Evidence of meeting #55 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was opposition.
A video is available from Parliament.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Mr. Genuis, do you want to speak on the point of order, or do you want to wait until Mr. Christopherson goes?
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I was just going to say that I don't know if that's a point of order, but if Ms. Tassi wants to make a substantive comment, I'm happy to do what we did previously with regard to Mr. Simms and have unanimous consent given to allow her to do that. I just don't know if points of order are the proper structure for that to happen.
1:20 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
First off, I don't think it's a point of order, because a point of order means that something is out of order. What we have is a member who disagrees with what someone else is arguing, and that's debate.
I'd like you to rule on that first. If you rule that it is a legitimate point of order, then I'd like to comment on that.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
1:20 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
That's fine. I've benefited from your willingness to use some discretion, so I won't say anything about that.
I would disagree with my honourable colleague: there is no existing study. We have not started studying the rules. There is only a standing order for us to review during the Parliament. As for the actual beginning of that process, it hasn't begun.
I would argue that the member is exactly right in saying that the government is unilaterally trying to decide how that process will take place, the time frame, and even what the parameters of the discussion will be—none of which this committee has talked about in terms of our obligation to review the Standing Orders once every Parliament.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Okay.
Mr. Genuis, you're back on your....
Yes, Mr. Kmiec, very quickly.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
On that point of order, Mr. Chair, I've been participating here for five hours. Things started at 10 a.m. yesterday, and you've added however many hours today. I think this committee has been very collegial in the way it's behaved so far, which I've really appreciated. This discussion is not one that I really get to participate in all that often at the other committees I serve on.
Typically we've been very deferential to Mr. Simms when he's wanted to intervene. He usually raises a point of order. I think we can continue that process. If members have very specific disagreements, I think raising a point of order makes the chair understand that you want to take the floor, maybe disagree for a few minutes, and then let colleagues continue making the point that needs to be made.
I think that's a great system, and it works very well.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
That's not how you pronounce my name, Mr. Chair, but “Genius” is....
1:25 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Okay, but on a point of order, we've asked for your pronunciation and you won't provide it.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I think the government has been more than clear on this point. I'll just say that I'll be happy to answer any questions that the Ethics Commissioner has on that point.
1:25 p.m.
An hon. member
In the fullness of time.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
In the fullness of time, yes.
I'm going to give my staffer a raise for all this food he's given me. This is great.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
That's in Hansard? Okay, well, motion to strike from Hansard....
1:25 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
1:25 p.m.
An hon. member
The jury will disregard.
1:25 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Yes, please.
Before I get back to the point I was discussing, I'll just respond to the intervention by Ms. Tassi. I certainly appreciate both her work here and her comments now. The substance of her intervention, though, is fairly similar to ones we've heard from the government before, which is to verbally acknowledge the importance of this conversation and then to say, well, let's just proceed with the study and do that.
Of course, though, as the member knows, the present matter for debate before us is not the question of whether or not to proceed with the study. It's the question of whether or not to proceed with the amendment. The amendment speaks to a process by which this discussion would be undertaken and a process by which ultimately a decision would be made on the best way to proceed.
We hear often, from members of the government, let's just bracket the discussion of process and let's skip on to that discussion of the substance.
March 21st, 2017 / 1:25 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Mr. Chair, I'm just joining the discussion, but on a point of order, is this committee being televised?
