Evidence of meeting #80 for Natural Resources in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was point.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Once again, on what Mr. Simard raised, a ruling was made earlier by the chair. The standing order referenced by our colleague earlier is open for interpretation. I interpreted it the way I did. I made the ruling here in committee, and it was sustained—
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
—by the committee members.
The member who is sitting now does have the ability to participate, as he will momentarily, I hope.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Now I'll proceed.
Is this a point of order to Mr. Genuis's point of order?
Conservative
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I'm in the middle of a point of order.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
I've made my ruling. The chair's ruling was sustained by committee. We'll proceed.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
On the point of order, it's a completely different matter because you made a ruling, and that ruling was sustained. That ruling violated the privileges of members. Then my colleague tried to raise a question of privilege, and members across the way claimed—
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Timmins—James Bay, I will continue. I am already seated though.
Liberal
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I wasn't aware the chair had made a ruling on the second matter. The second matter is on questions of privilege.
As I was reading, members have a right to raise questions of privilege at committee. Members across the way don't seem to understand that, but privilege exists at committee. It's not just a matter of the House; it is a matter of committee. Members can raise questions of privilege at committee.
You made a ruling. It was sustained by the committee, but it was a ruling that violated the privilege of members when it comes to the right to speak in committee.
A chair does not have the ability to ignore the privileges of members of Parliament, as you have tried to do, and in this context, we have now sought to raise a question of privilege, which I would think—
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
If you'll allow me as the chair, the member wished to raise a question of privilege during the committee meeting, which he did. I allowed the member to explain the situation, which the member did. Then the chair determined whether that question related to parliamentary privilege.
At that time, I interpreted the question at hand, and the committee voted on it. According to the privilege the member has, he is going to participate at our committee today. He is up, and that decision was made earlier.
We will now proceed—
Conservative
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I have a point of order.
Mr. Chair, one point for clarity would be that when I challenged you, it was just on an open comment in regard to the rights and privileges of members. In this second go-around here, we are discussing a direct quote from the actual Standing Orders, so it is substantively different.
I read into the record the standing order that governs it. If we accept the vote that happened there, you are effectively rewriting this standing order without our actually talking about that particular standing order in that moment—
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Mr. Patzer, a decision was made.
You can challenge the chair. You have that right. You have the right to challenge the chair if you would like to do so again.
Conservative
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
We're trying to help you help yourself here. You put yourself in a position—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
I have enough people to help me, and I've been advised by the clerk—
