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.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Mr. Genuis, I'll ask you to pause.
I have a point of order from Mr. Angus.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Certainly, the standing order says that it can be brought to the chair's attention. The chair does rule. If they don't like it, they can challenge it.
This is an attempt by the Conservatives to stop this member, who represents the New Democratic Party, from speaking on workers.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
Chair, is this a point of order? Have you asked the member to cite the standing order as you're requesting we do?
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
The chair has ruled on this, so Mr. Genuis does not have a credible point, because he has brought this up again and again. The chair has ruled. I will ask the chair—
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
What's the standing order from the member, as you have requested of Conservatives?
3:50 p.m.
NDP
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
I will once again remind colleagues that when a member has the floor and is making a point of order, to allow the member to finish what he is saying, because we know how difficult it is for the interpreters. Earlier today we had some challenges with a number of members speaking at the same time. It does cause significant health and safety issues for our interpreters and colleagues who are trying to follow along.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Thank you for clarifying that minor point regarding the interpreters, since I rely entirely on them to follow the debate.
I've listened to the 118th version of Mr. Genuis' point of order, which still amounts to the same thing. Couldn't we resolve the impasse in which we find ourselves by simply requesting a committee vote to make this clear?
The committee could rule that Mr. Angus now has the floor. If I refer to the standing order that my colleague read earlier, it concerned cases in which the committee has adopted something.
Can we vote on the fact that Mr. Angus currently has the floor on the amendment that was introduced. That way, it will be clear and we can move on to something else.
Can the committee vote on that? It will be final and clear for everyone.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Thank you, Mr. Simard, for your intervention.
Mr. Angus does have the floor, and that's been identified and ruled on. I would ask my colleagues if they believe there is somebody else here who should have the floor to ask their committee colleagues and take it to a vote.
I appreciate, Mr. Simard, what you've raised as a concern.
Colleagues, if you believe that Mr. Genuis wants the floor, you can ask your colleagues to support that and he will do so.
I will also ask—
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Hold on, Mr. Genuis. I'm going to finish.
You've come to Standing Order 116. I'm not clear whether you're arguing about Mr. Angus's ability to speak, since he has the floor, and specifically what the relevancy is of what you identified from the standing order. You mentioned the ability of Mr. Angus to participate and speak today, so can you—
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
On the point of order there are two things.
Are you arguing on behalf of Mr. Angus, so he can speak?
It's unclear to me.
What is the relevancy of what you're saying, and how does it relate to the speaking order of Mr. Angus being able to participate?
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I'm more than happy to offer further explanation. I thought reading the standing order would be clear enough but I will explain further.
This standing order specifies that the ability of members to speak is not dependent on the approval of 50% plus one of the rest of the room for them to be on the list or stay on the list.
The way the process works is that the chair creates a list. If members wish to speak, they should be added to the list. But crucially, once a member has the floor, this standing order specifies that—
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Certainly, I've read 116 and it seems that my colleague is attempting to falsely claim that the speaking order that was agreed to by the chair isn't legitimate, but he doesn't have the nerve to challenge the chair because nobody agrees with him.
Chair, I think this is a specious argument, and it is actually undermining my rights under Standing Order 116 and the ability of a member to speak.
I'm invoking my rights under Standing Order 116 and ask that you would tell these members to stop this constant campaign to stop me from speaking on a bill that is very important to working people across this country. That's why I'm here. That's why I show up. That's the work I want to do. I want to speak to the amendment and to the motion at hand. They are using 116, which is my right to speak, to undermine me and undermine the work of this committee.
I'm asking for a ruling, Chair.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Chair, I'm happy to continue my point of order. I think that Mr. Angus has a debate.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Mr. Genuis, it was clearly identified that Mr. Angus had the floor. If you would like the floor—