Evidence of meeting #2 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities 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.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Are the any further interventions on the question of privilege?
Go ahead, Ms. Kwan.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Seeing as it's my question of privilege, I'll raise two points in response to MP Vaughan.
First off, what he suggested is simply untrue, and that is on the public record all over the place. The issue with the government, I have said repeatedly, is that the support for the homeless population and those facing the housing crisis is deficient, and that's what I have said repeatedly—
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Adam Vaughan Liberal Spadina—Fort York, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, this is getting back into debate.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
—over and over again.
I think it is very important, Mr. Chair, that the witnesses who were misled by this—
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Adam Vaughan Liberal Spadina—Fort York, ON
If my colleagues—and I agree with them—wish to end the debate, then they would need the co-operation of the member opposite. This is—
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
I will wrap it up. I'm happy to wrap it up.
With respect to the second point, Mr. Chair, on which MP Vaughan suggests that I have not reached out, just for his information, the coordination was actually done through the minister's office, and it was the minister's office staff who confirmed his availability. We conveyed back to them that what we wished to discuss was the misinformation that was provided at this meeting. We received zero response thereafter.
From here on in, going forward, Mr. Chair, it would be very important for the witnesses who were at this meeting to receive at least my comments with respect to the misleading accusations made by MP Vaughan, so I would seek for that information to be provided to the witnesses.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Okay.
Thank you very much, Ms. Kwan and Mr. Vaughan.
Because Ms. Kwan had given advance notice of her intention to raise a question of privilege, I have been provided with some background materials on which to rule on the question.
Specifically, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 154, sets out the procedure for a chair to consider a question of privilege in committee, and it reads:
Should a Member wish to raise a question of privilege in committee, or should some event occur in committee which appears to be a breach of privilege or contempt, the Chair of the committee will recognize the Member and hear the question of privilege, or, in the case of some incident, suggest that the committee deal with the matter. The Chair, however, has no authority to rule that a breach of privilege or contempt has occurred. The role of the Chair in such instances is to determine whether the matter raised does in fact touch on privilege and is not a point of order, a grievance or a matter of debate. If the Chair is of the opinion that the Member's interjection deals with a point of order, a grievance or a matter of debate, or that the incident is within the powers of the committee to deal with, the Chair will rule accordingly, giving reasons.
Ms. Kwan, I want to thank you for bringing this matter to the committee and to my attention. As members know, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, is clear on questions of privilege brought before committee. As I indicated, on page 154 it states:
Unlike the Speaker, the Chair of a committee does not have the power to censure disorder or decide questions of privilege.
It elaborates on the chair's role as follows:
...the Chair in such instances is to determine whether the matter raised does in fact touch on privilege and is not a point of order, a grievance or a matter of debate.
As was evident from the exchange, it is my view that this matter does not touch on parliamentary privilege, and it could very well be either a point of order, a grievance or, most likely, a matter of debate.
Given that, I would suggest that it is entirely within Ms. Kwan's purview to reach out to the witnesses directly to present her side of the debate, and I would like to thank the honourable member for allowing me to clarify this matter.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Chair, if I may just follow up on that, I have already reached out to the witnesses, but I do think that at the very minimum, the witnesses should be presented with an official document from the committee to say that I have raised this point and dispute what MP Vaughan has said, to correct the record. They should, I think, at the very minimum receive that information as a matter for the record.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Are you saying then, for my clarification, Chair, that you will not undertake to send that information to the witnesses?
4:50 p.m.
NDP
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Mr. Clerk, I understand that a motion to challenge the chair is not debatable and that I am now to ask the committee—
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
I understand Ms. Kwan's desire to challenge the chair, but she's not a member of the committee. Ms. Gazan is the NDP member. I think before we get into a debate further on, that if somebody needs to challenge the chair, it should be Ms. Gazan, not Ms. Kwan.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
Right.
Mr. Clerk, I have two questions. As Ms. Kwan substituted in for Ms. Gazan, does she therefore have the right to do this? That's my first question.
If her motion is in order, then I seek your advice on how we procedurally work through it.
4:50 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Andrew Wilson
She is substituted for Ms. Gazan, and the motion is non-debatable and non-amendable.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sean Casey
The question then is, shall the ruling of the chair stand?
I take it we require a recorded—