Yes, MP Ste-Marie, let's just—
Evidence of meeting #94 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 recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #94 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 recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Liberal
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
Mr. Chair, as you said, it undermines the health and safety of the interpreters when the mikes are switched on and everybody talks at the same time.
This is an extremely important issue, and I'm asking my colleagues to try not to talk at the same time because that makes the interpreters' work impossible, and it can undermine harm their health and safety.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, MP Ste-Marie. I agree wholeheartedly.
The health and safety of our interpreters, staff and everybody here supporting this committee is paramount to all of us. I would ask that members only speak with no crosstalk when their mike is on and they have the floor.
I was speaking to MP Lawrence's point of order.
Again, as the motion says, there is no debate. We had a ruling on amendments and subamendments. That is not possible. My ruling has been sustained and we are now at BQ-2.
Conservative
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's striking to me that you've recognized some points of order from members and not others. You've thrown things around about who's a regular member of the committee, whose motivations are what and so forth. Members have a right to substitute. I think you should observe the same practices in your treatment of all members. If the NDP member is allowed to finish his thoughts and explain his reasoning for coming to this conclusion—as he should be able to do—the same principle should apply to Conservatives. Your interpretation of “no debate” seems to be “no debate for people I have some unexplained personal animus against.”
Now, my—
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I'll finish my point of order, then you'll have your point of order, I suppose.
Mr. Chair, your second ruling seems to be that the chair cannot be challenged on a later matter if the chair has been sustained on a previous matter. That is a ruling you made—a conclusion you came to. I disagree with that conclusion.
I wish to challenge that conclusion. Will you allow that challenge to occur?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
MP Genuis, to clarify, the ruling was on all amendments, which captured all subamendments, so that was—
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I don't think it was, and I'm challenging that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
I will just look to the legislative clerk.
Could you just give us some insight into that, please, Mr. Méla?
Legislative Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
When the chair ruled on the possibility of subamendments, the answer was no from the chair. The chair's ruling was appealed, and it was sustained, so that ruling applies to all subamendment comments.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
That was not my understanding of it, which is what I wish to challenge.
Liberal
Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC
I have a quick point of order.
Look, your boss, okay, Pierre Poilievre, put us all in this to do that childish work. What I want is respect around this room—
