Evidence of meeting #93 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 chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
Mona Fortier Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
It was my turn. I have been asking for the floor since the beginning.
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
Mona Fortier Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
No, that's not true. You said so earlier.
You are really changing the rules.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Okay, that's fine. You can challenge it if you want.
We moved the motion, Mr. Kurek indicated he wanted to speak to the motion.
You—
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
Mona Fortier Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Mr. Chair, Mr. Villemure has also had his hand up since the beginning.
6:20 p.m.
An hon. member
What's being challenged?
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
6:20 p.m.
The Clerk
I will give some context. It is not on the motion. It is on the challenge of the speaking order of the chair. Ms. Damoff challenged the speaking order and the question is shall the decision of the chair be sustained.
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
It's not debatable.
Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?
(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 7; yeas 3)
Go ahead, Ms. Fortier.
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Thanks very much.
With respect to Ms. Fortier, she had indicated something, which then led to the challenge of your ruling on the speaking order. She did say that her name was on the list, which very well may have been the case. However, I would ask, Chair, that you enlighten the committee on the rules and procedures that, when a motion is moved, that then begins a new debate, which then would precipitate a new speaking list. With respect to the speaking order, I'm concerned that not only is the heavy hand of the coalition working diligently to silence a whistle-blower, but now you have a former minister, former president of the Treasury Board, who is clearly preventing Conservative members—
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
—of this committee from being able to speak.
Mr. Chair, I will be seeking advice as to whether that's a violation of privilege.
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I'm not sure on the violation of privilege, Mr. Kurek.
General practice and rules and procedures are that the chair can give the floor to whomever he deems has indicated they want the floor. As is the case with the previous ruling, I gave it to you based on seeing your hand when the motion was put up. Ms. Fortier did have her hand up earlier. The situation we find ourselves in now is that the ruling of the chair has been challenged, and it has been challenged successfully. The issue I have right now is that I will have to go to another speaker, and I'm prepared to do that.
Whether it's a point of privilege or not, I can't answer that at this point. If you give me a second, I can certainly find out, but discretion is generally given to the chair to control who speaks and when.
Hang on a second.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Mr. Chair, can I speak to this point of order once you're done?
Thank you.
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
The clerk just clarified for me that it doesn't elevate to a level of privilege, Mr. Kurek. What it does do.... The chair's responsibility is to try to be as fair as he can be to members in terms of their speaking privileges. As I indicated, I did see your hand immediately after the motion was presented, and that's why I went to you first. The reality of the situation is that the committee challenged that decision. I have to live by the committee's decision, but I will put you on the list.
Ms. Damoff, were you on a point of order?
