Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

That's correct.

[The Clerk]

On the question of whether the chair's ruling is sustained, Mr. Aldag...?

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Tell us one more time. Is it that Mr. Falk goes next, or is the order being...?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

The vote is that Mr. Falk challenged the chair's decision, so do you support...?

Mr. Clerk, do you want to once again provide members with clarity as to what a yes means and what a no means?

[The Clerk]

The chair's ruling was that the speaking order is Mr. Dreeshen, followed by Mr. Simard and then Mr. Falk. The chair's ruling was challenged. Now the question is this: Shall the chair's ruling of that speaking order—Mr. Dreeshen, Mr. Simard and then Mr. Falk—be overturned?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I'm sorry. That not what we.... I'd asked if we were voting on the fact that Mr. Falk moves ahead. That's the simple way on this. If we vote that way, I'm willing to vote, but not on the overall speaking order.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I think that Mr. Angus's perspective and recommendation would bring a lot of clarity. The real issue is that I believe I was first on the list. The rest of the order can stay intact.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

My ruling is that you're not first on the list, Mr. Falk. Mr. Dreeshen was, and you were not.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

That's what I'm challenging.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Falk has challenged that he was first on the list, not Mr. Dreeshen. That's what he has challenged. Just to be clear, I said that Mr. Falk was not first on the list. Mr. Dreeshen was first on the list. Mr. Falk is challenging my decision, because he wants to be first. Mr Dreeshen, from what we've identified, is first.

It would be a yes if you support upholding the decision I made. It would be a no if you do not support my decision that's been made. I think that's clear. If not, I can ask the clerk for a further interpretation.

Is that clear? Okay.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 7; nays 4)

Before we go to the speaking order, go ahead, Mr. Simard.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I am also challenging your decision, because I think I raised my hand first and that it's my turn to speak.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Simard also challenges the decision, saying he was ahead of Mr. Dreeshen.

We can put that to a vote. The clerk and I quickly look up when hands go up, and we determine the speaking order to the best of our ability.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Can we clarify, then?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Yes.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Simard is challenging because he said he was next in line, but you didn't see him. If he was next in line, and we vote that he's next in line, the floor would go to him.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

That's correct.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Okay, that sounds very reasonable to me.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Well, hold on—

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

To be perfectly clear, I raised my hand before Mr. Dreeshen. As soon as my colleague began to speak, I raised my hand. So I am challenging your decision, because I think I should be speaking before Mr. Dreeshen.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Simard.

The ruling was made with the previous vote that this is the established speaking order, but you could ask to be heard now. If it's the will of the committee that you be heard now, we will proceed to your being heard now.

The ruling stands with the previous vote that—

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Let's do that.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I have a point of order.

I want to clarify whether that would have to be unanimous or whether it's a vote of the majority. I would suggest that it is not the will of the committee, but I want to clarify that.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I'm going to answer Mr. Patzer's question first.

It's a non-debatable motion. It goes to a vote by the committee and it's by majority.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

These are non-debatable motions. Is that right?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Yes. This motion is not debatable, but we have a point of order.