Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 30th, 2023

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

Thank you, Chair.

Let's just quickly let it be known also that it was Mr. Angus who was trying to shout over top of you just a few seconds ago.

My point of order is that we cannot pick and choose which standing orders we decide to follow. Either we follow all of them or we don't follow any of them. If we're going to accept the standing order that was quoted by Ms. Dabrusin, but not the one that was quoted earlier by me....

The Standing Orders are here to govern and guide this committee. I know there's leeway for committees, but the Standing Orders are actually quite clear. In fact, there is also another lovely book called House of Commons Procedure and Practice. In chapter 20 it says:

Every standing, legislative and special committee observes the Standing Orders of the House of Commons so far as they may be applicable, except the Standing Orders as to the election of a Speaker, seconding of motions, limiting the number of times of speaking and the length of speeches.

This means that, in principle, the number of times a member may speak in committee, and the length of his or her speeches is not subject to any limit. The member can thus take the floor as often and for as long as he or she wishes, provided the chair has duly given the member the floor.

This goes back to the point I was making in regard to the standing order that I quoted before. If we were to read the transcripts from the last meeting.... Perhaps the clerk would like to do that to settle this once and for all as to who had the floor. According to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, chapter 20, it would clearly say that Mr. Genuis had the floor, based on who had it at the end of the meeting.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you for that.

That standing order does refer to rules around debate. What was clearly identified was the speaking order moving forward, and the member was given the opportunity. I encourage you once again. If the member would like to debate, they will be recognized, and they can debate after other members have the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Angus has the floor.

Mr. Patzer, I would say that you as a member—or any other member—has the right to challenge the chair.

If you would like another member to speak, you can bring that forward, and you can proceed to do that as it's been done previously over several meetings. I will say you have the right to do that, Mr. Patzer—or any other member as well.

Colleagues, again, Mr. Angus does have the floor.

Before I go to you, Mr. Angus—

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

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

—Mr. Genuis does have a point of order.

I will remind all members to reference why they're making a point of order, its relevancy. Please be succinct, because we are on a point of order, and do not engage in debate while you're on the point of order.

Thank you.

Mr. Genuis.

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

Thank you, Chair, for at long last allowing me to raise a point of order, which other members have done.

I did want to, on matters of order, first speak on the issue of health and safety, which is an extremely important issue. I am flabbergasted by the sanctimony expressed by Mr. Angus, while he persistently violates the rules that he purports to be concerned about.

I take, as you were saying, the importance of not having multiple members speaking on the mike at the same time. However, if that is the case, then other members should not interrupt me when I am trying to raise points of order. What we have persistently seen is this perverse inclination of Mr. Angus, as well as the chair—

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

Point of order.

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

—to interrupt members while they are speaking, and then to simultaneously complain about multiple members talking at once. The implication is that out of concern for health and safety, I should silence myself the moment Mr. Angus wants to speak—

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

It's debate.

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

—out of deference to him, in the process of being concerned about health and safety.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Genuis, I'll ask you to pause.

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

We have the same thing happening with you, the chair, when I am trying to raise a point of order. You are now interrupting me. Apparently, I'm at fault for two people speaking at once, even though you are coming on in the middle of me trying to raise a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Genuis, I asked you to pause.

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

It's flagrant hypocrisy from you and Mr. Angus, and disregard for basic fairness.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Genuis, I asked you—

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

I am happy to have one member at a time talking, but if you don't let me talk and if you constantly interrupt and then try to make it out to be my fault when I try to finish what I'm saying, that's clearly unreasonable.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Genuis, I'll ask you to pause.

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

I hope you'll come back to me.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

As I said, on a point of order, be succinct, so we don't get into debate. Members have that right, but not to endless debate on points of order.

Mr. Angus has a point of order, so I'm going to him.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I will recognize you, as well, Mr. Aldag.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Go ahead, Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Now that I'm well over four and a half hours into being denied my right to have the floor, Mr. Genuis is claiming that, when you, as chair, use your rule, you're somehow interrupting him. That is false. He can accuse me of all manner of things, but I listen to the chair. The chair has the right to decide whether something is relevant or not and whether something is debate or not. The chair has the right to shut down someone who is ignoring that. That's what led to the health and safety situation the last time. Mr. Genuis decided he did not have to listen to anyone. He could talk through it. This is happening again.

I'm asking you, Mr. Chair, to remind us that someone who is not speaking on a point of order, but rather undermining the chair and claiming the chair has no right to speak over Mr. Genuis.... Whenever he takes the floor in this manner, it is not parliamentarian, and it is putting the health and safety of our translators at risk.

I'd like you to rule on that, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

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

As chair, I will intervene and try to do so when a member pauses. However, I ask members to ensure they are succinct with points of order. Make points of order so that the chair can provide a ruling, or so we can provide more information about why the point of order was raised.

Go ahead, Mr. Aldag, on a point of order.

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

I am building on what our colleague, Mr. Angus, raised.

Chapter 20 talks about points of order and when they can be raised. It indicates proceedings can be temporarily suspended, but points of order must be considered by the chair, who determines whether the point of order has merit. The chair will generally make an immediate decision on a point of order, but sometimes the chair needs to take it under advisement.

The points of order being raised, we've been listening to them for days—for hours and hours, and for days and days.

I will make two points.

One is that we've heard the points of order. You made your decisions, including on speaking order, and we need to be able to move on. I've made that case before, but we're still stuck in this debate. I remind people that the chair, when a point of order is raised, needs to make a decision. That has happened. It's been sustained through a challenge to the chair.

Furthermore, to the point of the chair being accused of interrupting people, the chair's role is to maintain the flow and decorum within in. I challenge all members to.... When the chair's microphone comes on, the respectful thing to do is pause and let the chair make his ruling and provide direction. That's the only way this committee can function. Otherwise, we have the dysfunction we've been seeing for several days now.

I ask us to abide by the Standing Orders we have. We've had enough repetition. We've had enough challenges to the chair. We've ruled on them. Let's move on. Let's debate the subamendment before us on northern Ontario and see whether we can do the work we've been sent here to do.

My office is getting thousands of letters right now from Albertans asking us to move forward with this legislation, and from Atlantic Canadians who want to see Bill C-49 move forward. This is not doing justice to why we have been brought to Ottawa.

The Standing Orders provide us with the rules needed to move forward.

I ask all members to do the work we've been sent here to do.