On a point of order, Mr. Chair—
Evidence of meeting #7 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #7 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
On a point of order. On a point of order, Mr. Chair. I have a point of order.
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Mr. Poilievre, I'm just trying to bring clarification and understanding—
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
First I have Madame Chatel.
It would mean that we can go well over the six minutes or five minutes.
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
No. No. No. Stop misleading the committee.
On a point of order—
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
I'm sorry, but you have the obligation to recognize points of order rather than giving speeches.
On a point of order, your decision to prevent the witness from answering the question has been challenged. That is a non-debatable challenge. If the challenge succeeds and your decision is overturned, then the witness will be given a chance to answer the question. That's what we're voting on. Stop trying to manipulate the debate and get to the vote.
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Mr. Poilievre, the clarification on this is that the witnesses would be able to answer the question, and that may go on for as long as it will take for that answer to be given.
Is that correct? That is correct. If it goes on for a minute or two minutes or three minutes—
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
1:45 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Chair, I'm just asking for 10 or 15 seconds, not more. This is not an unreasonable request and there is no precedent set. It just means that normally you would permit the witnesses a few moments to answer. That's all.
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Mr. Julian, to be fair, if I thought it were going to be only 10 or 15 seconds—and the members are well aware from our meetings—I would have allowed it to go on for 10 or 15 seconds. I just did not want to cut off one of our witnesses from an answer that I thought would be much longer, and then there would be an opportunity in another—
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, Mr. Julian was very clear. He was just looking for yes-and-no answers. It was a two-part question. He said he just needed a yes or no in each one of them. You know very well that kind of response could be given in under 10 seconds. To claim now that you thought that it would lead to many minutes of additional debate is nonsense. He just wanted to get a quick answer to his question, which has been the practice on this committee. I was on this committee for years. It happened without a problem.
By the way, your decision has been challenged. That is non-debatable. Let's get to a vote on it.
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
—Mr. Poilievre just said this decision's non-debatable, and he's spent more time debating than anybody at this committee.
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
This is my point of order, Mr. Poilievre, not yours.
Mr. Chair, you were trying to answer—rightly so—and give a clarification that a member had asked for about the implication of the vote. It's a fair question to ask before one votes, to understand the implication of one's decision when they vote. That's what Ms. Chatel was asking. You were interrupted in the middle of that.
I thought that was completely fair. I think we're clear now on Ms. Chatel's question.
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Just for clarification, it may be a short or it may be a long answer, but this is what we are voting on.
