Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 30th, 2023

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

Also, the Standing Orders say that members who are not voting members but they are maybe an independent member or a non-official party status member or other colleagues who aren't the main voting members are allowed to participate in a public committee meeting but may not vote. That is what the Standing Orders allow for.

Also, there is the other point that maybe we're going to be subbing in members to speak and they want to get a spot on the list, but maybe we want to sub those members in before they get the floor and other members don't know that. I just want to make sure that we're protecting the rights and privileges of all members regardless of political stripe or whether they are a voting member or not.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Patzer, on that specific point of order.

Members have the right to participate, and members have the right to be subbed in and to participate as well. However, once a member of the committee has the floor, they also have the right for a non-member, who is a non-voting member at that time, to object to participating in debate. That's if they so object and the committee supports that. That's a conversation. If that's needed, I would ask committee members to do so at the appropriate time when they have the floor.

Thank you for your point of order, Mr. Patzer, and for asking for the clarification and providing your context.

I have a point of order from Mr. Genuis and from Mr. Angus.

Mr. Genuis, are you on Mr. Patzer's point of order?

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

No, it's a different point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Angus, are you on—?

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

I'm on Mr. Patzer's—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Okay, I am going to go to Mr. Angus on Mr. Patzer's point of order and then we'll hold there.

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

Thank you.

Since I have the floor and have been recognized, then I have the right to object. I'd like to know whether Mr. Genuis is subbed in. If he isn't, then I would object to his point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

I'm going to Mr. Patzer on the point of order.

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

You literally just finished telling committee members that they cannot do that on a point of order. Mr. Angus raised the point of order, which meant that he does not....

Within that context, he does have the floor for the motion, but you granted him the mike on a point of order, not on returning to the debate of the substantive motion at hand, right? Therefore, Mr. Angus is not actually able and allowed to do that, because it was only on a point of order and now Mr. Genuis has a point of order separately too.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Patzer.

For clarification, so that there is no misunderstanding on what I provided a ruling on earlier, it was that we cannot move a motion pertaining to a member's participation who is a non-voting member at the committee on a point of order. We have to have the floor. We would have to get back to the speaking order, and whoever has the floor, or any other member at that time, if they feel it necessary, can move that motion, but not from a point of order.

I hope that clarifies, just to make sure that everybody is up to speed, because I did go through it quite quickly. I hope that's now clarified.

When a member regains the floor, they can proceed with doing that.

With that clarity, Mr. Genuis, you have a point of order.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I had wanted to participate earlier, but I was having some technical issues. Now that I'm not virtual and I'm here in person, I want to raise a point of order with respect to the important issue of the health and safety of interpreters.

You presented some information to the committee alleging that having multiple microphones engaged at the same time causes health and safety risks for interpreters. It is my understanding that this is inaccurate.

I wonder if the clerk could clarify—

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

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

—whether it is a health and safety issue for interpreters to have multiple microphones engaged at the same time. I hope to get accurate information.

The clerk is allowed to speak to the committee on that important health and safety issue, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

Welcome to the committee today.

I know of your earlier attempts to participate online, so thank you for joining us in person.

Monsieur Simard, go ahead on the point of order.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I would just like to inform my colleagues that we had that debate earlier. I don't know if he was en route from the airport to Parliament Hill, but we've exhausted that issue. I stressed—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Monsieur Simard, we don't have translation. Perhaps you could hold your thought until we can all hear.

Monsieur Simard, start with a few words, so that we can make sure—

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Yes. I wanted to inform my colleague in a friendly manner that we had that debate earlier. I don't know if he could hear us speak while en route from the airport to Parliament Hill, but we've already had that debate.

If we want to be effective and efficient, we won't revisit our debates every five minutes because a new MP is joining us. That would be ridiculous. I think we can move on to something else and yield the floor back to Mr. Angus.

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

I was listening the entire time. I'd like to hear from the clerk.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Genuis, I'll ask you to hold until you're recognized. Thank you.

Monsieur Simard, thank you for raising that.

This was addressed previously at this meeting today. We have had concerns from our interpreters at previous meetings that when multiple mikes are on, it does pose a concern and a hazard to health and safety, which I have brought forward to this committee.

We had this conversation earlier today. It was brought forward to committee members. We had a lengthy conversation about this. I think, on that issue, we're going to move forward.

I'm going to—

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

I have a point of order, Chair.

I want to hear from the clerk, because what you're saying isn't true. That's why the clerk should be—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Genuis, we are not going to use a point of order to debate me as the chair. We have provided the context and information to committee members. That was addressed earlier this meeting.

Now I will go to the point of order from Ms. Stubbs.

We have Ms. Stubbs and Mr. Sorbara on a point of order.

Go ahead on the point of order, if you still have one.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thanks, Chair.

On that note, I think the reason Mr. Genuis is raising this issue is that I did ask earlier about the distinction between people speaking into mikes at the same time and its impact on the ability for translators to do their job function well, which I know they all want to do as they serve us, as we represent our constituents and Canadians here. I think what Mr. Genuis is concerned with is that there has been repetition subsequent to that conversation relative to these claims about health and safety, which is a distinction I asked to be drawn earlier.

We have been advised that there are no impacts on health and safety through competing voices in mikes. The problem, as Mr. Simard also articulated well earlier, is about the ability for translators to do their jobs effectively here, as is their expertise and their responsibility.

Again, in the context of us all respecting each other and our work here, maintaining order and not unnecessarily inflaming each other or drawing objective, non-partisan servants of this committee of all kinds into what is our responsibility for our function as members of the committee on behalf of our constituents and all Canadians, I think that's the clarity Mr. Genuis is looking for.

We have been advised, including by extremely senior officials and professionals in this regard here in this organization, that it is in fact a matter of the ability for translation to happen seamlessly.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you for your point of order.

It does pose a challenge for interpretation. That is one. I've raised this and clarified this earlier. In a previous meeting, it was raised as a concern by the interpreters, so that's why we brought it forward. It is a health and safety concern. That's been identified. That's been stated clearly at today's meeting and previously. I think we're good on this issue.

We're going to move now to Mr. Sorbara on a point of order.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Chair, as it is commonly known, many of us have worked on committees for many years. My understanding, in terms of the decorum—I don't know if it's in the procedural rules—is that the floor is given to a member when the chair recognizes an individual, independent of political party and who the chair might be.

It seems to me that on occasion—it has happened today—folks like to say “point of order” and then start speaking before they're even recognized by the chair.

I would hope that type of behaviour stops. People can make their points of order when you recognize them via the clerk and the clerk has written down their names and let you know. I think we need to continue on that front. I think we all understand those rules and that decorum. It allows our interpreters a flow of information.

I would like to go back to the motion I put forward. Unfortunately, it wasn't adopted that day. I think in normal times it would be adopted quite easily and we would move on to both bills, one of which is very important to the Atlantic provinces and to the people of Atlantic Canada. The second one is very important to all workers across Canada in all our ridings.

I believe the CPC has put forward a subamendment with regard to my motion. I would love to see that brought to a vote on the floor of this committee, so we can move on that.

I'll finish up. We all know that committees have minds of their own—or at least they should. We can go in that direction. However, I do want to raise the first point on the decorum. People should not speak until they are recognized by the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Sorbara, for waiting patiently to have your opportunity on the point of order.

That is what I have asked of everybody. We do our best to make sure we recognize all members. When you raise your hand, we'll get you down. I'm not perfect by any means. I try to do the best I can to look across the floor to give everybody here an opportunity to participate.

I would remind colleagues at this point once again that points of order should be used only for procedural issues and not for debate on what you believe a member has said or not said. It's to be used for a procedural issue, not for debate on the motion at hand. Try to be succinct on the point of order. That's an important piece, because we can sometimes verge into debate as well. Use a point of order to be succinct on the specific point so we can move forward.

If you do want to participate on the subamendment, let me know. I'll acknowledge you. I'll put you on the list and you'll have your opportunity to debate the subamendment on Timmins that's on the floor.

We do have another point of order before we go to Mr. Angus, so he can wrap up his points on the subamendment and others can speak. We do have others on the speaking list as well.

I'm going to Mr. Patzer on the point of order.