I will call the House to order. I have had an opportunity to review the unedited Hansard surrounding consideration of Bill 15, An Act to Amend the Elections Act, which had lead to the point of order by Mrs. Marie-Jewell and the challenge to the chairman's ruling by Mr. Nerysoo.

In reviewing the Hansard, it is evident that there was some confusion in the committee as to what Members wished to do with the clause-by-clause review. I noted that, in fact, the Hansard does indicate that the committee had agreed to Clause 3 of the bill and the chairman had called clause 4. It was at that point that Mr. Patterson was recognized by the chairman to bring forward his request as to the appropriateness of introducing a motion to defer clauses 6, 41 and 3. At that point, the chair ruled that the Member could not introduce a motion that would defer a number of clauses. That ruling was correct. At that point, Mr. Patterson moved that clause 3 be deferred. The point of order is that the committee of the whole had already agreed to clause 3, so the Member could not now move that motion.

When I reviewed Hansard, it is clear that the House agreed to clause 3 and the appropriate citation on this is, and I quote from Beauchesne's, 6th edition, citation 691(1):

"The clauses of a bill in committee must be considered in their proper order; that is, beginning with clause 1 then taking up clause 2 and so on, to the end of the bill. The chairman usually calls out the number of each clause and reads the marginal note, and may read the clause at length if it is demanded by the committee. Each clause is a distinct question and must be separately discussed. When a clause has been agreed to, it is irregular to discuss it again on the consideration of another clause."

However, it has been the practice of this Assembly to allow Members to go back to clauses that may have been already agreed to, at the discretion of the chairman. I recall that, with the speed that sometimes the committee goes through clauses, the chair has permitted Members to go back a couple of clauses. We also have the practice of allowing Members to request to go back to clauses that may be as far back as nine or 10 clauses. But, normally, the permission of the committee is required. I feel that the role of the chairman is similar to that of the Speaker and that is to ensure that when debating a matter, all Members have an opportunity to express their views. The chair should not be caught up in the issue so that one side of the issue can dominate or filibuster to the detriment of other Members' freedom of speech.

My observations of the debate were that the chair had fulfilled this role by allowing Mr. Patterson to go back to clause 3. On the strict interpretation of section 691(1) of Beauchesne's, I would have to uphold Mr. Nerysoo's challenge. However, I feel the practice of this House, as I have outlined, should be followed as long as no one Member has an advantage over another in debate. Therefore, the chair has some discretion to return to past clauses in this situation. Based on Hansard and the confusing circumstances that existed, this discretion was appropriately exercised. Therefore, I uphold the chair's ruling.

The committee will resume. Mr. Lewis.