I thought you were finished.
Evidence of meeting #1 for Finance in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #1 for Finance in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
No, that's not a point of order.
I'll go to Ms. Jansen to see whether she wants in on her point of order—
3:15 p.m.
Conservative
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
3:15 p.m.
Conservative
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
I'm just wondering if you could rule on that point of order so that we can move on.
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Mr. Chair, before you offer a ruling on the point of order, my understanding was that there would be an opportunity to debate the appropriateness of the point of order before you do offer a ruling. If I may offer an explanation, the point of my going through these letters and offering commentary on them is to demonstrate that the transmittal letters, which the members who are opposing the subamendment on the floor are trying to exclude from the evidentiary record before this committee.... In order to determine whether those letters should be excluded from the record formally in our subamendment, I do think it's relevant for the committee to actually hear what those letters said. I can't imagine something that would be more relevant to a discussion about transmittal letters than the transmittal letters.
3:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
The substance of this is not transmittal letters. Also in the procedure and practice...it's not merely repetition that are grounds upon which the chair may rule against excessive reading into the record. If doing so is vexatious in design, as this clearly is, to simply avoid a vote, the chair may rule it out of order. I bring those points to your attention.
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
—it's not on this point. I guess you would have to rule on that.
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay. It's not on this point. The letters that Mr. Fraser has been reading are really relative to the subamendment, and I haven't heard.... Although they go to somewhat the same point, there's different information in each letter that goes to the relevance of the subamendment, so I'm going to allow it.
Mr. Fraser, it's back to you—
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I believe Mr. Gerretsen actually had a point of order, Mr. Chair.
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
I know that you've ruled on the necessity of the members' screens to be on, and I respect that, but I just want to know what you deem, Mr. Chair, to be a quorum. For example, if we were sitting in a committee room and people started actually leaving the room, you would know if we no longer had a quorum. When people are turning off their video cameras, we don't know if they're still there listening, or if Mr. Poilievre has gone to Starbucks, or what's going on. How are you determining, if enough screens go off, whether or not you still have a quorum to continue the meeting, Mr. Chair?
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I would determine it based on the people who I can see, and we haven't been—
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Oh, he has his Starbucks. He came back with his Starbucks. He could have brought one for everybody, at least.
3:15 p.m.
Conservative
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
I have a point of order, too. Is it going to be all right—