Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 30th, 2023

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Chair. I listened very carefully to my colleague Monsieur Simard, particularly the latter part of his point of order in terms of taking a deep breath.

I've taken a deep breath to gather my thoughts for this second point of order, just like I took a deep breath for my first point of order. I don't rush into points of order, Chair, so I'll take his words at face value.

I think it's important that I raise this issue, because this is an issue that was brought up initially at our meeting earlier this week. There was a term used by my colleague Mr. Falk in reference to Ms. Dabrusin, which she took offence at. I'm not going to mention the word again. Other members of the Liberal bench took offence too. You thought about that particular word, and you cautioned all of us, if you recall, Mr. Chair, at the committee about the use of derogatory and non-parliamentary language.

I didn't challenge that particular order because it wasn't an order per se—it was a suggestion by the chair—but I asked for clarification. I asked on more than one occasion for clarification as to whether or not the chair was going to make a ruling with respect to the use of that particular word. I asked it on more than one occasion. The chair dodged the specifics in terms of opining on whether or not that word itself was derogatory or unparliamentary. I raise that in the context of what has just happened tonight, where one of my colleagues used the reference to a “bonus NDP member”, to which MP Aldag took great offence and raised a point of order, viewing that as unparliamentary. Again, the chair, using the very same language that the chair used two days ago, cautioned committee about the use of derogatory terms and non-parliamentary terms.

Again, I need clarification, Chair, and I think it would benefit every particular member at this committee, as to what the chair deems to be derogatory and/or unparliamentary. I'm of the same view as my colleague Mr. Patzer, that the word “bonus” could actually be flattering as opposed to derogatory. If the chair still feels that it's a derogatory derivation or some knock on Ms. McPherson's abilities....

I have great respect for Ms. McPherson. I haven't had any personal conversations with her, but I always admire her interventions in the House. I would certainly not use any derogatory terms for Ms. McPherson. In my understanding, sir, the use of “bonus”.... It is a bonus actually to this committee to have Ms. McPherson's presence at this committee.

Again, I am asking the chair to provide clarity because, quite frankly, as this meeting progresses and as future meetings progress.... I hope that the Conservative team invites me for future resource meetings because I quite enjoy the content in these meetings. To enable me to perform at my best, Mr. Chair, I need to hear, from the chair's perspective, what is deemed to be derogatory and a ruling as to what is deemed to be derogatory or non-parliamentary. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

I would also remind members not to use a point of order for extensive debate on issues that have been ruled upon or previously ruled upon.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Brock, I will finish, and this is for everybody. It's not to one member directly, but as per our previous meeting or today, I just want to make sure that we all respect each other and use language that is respectful and use a tone that is respectful for all members. I think we can do that, as we did at the last meeting as well. We did get into working with each other quite well to finish off that meeting.

I did not make a ruling at a previous meeting that the specific word used was unparliamentary, as I would need a dictionary to determine every word in the context it's used. I don't believe that I have the ability, in all cases, to provide that, but I do have the ability to make sure that we all have a respectful workplace for everybody around the table, that we attempt to respect each other as colleagues around the table and use parliamentary language and that we continue in that fashion. I'm asking you to do that again today.

Thank you.

Mr. Angus, you have the floor on the point of order that you had.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I'm hoping that I can try to find some consensus here. Mr. Aldag did take offence at referring to my colleague from Edmonton as a “bonus NDP”.

Mr. Brock, I think, quite rightly points out that “bonus” could be positive. I think it's very positive that we have a member from Alberta who actually believes in climate science. That's a bonus for us. I think it's a bonus—

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

That's debate, Chair.

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

—that we have a member who met with the carpenters union in Edmonton, which actually wanted to talk to us about this legislation. That's a bonus.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Angus—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I have a point of order.

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

Now they're trying to.... See, they're attacking me and trying to shut me down. I'm trying to support them.

Mr. Charlie Angus:

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

The chair's light is on.

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

The bonus is having a member from Alberta who actually cares about workers, who doesn't use delay tactics—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I have a point of order.

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

—and also doesn't speak with crackers in her mouth.

I would advise that she's a real bonus to our committee tonight.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Angus, thank you for your point of order.

As I just reminded all colleagues, let's not use our points of order for debate. I really don't want to have to cut you off.

I want to make sure that our interpreters can interpret. When I ask you to pause or hold, or I turn on my mic.... Please try to address your point of order while looking towards me so you can see whether my mic is on.

I do want to welcome Ms. McPherson and Mr. Morrice, who was here a moment ago, to our committee, and Ms. Gladu as well as others who have joined us today.

Mr. Genuis and Mr. Fonseca, thank you for joining us this evening.

Now we will proceed on.....

Do you have a point of order, Mr. Genuis?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I had a point of order.

You didn't rule on my question regarding—maybe it wasn't audible—whether Mr. Angus is allowed to speak or whether the Speaker's ruling in the House applies to committees as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Genuis, thank you for your point of order. Members who are participating here today in committee are allowed to participate.

Now I just want to, colleagues, as we've gone through and we've reset where we're at—

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Monsieur Simard, go ahead.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I hope we can make a start after that.

I'd like clarification, because you haven't answered my question.

Which members can speak this evening? Will it be only the voting members of the committee? Can any member of a party speak this evening? I haven't heard an answer to that question. If there are two members of the Bloc Québécois, will both be able to speak this evening?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Monsieur Simard, for your point of order. All members can participate unless there's a vote. Only voting members who have been recognized and registered with the clerk can participate in a vote. Thank you for asking for that clarity, Monsieur Simard.

Colleagues, there is a change to make in the package of amendments. I want to start off at this point by allowing committee members to know about the change. PV-1 on page 25 of the package should be moved to after LIB-3 on page 27. Once again, just for all members, PV-1 on page 25 of the package should be moved to after LIB-3 on page 27.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I just want to make sure everybody caught that. If there are any concerns, let me know.

Mr. Brock, you have a point of order.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

With respect to that last statement by the chair, can you provide some context as to why that move is being made?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Brock.

That's the order that it appears in the bill. As folks were putting together all of these packages for committee members, they wanted to make sure that, to the best of their ability, they could provide it in that order. That was the information provided to me, and I wanted to bring that forward to committee members.

We'll go to Mr. Aldag and then to Ms. Gladu.

Mr. Aldag, go ahead.