Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 30th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Hold on.

To clarify, Mr. Angus had the floor. We have a number of points of order. I would ask members not to turn on their mikes. A member can move a motion when they have the floor, as long as it's procedurally correct in how it's....

It's not a substantive one. That's procedurally where we're at, based on that.

I want to go to the other points of order that are in place. We had a number of people with points of order and I don't see the folks....

Ms. Stubbs, go ahead. I just wanted to make sure, because I think another member had a point of order as well.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Yes, maybe they did.

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I don't know if you'll have the clerk clarify for us further, but of course Mr. Genuis asked for actual references from House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Bosc and Gagnon, or wherever else. There may be applicable Standing orders.

We await that, but we understand, of course, “A dilatory motion is a motion designed to dispose of the original question before the committee, either for the time being or permanently.” They “do not require notice, nor can they be amended or debated....” “If a dilatory motion is accompanied by a condition, it becomes a substantive motion. It is then subject to the rules on the admissibility”, at which point it does become “debatable and amendable.”

Perhaps the clerk can expand specifically on rules or citations, as Mr. Genuis originally asked. We would also ask for an example of a precedent in this regard, whether moving that a non-member be unable to speak has ever been voted on as a dilatory motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We will go to the other points of order before we respond, because I think the clerk has provided that clearly in his remarks in a moment.

We will go to Mr. Angus on the point of....

I want to make sure, because....

Mr. Angus, before we go to you, I'm going to go to Mr. Patzer.

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

Then, we'll go to you, Mr. Angus.

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

Further to that point, on page 1065 under “Substantive Motions”, it says, “A substantive motion is a separate, self-contained motion.” I think Mr. Angus's motion fits that description quite well. It says, “It does not arise from another motion”—which also fits the description. “Generally, a substantive motion is debatable and amendable.”

It's quite clear based on the text found in House of Commons Procedure and Practice on page 1065 that what Mr. Angus said fits the very definition of what a substantive motion is. Therefore, it is debatable and is not a dilatory motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Correct. Thank you, Mr. Patzer.

That is the ruling from what the clerk has provided the committee. The way it was phrased, the motion could not be placed in that fashion. That's what the clerk did provide for clarity.

Mr. Angus, I'm going to you. You still have the floor on the point of order.

Are you on a point of order?

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

I'm just finishing, because I've been interrupted multiple times.

The issue is that, as you've said, for us to make reasonable complaints about certain parties trying to bring in as many members as possible getting on there has to be some rule. The rule was that when someone had the floor they could raise that as an objection. I raised an objection. A simple objection is that non-voting members not be allowed to be recognized.

That's what I would go for. That's simple and it's within my right to ask. That would be a simple dilatory motion.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Angus, you are correct on how that was placed. There was a difference on how the motion was placed. That is correct on the motion you have placed.

Colleagues, that motion is correct and has been placed. We will proceed to a vote on that—

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

I have a point of order, Chair.

What is the motion, exactly?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Once again, Mr. Genuis, I have not recognized you and you've turned your....

The motion is that non-members not be allowed to participate in the public portion of our meeting. That is what the member has asked for.

Yes, go ahead.

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

You had asked if I was on a point of order or the floor, and I said I still had the floor.

I was clarifying that the motion is that the chair does not recognize non-voting members to speak. It's simple and dilatory.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Colleagues, we will suspend for a few minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Colleagues, based on what's been presented, at this point, I'm not ready to rule on this today. I will come back at the next meeting once we can work with the clerk to do a bit more research on the specifics of what was moved and proposed.

I want to be clear on that, just so we make sure we are correct in what we're doing. The clerk does need a bit more time to go into the details and provide information to the chair.

I'm going back to Mr. Angus.

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

I want to get back to the main motion, so I withdraw my motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Do we have unanimous consent for the member to withdraw his motion?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

We'll make our decision based on the procedural clarification.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Genuis.

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

I have a point of order. The motion is not moved unless you allow it to be moved. A withdrawal is not required. The motion has simply not been moved. To say you need unanimous consent to withdraw the motion implies that the motion was moved. You've said you haven't ruled whether that motion could be moved, yet you want to suspend your determination.

I'm comfortable with Mr. Angus proceeding without the motion being moved, but it is an important point for the precedent we establish that the motion is not being withdrawn. The motion was not moved and therefore, no unanimous consent is required.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

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

The interpretation you have provided is correct.

Mr. Angus, you still have the floor.

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

I'm done.

You can go to the next speaker.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We have a point of order by Mr. Dreeshen.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

I wanted to wait until Mr. Angus was finished.

I'm wondering, Mr. Chair, because we've had discussions with the clerk and so on, if we could hear from our clerk as to whether or not he's been informed by the head clerk regarding the crosstalk. Is it actually a health and safety issue or is that a term we are simply using, because it seems, perhaps, logical to use? I want to know for sure if there has been any discussion between the clerk and the head clerk with regard to that.

If we use terminology that is inflammatory, that causes some grief. I don't need to have the answer today, but I would like to hear from the clerk at some time with regard to that.

Thank you, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

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

I'll remind colleagues, before I move to Ms. Dabrusin, who is next.... It might be next meeting, Ms. Dabrusin. Thank you for your patience.

This was raised previously and is for all members. Number one, for the interpreters to be able to interpret, there needs to be one individual speaking at a time, so it's clear for them to hear what's happening. At a previous meeting, when asked, the interpreters raised this as a concern. As chair, I want to make sure that everybody who works here in this committee is working in a safe environment, particularly the interpreters, who are doing a tremendous job of interpretation, and that it's clear for them to hear and we don't get a number of people speaking at the same time. Concerns have been raised previously.

I think I'm clear on that. If the clerks get any more information, they can provide it to me moving forward, and I will bring it to committee.

Folks, we're approaching our time.

Thank you for working hard at today's committee.

Thank you, Mr. Angus, for your patience while concluding your remarks.

We will proceed at the next meeting with Ms. Dabrusin, who will start us off.

Have a great day. The meeting is suspended.

[The meeting was suspended at 1:01 p.m., Monday, November 20]

[The meeting resumed at 4:36 p.m., Wednesday, November 22]

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome back to meeting number 80 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources. Today we are meeting in public to discuss committee business.

In accordance with our routine motion, I'm informing the committee that all remote participants have completed the required connection tests in advance of the meeting.

Before we proceed to resuming debate on the subamendment of Mr. Falk, I would like to address the concerns expressed by some members at the last meeting in relation to suspensions due to a concern for the health and safety of the interpreters. Some committees, including this one, have been experiencing episodes of disorder in recent weeks. It is not uncommon for members to speak over each other or to open their own microphone without waiting to be recognized by the chair.

As I mentioned, the question arose as to whether this could constitute a health and safety problem. By default, I have been on the cautionary side of things. However, the House administration has consulted the translation bureau and multimedia services, who confirm that disorder in committee is not itself a health and safety issue. A feedback incident or someone banging on a microphone could contribute to risk, but this is not the case with many people speaking at the same time.

This type of situation can, however, affect the ability of interpreters to provide interpretation if they are unable to keep up with the flow of conversation. When this happens, there will be an interruption in service. The interpreters will inform the committee when this happens, as they already do in cases where the sound quality of remote participants is not good.

As chair, I will remain vigilant. I want to make sure that interpretation is available to ensure equal and fair participation of all members in accordance with the Official Languages Act and the Constitution. I would like to remind members that there should be no situation where several members open their microphone and speak all at once. Only the chair has the authority to recognize the member who has the floor. At no time are members allowed to open their microphone and speak without first being recognized by the chair, either in the course of a debate or on a point of order.

In the case of disorder, the chair is still allowed to suspend the meeting, as I have mentioned previously, and as stated at pages 1058 and 1059 of the procedural book.

Thank you for your attention and co-operation in this regard.

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

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

Thank you, Chair.

On a point of order, if I understand the information you just shared with the committee, you have in past sessions of this meeting repeatedly provided false information to this committee about health and safety risks. Despite Conservative members regularly trying to correct your false information, you doubled down in the assertion that having multiple mikes open was a risk to health and safety, which it clearly was not, which we knew it wasn't, and which I believe the clerk knew and told you it wasn't.

You've described your actions as taking a cautionary approach, but you in fact presented false information to this committee, information that you should have known was false about the health and safety of interpreters. I think it would be more appropriate for you to actually offer an apology to the committee for your past statements and acknowledge your personal responsibility for what took place.