Evidence of meeting #40 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was point.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
An hon. member
You are strong-arming the membership. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Page 829 of Marleau-Montpetit indicates a number of things. I'm going to zero in on the point that needs addressing here and now. Being that you do ask for direct citations from the page in question, I will read it.
The chair of a committee is responsible for recognizing members and witnesses who seek the floor and ensuring that any rules established by the committee concerning the apportioning of speaking time are respected.
That's fair, no argument there.
Furthermore, the Chair is also responsible for maintaining order in committee proceedings.
Finally, it states:
However, the Chair does not have the power to censure disorder or decide questions of privilege; this can only be done by the House upon receiving a report from the committee.
This deals directly with the question the honourable member was raising, which is that his right to speak cannot be.... I refer to pages 857 and 858.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order. Order, please!
When I call order, that means the chair has the floor.
Mr. Poilievre, regretfully I have to say that you are continuing to deal with a matter that has been ruled on already. I am going to move to--
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
No, I gave you the opportunity.
Mr. Hubbard, please carry on.
Order.
Once the chair has ruled on a particular point of order--
4 p.m.
Conservative
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
We have to respect the translators back there. It is impossible for them to keep track if more than one person is speaking at a time.
When a point of order is called, the member must immediately state the standing order that has been breached and then start explaining it. When we start an explanation without advising the committee what standing order has been breached, and the reason, then we get into an awkward situation.
I ruled on Mr. Tilson's point of order, then I went to debate. Mr. Poilievre, I'm sorry, but you wanted to continue the debate on the item of Mr. Tilson. We can't do that.
If you would like to pose a point of order, tell me the point of order right now. I want to know, so that I can have a good starting point rather than listen to some other conversation.
I'm going to recognize you now on a point of order, but please, let's understand what a point of order is. It's not simply an opportunity to get the floor and speak. It has to do with our rules, practices, and procedures.
I'm going to recognize you on a point of order.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
All right, I have the floor now. Thank you.
I understood you were going to pull up some standing orders here. I have a standing order, and that was the standing order on which my point was going to be raised.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
It is Standing Order 19.
Standing Order 19, which is met with a side note in the Standing Orders, states that on points of order, the Speaker may allow a debate. The entire standing order reads, and it's very short:
Any Member addressing the House, if called to order either by the Speaker or on a point raised by another Member, shall sit down while the point is being stated, after which he or she may explain. The Speaker may permit debate on the point of order before giving a decision, but such debate must be strictly relevant to the point of order taken.
That's exactly why I was pursuing a relevant, germane argument earlier related to the Standing Orders and to Marleau-Montpetit. You are empowered and--as it is strongly implied by the spirit of this standing order--required to allow a debate on points of order.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Let's bring it to a conclusion here and just wrap it right up.
The point is, Chair, that I understand that these are difficult questions, but we have to permit a debate. We have to allow the voices to be heard. These voices are backed up by hundreds of thousands--
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order, please.
Mr. Poilievre, you read the standing order correctly. It says that the chair may allow debate.
Mr. Tilson's point of order—
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order. I'm in the middle of speaking here.
Mr. Tilson's matter was ruled not to be a point of order. It was not a point of order because....
Order. Don't push it. We have to....
4 p.m.
An hon. member
Who's doing the--
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
There was no point of order. The chair has the discretion but not the obligation.
4 p.m.
Liberal
4 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First of all, I'm sorry that we seem to be involved in a--
