Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 30th, 2023

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Angus had the floor, and he is now not able to proceed because we have a number of points of order. I hope we can do that.

All members of the committee, at any point, if you believe there's another member who would like the floor, you can bring that forward to a vote. We can go through that process. Or, if the ruling of the chair is not something you support, you can challenge the chair specifically.

I will acknowledge that if a member would like to speak on the subamendments—you or others—then let me know and we will make sure you have that opportunity after others have spoken.

Right now, Mr. Angus has been waiting patiently to participate in this debate.

Thank you for your point of order.

Mr. Aldag has a point of order. Mr. Angus has a point of order. Then it will be Mr. Patzer.

I hoped that ruling would negate other points of order, but it looks like it has maybe created a few more.

We'll go to Mr. Aldag on a point of order.

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

My point of order, simply, is that we keep relitigating this. We've spent hours this morning and now hours this afternoon on it.

We had a decision by the chair—it's been sustained by the committee—on Mr. Angus being next. He deserves the right to speak. We all deserve the right to speak.

We're not able to move forward and we're not hearing from members. We're not advancing the cause. We keep, as I say, relitigating the same issue over and over. It's been settled.

I would implore my colleagues all around the table to respect these rules. There are lots of other things we can talk about. We can have a good productive discussion about how we can help workers and on other things that this legislation does.

I would like to see us be respectful in the debates. Listen to the chair when you have to interject to move the conversation forward.

Ultimately, Mr. Angus has the floor. We can talk about whatever he's going to put on the table on the amendment that's before us.

My point of order is, let's go with the decision that was made and carry on with the very important business that's before this committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Aldag.

Mr. Angus, on a point of order.

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

Thank you.

Under Standing Order 116 and the ability of members to speak, we've had 56 meetings, 133 witnesses and 112 hours on the energy file. We're more than ready to move forward on Bill C-50 and Bill C-49.

I'm looking at the motion that was provided by the Liberals. Given that we've had this relentless gong show of interruptions, people might not be aware of what we are actually debating. I think it's important to read it into the record:

That given Bill C-50, An Act respecting accountability, transparency and engagement to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy, and Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Canada—Newfoundland—

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

I have a point of order.

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

Chair, you agreed at the beginning of the meeting, at the end of the last meeting, that I have the floor, correct?

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

I have a point of order.

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

I'd like to carry on with my work without being interrupted by what is obviously becoming a very childish attempt to interfere and throw rocks. I am here to read a motion and debate its substance.

a) That the minister and officials be invited to appear—

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

I have a point of order.

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Angus, we do have other points of order. I want you to pause.

I think everybody is starting to.... We do have a point of order on your point of order.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I won't speak over others because of what your ruling was, but I will continue on as soon as they stop.

I was at point a) of the motion that had been brought before us, and I'm more than ready to explain the motion and whether New Democrats are standing with it.

I'm hoping that Mr. Genuis will not have too much left in his bag of tricks, and we can get back to serious work.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

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

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I do have something that maybe the clerk can help enlighten us on. It is the issue that we seem to still be at loggerheads over, and that would be Standing Order 41, in regard to when business is interrupted.

The Standing Orders apply generally. This is a standing order that governs debate in the House of Commons. It does reference when debate happens and then we hit question period or Statements by Members, so that would be like when a member stops. It references it in Standing Order 30(5) as well. When interrupted, the business resumes after the interruption is done, and 30(5) alludes to Statements by Members and question period.

At the end of question period, all other business that happens at that point, with points of order and things like that, it is the member who actually had the floor prior to.... That would be when—

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

I have a point of order.

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

—that person resumes.

This would be the same situation in committee as it is in the House of Commons, because the Standing Orders do apply generally.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you for your point of order.

Every committee is different, and the rules of this committee are established by committee members. My job is to do my best to make sure everybody can participate.

Mr. Patzer, thank you for providing that context.

I will go back to the ruling that was made. If there is a challenge to the ruling, I would encourage you to do that so committee members know. Committee members as a group, a number of members here, can decide if they want to change the speaking order, but the established speaking order is what was determined.

Thank you for your point of order.

We have another point of order from Mr. Genuis. Then I have a point of order from Ms. Dabrusin and then Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you.

Chair, in the discussion about matters of order, Mr. Angus accused me of having a “bag of tricks”. Let me be very clear. I have no bag of tricks, but I do have a book of rules.

The nature of parliamentary committees is to be governed by rules. Those are rules that all members, especially members who act as chair, should be familiar with. I will simply invoke those rules. Those rules prescribe who speaks and in what order.

Mr. Angus is welcome to speak after the member who has the floor is finished speaking. I had the floor and did not, at any point, cede the floor.

Mr. Angus's heckling is actually useful for once because he says I had the floor, and then he says I lost the floor. Now, the only way I can lose the floor is if I cede the floor. There are other—

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

I have a point of order.

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

—extraneous cases, but none of them are involved here.

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

I have a point of order.

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

If Mr. Angus concedes that I had the floor and that I at no point ceded the floor—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Genuis, could I ask you—

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

—then it follows that I have the floor.