Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 30th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Order.

Colleagues, I cannot hear what Mr. Angus is saying from here, because we have multiple individuals speaking. I'll ask you to let him finish. If his point of order is not a point of order, he will be told. He knows that a point of order is a procedural issue. He can provide his procedural issue that he has a point of order on.

Mr. Angus, I'll ask you to conclude your point of order, and then we'll resume our important work.

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

Absolutely. Thank you, Chair.

I just want to clarify.... We're now at one minute after eight, going on to two minutes after eight. At 8:30, if I heard you correctly, we then move to vote clause by clause. We don't have to have these constant interruptions and constant points of order.

Is that how the process works? At 8:30, if the Conservatives choose not to bring their amendment before 8:30, will it then be deemed adopted and we vote?

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

How could we? You're constantly interrupting.

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

Is that the process? At 8:30, I certainly don't want to have any chaos happening. I think we would then sit down to business.

I'm asking you to clarify this, Chair.

If now we have 28 minutes left—27 and 30 seconds, say—will we be ready to get down to business? Could you clarify where we'll be at that point?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Yes, Mr. Angus.

As I provided for committee members at the opening of today's meeting, pursuant to the order adopted by the House, if the committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 8:30, we will proceed at that time to begin going through each clause. As per the House order, 8:30 is the time that we will proceed with that.

I hope that provides clarity to all committee members.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I want to go to Ms. Barron on a point of order.

Go ahead, Ms. Barron.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I want to bring to your attention that my colleague Mr. Genuis continues to turn on his microphone while others are speaking.

This is happening repeatedly. I am very concerned about the well-being of the translators, who are doing their very best to navigate this very challenging meeting.

I'd please ask, through the chair, if we can ensure that my colleagues are not turning on their microphones before they have been acknowledged by the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Before I move to the next point of order, I will just remind colleagues, please do not turn on your mic until you are recognized. When I turn on my mic, this red light comes on. That means I would like to speak. I've asked members to pause or hold their thought so that I can acknowledge another member, so that they can have the opportunity to provide their point of order and engage.

We do not need multiple mics on at the same time because, for interpreters, it is extremely difficult to translate when multiple mics are on and when we have multiple individuals speaking into the mics.

Thank you, Ms. Barron, for that reminder. I hope everybody can follow those simple rules, and we can proceed accordingly.

Mr. Falk, go ahead on a point of order.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Earlier in the meeting, you indicated that we needed to be careful about our language, about the use of unparliamentary language. Just a few moments ago, Mr. Angus used unparliamentary language when he referred to Mr. Brock as “a visitor”. Mr. Brock has asked for an apology and for Mr. Angus to withdraw his statement.

I think Mr. Angus knows the drill very well from his experience yesterday in the House, when the Speaker asked him to withdraw his comments and he chose not to withdraw them. Then the Speaker asked him to remove himself from the House, and he would no longer be heard.

Mr. Chair, I would expect you to maintain that same decorum here.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Falk, for your point of order.

Colleagues, I'll just ask that everybody focus on the study at hand and the clause-by-clause work we're doing on Bill C-50, that we not engage in unparliamentary language towards one another, that we ensure we have a respectful workplace for everyone and that everybody gets an opportunity here to participate. I hope we can do that as we move forward. Thank you for your patience.

Thank you, Mr. Falk.

Mr. Blaikie, go ahead on a point of order.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On the same point of order, in fact, I'm very happy as a visitor to this committee to have the opportunity to speak at this table and to say that I don't find anything objectionable about the language of “visitor”. We know that there are some MPs who are regular standing members of standing committees, and then there are other MPs who come from time to time. Sometimes it's subs, and sometimes it's something else.

I wonder, Mr. Chair, if Mr. Brock would like to give us some guidance on the word he would prefer that we use for MPs who are not regular committee members, but are nevertheless appearing at committee.

I'm satisfied to use the word “visitor”. I don't think there's anything unparliamentary about that. I would say that when I made a little comment, and just the first comment of the evening, in fact, Mr. Brock said he didn't need to hear any more comments from me. Well, in fact, I hadn't made a single comment, which leads me to believe that he thinks I should be making no comments. I often hear Conservatives get quite righteous around tables like these about who to silence.

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

Can I speak, Chair? I have the floor.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

For me to make my first comment of the evening and to be told by Mr. Brock that I should shut up because he doesn't want to hear any more from me—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

I'm paraphrasing. Pardon me if my paraphrasing is a little more aggressive—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Blaikie, I'll ask you to conclude your point of order.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Could we hear from Mr. Brock on what language he would like to use to describe what I, at one time, until very recently, would have called a “visitor” to committee, so that we can designate non-permanent members at committees in the appropriate fashion? There are clearly a lot of them here tonight. I think the concept is going to come up again. Therefore, why don't we have an agreement on what term properly denotes the concept?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Colleagues, earlier in the meeting, I did have a conversation with the committee on who's able to participate. Members here are allowed to participate. Whether we have some voting members or we have some members who have come to participate, everybody's welcome here. We want to give all members, whether you're a long-time committee member or whether you're just coming here for the first time today, the ability to participate in this important discussion we're having on Canada's sustainable jobs act, Bill C-50, and the clause-by-clause work that we're doing today.

I would encourage members at this time also not to.... Once again, I'm trying to do the best I can, but when multiple committee members are telling me who said what and what was said, I can't make much of what's being said. I'll ask all committee members, once again, as a reminder, that we speak one at a time, that we speak when we're recognized by the chair and that we not turn on multiple mics at the same time, because it is very difficult for our interpreters.

Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.

I'm going to go to Mr. Perkins on a point of order.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

It's on the same point of order.

Just to clarify, it's not my first time at this committee. I'm an associate member of this committee, as are all the Conservative members. We're registered as associate members, in addition to being legitimate ones.

In answer to Mr. Blaikie's question, the full-time permanent members, or whatever you want to call them.... We are associate members and are invited, as you said, Mr. Chair, to participate in any.... The associate members are defined in the big green book. You can look it up.

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

Chair, may I continue?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Genuis, I've asked you several times to wait until you're acknowledged. We do have another point of order by another member.

Monsieur Simard, thank you for your patience, sir. Go ahead on the point of order.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In the House of Commons, I've often heard people say that they were a part of team Canada. It would be rather odd for a sovereigntist to say that, but when Conservative, Liberal and NDP members say it, I believe they are expressing a sense of belonging to the Canadian state.

Feeling a sense of belonging to the Canadian state means, it would seem to me, respect for its institutions. What I've seen this evening is anything but respect for institutions.

What I'm seeing is members playing around and noisily trying to determine whose turn it is to speak, and which members in attendance at this meeting of the committee ought not to be here.

The purpose of this meeting is to discuss Bill C‑50. We have barely 20 minutes left and we've only spoken about the bill for about five minutes. We've got bogged down in points of order.

I'm well aware of the fact that people can have different points of view and different policy positions, but I find it highly ironic that a sovereigntist MP should happen to be showing the most respect for Canadian institutions.

There are people out there listening to us. I would ask my friends in the Conservative Party and the NDP to tone things down and show a degree of decorum.

As for me, I want to no part of it. People listening at home must think that taxpayers are paying us to behave like idiots. I want nothing to do with this nonsense.

If we could move on to a discussion of the amendments, a real discussion about Bill C‑50, I believe everyone would be more than happy.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Monsieur Simard, for that important point of order. It's a reminder of why we're here today and of the important work we're here to do, which is the clause-by-clause work the House has ordered us to focus on and do.

As a reminder, if anybody has missed where we are, we're on CPC-4, which was moved by Mr. Patzer. Mr. Genuis has moved a subamendment.

Mr. Genuis, now I will recognize you to continue with your subamendment. I'd ask you to keep it relevant to the subamendment. Could you be succinct so that other members can also participate on your subamendment?

Go ahead.

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

Thank you, Chair.

It is extremely frustrating to have the constant interruptions from the NDP. They are trying to prevent—