Evidence of meeting #123 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was randy.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I welcome everybody back.
To recap, when the meeting started, I identified Mr. Barrett as having his hand raised first and moved the floor to him. Then I had Ms. Khalid and Mr. Fisher following Mr. Barrett's intervention.
Ms. Khalid challenged the ruling of the chair. The difficulty in challenging the ruling of the chair is that the ability of the chair to identify, with the help of the clerk, which members have their hands raised first is a very subjective matter. The difficulty, as well, is that—in challenging the chair on what is, effectively, not a rule or procedure but a very subjective matter—it forces the chair and the clerk to have less discretion with which to do their job identifying which members are to speak.
I identified Mr. Barrett. There is nothing to be challenged in that regard.
Go ahead, Mr. Green.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I'll take responsibility for the fact that I'm tuning in virtually, but I want to note that I wanted to intervene on behalf of Mr. Housefather's point of order. I wasn't given that opportunity. Things rolled pretty quickly, and then devolved even faster.
I am hoping to have the opportunity to also contribute to Mr. Housefather's point of order.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I appreciate that, Mr. Green.
Just give me a second here. The problem we have is that the challenge was that the floor wasn't given to Mr. Barrett, which it was, so I'm not sure, even if we were to move to a challenge of the chair, who would have the floor next, because we could devolve into a situation where we have continuous challenges of the chair on who has the speaking order. That's the risk we run here, but I'm prepared to play the game if everybody wants to play this game.
Mr. Green, I am going to go to you on your point of order, sir. Go ahead.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I do appreciate that.
I will say, maybe to back off some of the partisanship, that I think, given the best of your abilities, you do the best you can in this committee. I do disagree with you from time to time, but I do not think that you're overly partisan.
I would say that on the point of order regarding privilege, I wanted to go on the record on that point of order, which was the order raised by Mr. Housefather before things moved rather quickly, sir. The reason is that, in your ruling, you ruled that this committee was not the adequate committee for you to be able to rule on that point of privilege and that, indeed, it did have to go to the House.
For that reason, and given the seriousness both of the allegations that were made against Mr. Bains and given the seriousness of what I consider to be our parliamentary privileges, while I am not in the position to opine on whether or not a line was crossed, I certainly think that it was broached. It was right up against that line and, for that reason, I am in full support of seeing that motion of privilege go to the Speaker for consideration.
What I'm not interested in is devolving into a game of shotgun in terms of who sees who as first as it relates to our speakers list. I don't think procedurally that will get us anywhere. I think that as a committee we've done the best that we can to move through this.
Again, we do have, through our Standing Orders, the ability to participate virtually. I'm doing that here today. I'm glad I am, because I don't want to be caught up in what's happening there, but having said that, procedurally I feel that I didn't get a chance to contribute to Mr. Housefather's point prior to everything going off the rails.
I would say, just in closing, sir—I won't take up more of your time—that I would not support a challenge on who saw who first, because, as in the points you've raised I think it's a very subjective thing, but I would be willing to challenge who should have precedence procedurally in this meeting today as it relates to Mr. Bains.
That's what I wanted to put forward to the members. I hope you can take with seriousness the allegations on the point of privilege that Mr. Bains raised and that Mr. Housefather, I think, rightly provided to you as having precedence in the order for this particular meeting.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Okay. I appreciate that intervention, Mr. Green, and just for the benefit of the committee...and I appreciate your support on challenging the subjectivity of the chair and the clerk's responsibility to identify those who are deemed to be able to speak. That is one of the difficulties of being a chair, figuring out as hands go up...and I have seen people literally throw their bodies across the table to try to get the attention of the chair. It is rather difficult.
I will say that there are other avenues that members can take, through motions, to be heard if they choose, and that's not necessarily by challenging the chair. It's by suggesting that a particular member be heard. We have seen that many times in the House, and it's certainly something that can be dealt with at committee as well, just for the benefit of members on that.
Go ahead, Mr. Housefather, please.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
It is, sort of, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, I believe you've made a ruling on the issue of whether or not Mr. Bains should have the floor. My understanding is that your ruling is, no, he shouldn't, and that you're allowed to go to either Mr. Barrett or Ms. Khalid, whoever would have the floor.
I know I have to challenge that as soon as I can. I believe this is the first time I've had the opportunity, so I want to challenge that ruling: the ruling that you're not going to Mr. Bains on his point of privilege. That would be what I would challenge.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
In effect, what you're suggesting—and because you had a point of order, you can't move a motion—is that the challenge, then, is to go to Mr. Bain first, based on the fact that we're dealing with a privilege motion. Again, Mr. Housefather, it goes down that pathway where the subjectivity of the selection process of hands needs to stay with the chair. If that's what you're challenging, and you're very clear on that, then I will accept the challenge in this particular case.
However, again, the responsibility of the chair is to deal with rules, procedures and regulations as they relate to the committee. On the subjectivity of the selection of members to speak, the chair needs to have that latitude. The clerk certainly needs to have that latitude. I'm hearing a little bit more clarity in what you're saying, so I am going to accept that you are asking that Mr. Bains be heard. Is that correct?
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Yes, Mr. Chair, I'm basically saying that the floor should first go to Mr. Bains, because he had a privilege motion that we should be coming back to.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
That's what you're challenging me on, sir.
I'll just go to the clerk for a second, but I see what you're saying.
The clerk just wanted me to restate this for the clarity of all the members.
What we are actually dealing with is that Mr. Housefather is challenging the chair's decision to not allow Mr. Bains to speak first on his question of privilege.
I hope that this is clear for everyone.
That's what the challenge is. It's a challenge, so it's not subject to debate.
Do we have consensus on that? No.
The clerk is reminding me that the question becomes important, then.
Shall the decision of the chair be sustained in my determination that Mr. Barrett...or are you challenging me, then, Mr. Housefather, that the question of privilege becomes a priority and that Mr. Bains should be given the floor? That's what you're challenging me on. Is that correct?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
It's not a question of whether my decision is sustained to recognize Mr. Barrett.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
It's a question of whether Mr. Bains should have the floor. I'm challenging your ruling on that.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
All right. We don't have consensus. We're going to go to a vote on this.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
No, I don't understand.
Can you go over it one more time, Chair?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
The question is to challenge the chair's decision and allow Mr. Bains the opportunity to speak. It's that the question of privilege takes priority over any other matters.
Am I correct in that, Mr. Housefather?
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
It is correct, Mr. Chair, but I think, again, the lack of clarity....
I believe the question is this: Should the ruling of the chair be sustained? That's the subject of it.
However, if you don't believe the ruling of the chair should be sustained, you're voting no. If you do sustain the ruling of the chair, you're voting yes. I think that's where we're confused, because we're muddling in other questions.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Okay, but my ruling, to be clear, Mr. Housefather, was to give Mr. Barrett the floor.