Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 30th, 2023

[An hon. member]

A point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

We have a point of order from Monsieur Simard.

Mr. Angus, I have you recognized, and I will acknowledge you afterwards.

I'll respond right now to Mr. Genuis.

Mr. Genuis, concerns were raised last meeting regarding health and safety concerns by some members. At a previous meeting, it was advised that some members of interpretation did have a concern. We did ask the House interpretation and multimedia services to provide us with further context on where their concerns could arise.

I will be diligent if we do have concerns from the interpreters. If they're unable to do their work and they do have concerns, we will do whatever we can to make sure they can do their very important work to the best of their ability.

Thank you for your point of order.

I will now proceed to Monsieur Simard.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm somewhat surprised at the point of order raised by my colleague Mr. Genuis, who actually just told us that we can talk over each other with the chair's consent. That's what he just said because the points that you made, Mr. Chair, concerned the din that we had in committee.

For about a month now, we've spent our time trying to determine whose turn it is to speak in arguments that go on ad infinitum, and what Mr. Genuis is telling us is that we should keep it up because it has no impact on the interpreters' health.

Personally, in the past few weeks, I've seen—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

No, that's not what he said.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Let me finish. I know you have a right to heckle. Just let me finish. It'll be for your benefit too.

In the past few weeks, I've seen Conservative members make and distribute videos as though they had been denied the right to speak during committee meetings.

I just want to point out to everyone that we are legislators. We aren't YouTubers. Our objective here is to advance legislative measures, and we can discuss those legislative measures even if they don't agree with our ideological beliefs. We all have a chance to do so.

What I've seen in the past few weeks is disgraceful. What my colleague Mr. Genuis just requested is that we allow that behaviour to remain disgraceful because it won't harm the interpreters.

I hope that someone watching us at home sees that today and holds my Conservative colleagues accountable.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Monsieur Simard, for your point of order.

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible—Editor] point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

No, I will go to one point of order at a time.

I know that Mrs. Stubbs....

Would you like to queue on the point of order?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

It's not on this one. I had a—

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

My point of order is on Mr. Simard's comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Okay, colleagues.

Mr. Angus, I have acknowledged you, and I'll come to you. I had Mrs. Stubbs prior to you, so I'll go to Mrs. Stubbs and then you.

Mr. Patzer, go ahead on the point of order of Monsieur Simard.

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

There we go.

I just think it's extremely important to note that sometimes the banter that does happen in this room is when the microphone isn't on. To insinuate that members are shouting into the microphones as a means of disrupting each other on purpose.... No one is turning their microphone on so that they can chirp somebody on the other side. If somebody is having a bit of banter back and forth, then quite often, probably about 99% of the time, it's actually with the microphone off. It's just individual banter between the two people.

Mr. Chair, when we're having our interventions, as we are right now, it's important to have the microphone on so that it can be interpreted for everybody to hear. But let's say John and I were having just a bit of banter back and forth. Before you were chair, sometimes we would do that.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

[Inaudible—Editor]

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

Yes—just like that right there.

I mean, that's not abusive or offensive to the interpreters when you just mention a quick little whisper. I don't really care that you do that. You didn't say it in a rude and angry way. It's kind of fun and good-natured. It's not, “Oh, no, now he's glaring at me”—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Patzer, I would ask you to stay on the point of order, please.

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

The point is that, look, we're all grown-ups. We can have a little good-natured banter back and forth on some of the points. Obviously, many of us have different views and opinions on things. Sometimes, to avoid blasting into the microphone on people, we just want to say, “John, nice haircut!” We don't want to cut somebody off or interject over top of somebody just to say that to John.

You have a nice haircut today too, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, and thank you for your point of order.

Colleagues, I would remind everybody about the statement I just made about multiple microphones being on. On many occasions over a number of meetings we have had multiple microphones on. It is very difficult for the interpreters to be able to interpret when that occurs. I think last meeting everybody focused on working together to ensure that we didn't do that. I think we had a much more successful meeting overall, because we accomplished quite a bit compared with previous meetings.

I encourage everybody to focus on the statement I made to ensure that when your microphones are on.... When you're acknowledged, turn on your microphone and go ahead and make your debate or point of order. When not, have your microphone off. We make our best efforts to make sure that everybody gets a chance to participate and be acknowledged.

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

I'll go to Mrs. Stubbs on the point of order, and then to Mr. Angus right after that.

Mrs. Stubbs, go ahead on the point of order.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Can I get on the list again after? I had asked for my point of order earlier on a different topic, but I will speak to Mr. Simard's point of order now.

Conservatives certainly agree with Monsieur Simard's assessment of what we are all here to do. It is, of course, why Conservatives made a good-faith amendment on the scheduling motion three weeks ago. On behalf of my colleague, Garnett Genuis, he actually didn't make the claims or say the words that Monsieur Simard was suggesting at all. What he said was that he was looking for clarity on what is obviously repeated misinformation regarding the health and safety of interpreters. It was indeed us who asked at the last meeting for clarity on that because of our deep concern for the health and safety of all of the objective, expert, non-partisan public servants of this committee and all of us as we do our duties on behalf of the people who elected us.

I just wanted to clarify that.

Certainly my colleague, Garnett Genuis, has demonstrated his capacity and ability to be extraordinarily eloquent and articulate in his own right and probably doesn't need me to make this point on his behalf. It is just the case that while we agree with Monsieur Simard's assessment of our core functions here, and Conservatives have clearly been trying to engage in good faith on both principal and procedural items here, his assertions were not at all what Garnett Genuis said.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mrs. Stubbs.

I will just remind colleagues on the health and safety issue, just for clarity. Interpretation is difficult if multiple microphones are on. On the health and safety concern for interpretation and multimedia services, the concern has to do with the potential for banging—even a banging of your mike. I would encourage everyone to refrain from doing that.

That's the information that has been provided to us. I think that's just a good heads-up for everybody who's participating to make sure that we don't do that. Thank you for your understanding, assistance, patience and co-operation.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you for that clarification.

I accidentally did that in the House of Commons yesterday, too. I hit my desk and someone said the same thing. I was like, “Oh, no!”

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mrs. Stubbs, for acknowledging that.

Mr. Angus, thank you for being patient. Go ahead on the point of order.

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

Thank you.

Speaking of patience, we're now 21 minutes into it and once again we've heard a whole series of objections from the Conservatives, led off by Mr. Genuis. I thought that was a drive-by smear at you, Chair.

I think the role of the chair is to keep a meeting going. Having multiple people speaking over the mics is an abusive tactic. If Mr. Genuis demands an apology of you, he's challenging the chair. Either Mr. Genuis can challenge the chair or the rest of us are ready to move on. I certainly supported your decisions and your attempt to keep this committee focused on what's at hand, which is legislation.

If there's a challenge, that's fair play. Otherwise, can we get down to business? I will certainly support the work of the chair in going forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

We'll go to Ms. Dabrusin on the point of order.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What I take from what Mrs. Stubbs was saying is that the Conservatives are eager to talk about the legislation we have before us.

As I understand it, I am the next one who has the floor at this moment. I would appreciate being able to speak to the subamendment.

We have been taking a long time on the subamendment. In fact, I believe Mr. Patzer talked about Mr. Aldag's hair. This is the second haircut he has had while we have engaged in this long-winded discussion that has not allowed us to actually get to a vote on the subamendment.

I would ask, Mr. Chair, if I can have the floor and finally begin the debate on this.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin, for your point of order.

Mr. Genuis, you had a point of order.

Colleagues, I just want to remind everyone—I think this is a good opportunity—that we do not use points of order for engaging in debate. If you'd like to debate and talk about the subamendment, please let me know. I'll put you on the list, and as we go through speakers, you'll have your opportunity to fully engage on debate.

Where we are on debate is with Ms. Dabrusin. As she mentioned, does have the floor on the subamendment moved by Mr. Falk.

Just to remind everybody who is at home watching across Canada, coast to coast to coast, we have had Mr. Sorbara place a motion. We had an amendment placed to that motion, and now we have a subamendment on the floor, which was moved by Mr. Falk. Ms. Dabrusin has the floor.

If there is still a point of order on anything, I want to go to the points of order, but I would like to proceed, then, to Ms. Dabrusin getting the floor.

Before you begin on your point of order, Mr. Genuis—this is not to you or any other member—I would ask all members, as a reminder, to use their point of order as a point of order and not to engage in debate within their points of order.

Go ahead.