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.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I was in the process of raising a number of issues of order, and then there were interventions in the middle of that point of order with other points of order, so I will return to the points of order that I intended to raise.
The first, briefly, was about the legitimacy of raising arguments respecting matters of order on points of order. That is, in fact, what a point of order is.
12:10 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
I'll speak very slowly.
What has happened in the last two meetings is appalling. I don't want to be associated with it in any way. Can we adopt ways of proceeding that everyone can comply with? I think that's the first thing we need to do.
An issue came up here last week when we were informed that Conservative MPs who were not committee members had tried to speak. However, it is the practice of our committee to give the floor solely to its members.
Since then, Mr. Genuis has raised a raft of points of order solely on that matter. However, we resolved the issue by saying this wasn't a violation of procedure. We gave Mr. Angus the floor. Now, before raising a point of order, could we indicate the purpose of that point of order?
Depending on how we proceed, could we agree that we have an obligation to state the purpose of the point of order?
There's a first principle in logic: doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result is a sign of stupidity. You've probably heard that one.
Even though Mr. Genuis is exhausting himself raising points of order to say that his colleague has suffered a breach of his privilege, I don't think he's going to come up with a different result. We've already resolved that.
Now, could we agree collectively, for the proper functioning of this committee, that we must state what the subject will be before raising a point of order?
If the subject is the same as it was last week, there's no point; we've already resolved that issue. We have to move on to something else.
If Mr. Genuis still wants to raise a point of order about something we've resolved, well, he'll be demonstrating his bad faith.
We'll be able to draw conclusions at that point. Can we all agree that, before raising a point of order, we should state what it's about?
With the exception of what happened last week, I don't see any new elements in Mr. Genuis' point of order. And yet we've exhausted the issue. We've resolved it.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Mr. Simard, that was very well said. Thank you for your intervention.
I think that the point that our colleague raises on points of order is being specific and citing clearly what your point of order is rather than getting into debate.
My apologies, Mr. Simard. It took me some time to make sure that I had the correct translation.
Thank you to the interpreters for doing a really good job of providing clarity on what Mr. Simard provided.
Mr. Genuis, I would ask you, considering what Mr. Simard just provided, that you be very specific on your point of order that you've raised and cite what your point of order is directly related to so you can be very specific and direct so that we can proceed moving forward.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I'm extremely grateful to the interpreters as well for their hard work.
I raise points of order pertaining to the rules. I don't think any member here would dispute the fact that I know the rules extremely well and, Chair, I'm always happy to support your awareness of the rules in any way I can. I'm always available to provide you with guidance on rules—
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Chair, I had a number of issues relating to order that I felt were important to raise. The first was with respect to the legitimacy of raising substantive arguments in the context of points of order.
That was the first point I wanted to raise with respect to order. The second—
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Mr. Genuis, I'll ask you to hold that thought at “substantive arguments” specifically.
Mr. Angus.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I have been on a lot of different committees over 20 years. A point of order is a point of order on an issue.
Mr. Genuis doesn't get to write out a whole long list of grievances and present them as a series of extenuating issues in a point of order. What we're ending up with is interference by taking the floor that undermines the rights of other members to speak. We're over an hour and a half into that.
If he has a specific point of order, then he needs to say it. You rule on it and then we can move on. He can't draw up a long list of grievances and slights he's felt over the last two days of our attempts to actually do work here. I would ask you to make sure it's succinct.
I do have the floor. I am serious about getting this legislation passed. I am here to work hard. I have been interfered with constantly since I was given the floor by the chair. I think we need to move on.
The accusation by Mr. Genuis saying that I've somehow stolen the floor is just beneath us as parliamentarians. This isn't high school.
Mr. Chair, we've heard swearing and now we're hearing these kinds of base accusations. The Conservatives need to start treating this committee with the respect it deserves.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Thank you, Mr. Angus, for your point of order and intervention on that.
Mr. Genuis, I would ask you to be on the point of order. You left off at “substantive arguments”. I want you to be very clear on the point of order, so we can rule on the point of order and proceed.
I'm going to turn it back to you, but I want you to be very succinct and direct on the point of order you are raising.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Really, I've barely been able to get a word out. Mr. Angus went on at length raising a point of order, which essentially anticipated—
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Once again, Mr. Genuis, I want you to focus on the point of order, please.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Absolutely. My colleague raised a point of order, which presumed to anticipate what I was about to do when I hadn't even done it yet.
The first issue was about substantive arguments. Not withstanding the interruptions, I think I have been more or less able to get that point out. I would welcome some clarity from the chair on that particular issue.
The second is that Mr.—
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Chair, since he's asked you and he said that this is his issue, can you rule on that and then we can move on?
Again, it's inappropriate to claim a big, long laundry list of slights. He raised his first issue. You need to respond to that and then we can move on.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
I would say there's an opportunity to provide your arguments through debate, but not through a point of order.
The point of order is on a procedural issue that you're raising at the moment. If a ruling is required by the chair or the committee, then raise it so we can move forward.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Chair, the issue was that I was asking you to rule on the issue he brought forward. That's why it's procedural.
He raised his complaint and then he says that he has other ones. He raised a point of order with a complaint about how the chair handled things. The chair should respond. Then we can just decide whether or not—
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Does he have some privilege that we don't, Chair? He's going on at great length, anticipating points of order that I haven't even raised yet.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Thank you, Mr. Angus.
Mr. Genuis, we do not want to get into a prolonged conversation and debate. We want it to be strictly on the procedural relevance.
Please be on the procedural relevance with your point of order and don't get into debate. If a ruling is required or if you are not happy with the speaking order, I would ask you to challenge the chair.
If that's not what your point of order is, then I would ask you to specifically keep it to the procedure.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Also, be very direct and succinct on the procedural issue. That's what I would ask of you.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I've received more directed guidance on how to raise my points of order.