian just made. That is the reality we have to operate in, right now. In fact, there was a request to challenge the ruling of the chair that has nothing to do with points of order. It doesn't matter. He made the request.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
We've heard from the clerk. I'm going to proceed.
Mrs. Thomas, you have—
9:05 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I have a point of order.
Mr. Chair, I challenged your ruling. With respect, you now have to go to the committee.
