Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 30th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you for your point of order.

I have not made a ruling on what Mr. Genuis has brought forward at this point.

Since we're having this important discussion, I'm going to provide some additional context and information. I would like all members to refer to page 1026 of the third edition:

The Standing Orders provide that any Member, whether affiliated with a political party or sitting as an independent, may take part in public proceedings of any committee of which he or she is not a member, unless the House or the committee in question orders otherwise. The Standing Orders specifically exclude a non-member from voting, moving motions or being counted for purposes of a quorum.

I hope that provides additional context to all members on what may have transpired previously and where we're at today. Once again, I will refer all members to page 1026 of the third edition.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Is the document you're referring to the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice or the annotated Standing Orders?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

It's the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

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

Thank you.

I'll look forward to responding in detail to your interpretation of that section.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

That section, Mr. Genuis, is right out of the book.

I think, on the point of order, the members have made a very good point on directing what has previously occurred.

I would ask you to be succinct and continue to ensure we have opportunities for other members to participate and move forward.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am grateful for your reflections, which I hold in the appropriate esteem.

I will observe that—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

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

On a point of order, that's not appropriate, Garnett.

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

What's not appropriate?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

There's a point of order by Ms. Dabrusin.

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

Seriously—

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

Who are you to determine the appropriate esteem?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Look, members....

Mr. Sorbara, I apologize. I heard two points of order.

Mr. Patzer, let's not speak over each other.

Mr. Sorbara, go ahead on the point of order.

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

I said what I said. The member mentioned something to you indirectly about what he wanted to do directly. It was quite obvious. It's unfortunate that the decorum of that member is in such a manner this afternoon.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Colleagues, I've made this statement several times during this meeting.

We're all here to do important work on behalf of the committee. We want to ensure that all committee members have the opportunity to participate in debate today, in the important discussions we're having on the motion that was originally placed, the amendment that was placed, the subamendment that was placed, and now the motion Mr. Genuis has placed.

Mr. Genuis, as we move forward, focus on what your motion is, so we can hear it and make a decision as a committee.

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

Thank you for your reflections, Chair. I will hold back on opining on them too much for fear of causing Mr. Sorbara further consternation. I will certainly continue to comport myself in accordance with the rules of the committee.

I note that in spite of my having the floor, various members—I think it's most members at this point—have nonetheless found ways to put their opinions on the matter at hand on the record. They are ways that may not be fully in conformity with the rules, but they have nonetheless been interesting.

I will go back to comment on a few of the points of debate that were made recently, and then I will return to the issues I was speaking about previously.

Mr. Angus seemed troubled by the fact that there are multiple Conservative members in the room beyond the regular members. I think you can understand that a discussion about freedom of speech and the energy sector is one that greatly interests Conservative members and has led to great interest—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I'm sorry, Mr. Genuis. I have a point of order from Monsieur Simard.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Chair, I just want us to review this matter from the beginning.

I have a very simple question for my colleague.

What is he trying to show with his way of speaking and acting? What's the point of what he's saying? Is his objective to make it so that Mr. Viersen has a right to speak? Is it to have the committee report to the House that we have violated Mr. Viersen's privileges? That's my understanding.

Now he's talking about freedom of speech. However, I don't think that has anything to do with the matter before us.

I'd like to be clear. I simply want my colleague to tell us the purpose of his intervention. I would point out to him once again that, if his objective is to make it so Mr. Viersen has a right to speak, I will object. The rules of the House allow me to do so. His remarks will therefore be null and void. Furthermore, if the purpose of his intervention is to have the committee report to the House that Mr. Viersen has suffered a breach of his privilege, I believe, as I look at all my colleagues, that his remarks will also be null and void.

I clearly request that Mr. Genuis tell me what he wants to achieve by his intervention, apart from telling me about freedom of expression, which has nothing to do with the matter initially put before us. I just want to know what he seeks to accomplish by his intervention.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Genuis, on the point of order that Monsieur Simard has raised of how it ties into what you're trying to accomplish with your argument, bring it back to your motion at hand on the privilege. If you could, provide clarity on that as a reference to that point of order.

Be succinct to finish what you're presenting so that other members have an opportunity to proceed and participate, and this committee can get back to its work.

Go ahead, Mr. Angus.

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

I want to clarify what I heard from Mr. Simard. I want to have this clear so that I understand it going forward.

Mr. Simard said if members, say, Mr. Perkins or Mr. Viersen, who are not voting members of the committee attempt to speak, he will object. That will mean they actually have no right to speak, because their right to speak is contingent upon the committee agreeing to let non-members speak.

Is that what I heard from Mr. Simard? It would make Mr. Genuis's point moot, but he could talk all night about whatever he wants to talk about, because we're dealing with a filibuster against Bill C-50.

On the issue of non-voting members trying to speak, if there's an objection raised, they will not be recognized.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

I want to be clear that members can speak unless the committee authorizes otherwise. At that opportunity, when the member gets the floor, there can be an objection from a committee member. It's the will of the committee at that point.

Hopefully, that clarifies your point of order.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, could you inform me, as a follow-up to your comment before that, what the speaking list is on this, please?

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

On a point of order, is Mr. Perkins on the list as a voting member? If he's not, then I object to him asking that question. If Mr. Perkins is not a voting member, based on Mr. Simard's question, then I object to his question and say that we should move on.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you for your point of order, Mr. Angus. If you could, give me a moment to reflect.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

On a point of order, it's so clear that the NDP-Liberals just love censorship and shutting people down, don't they?