Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 30th, 2023

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Being a good and charitable man, I can help my Conservative colleague resolve this impasse by noting a few parameters of this dispute.

As I remember it, the point was raised that only members of the committee may speak. When his colleague requested the floor, he was not a member. Then my Conservative colleagues began raising points of privilege.

What we understand from a procedural standpoint is that, if this point of privilege is submitted in committee, the committee will have to report it to the House to determine whether it's deemed acceptable. We're very far from doing that.

I also understand that, as a member, I may object to giving the floor to an MP who isn't a voting member. We're only debating something purely hypothetical, since, as an MP member of this committee, I intend to object to allowing an MP who isn't a voting member to have a right to speak. Anyone of the meanest intelligence watching at home will understand that this makes no sense. I don't know whether my colleague is aware that what he's asking us to do is to grant a non-member the right to speak. That can easily be avoided under our procedures.

As a member, I need only say that I oppose that. Furthermore, I don't know whether my colleague knows that the act of raising a point of privilege in committee presupposes that the committee agrees to report the matter. I don't think we'll prepare a report because my Conservative colleagues want to filibuster. It would be patently ridiculous.

Do you agree with me? I think there are other, more elegant ways to filibuster than this. Perhaps we could move on to something else and have a slightly more interesting discussion. Are the parameters that I just outlined to my colleague fine with him? Does he understand what I'm saying?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Simard.

This is a very good question that Monsieur Simard has raised.

Mr. Genuis, how do you respond to exactly what the member has raised?

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We have Mr. Angus on a point of order.

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

I don't want to interrupt Mr. Genuis. I know I give him lots of fodder, so he'll talk all night.

My colleague, Mr. Simard, had asked for a ruling that he didn't get, if I remember the last meeting. Again, someone can speak. This idea that freedom of speech is freedom of speech.... It is freedom of speech when you are recognized by the chair; otherwise, it's a mob. If somebody isn't recognized by the chair, they haven't lost their freedom of speech.

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

I have a point of order.

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

I'm sorry, but I'm finishing here.

Mr. Simard had asked a question at the last—

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Perhaps you could be very succinct on your point of order.

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

I'll be very succinct.

It was on whether or not someone who is not.... If someone objects—

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

I would like to be succinct. I have a point of order on this point, Mr. Chair.

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

—to a non-voting member speaking...whether or not they are allowed to speak and be recognized.

He asked this at the last meeting, and you did not rule on it. He's asking it again.

It's unfair to go to Mr. Genuis and ask what Mr. Genuis thinks. We need to know what the chair thinks.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

Rest assured everybody will get a chance. I just want to make sure that, procedurally, he got his point of order in.

We have Mr. Patzer on the point of order.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I do believe this will help remedy Mr. Angus's concern. The point was raised, and after that point was raised, you then proceeded to grant Mr. Genuis the floor, because you agreed that his point was actually in order. Therefore, this is why we are discussing this issue right now. You proceeded to allow the debate to happen. This is where we are. That was your ruling, in effect, and now we are here.

Thank you.

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

Point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We have another point of order by Mr. Angus.

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

I don't have to draw it in big crayons. We're not debating whether Mr. Genuis has the floor. The question was whether or not someone who does not have a—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Angus, can you hold it, please.

Once again, colleagues, I can listen to only one member at a time. I'm trying to acknowledge everybody so I can hear a point of order. I would ask all members not to get into a debate while we are presenting our points of order and also not to turn on their mikes and try to get my attention, because I can't hear the point of order then.

I will ask the member to start from the top so I can understand what the point of order is.

Please, I just want to hear—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

He should not imply—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Ms. Stubbs—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

—that we need colouring books and crayons to figure it out, Mr. Chair. That's the issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Angus—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Just because they might, it doesn't necessarily mean we do.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

—can you be succinct on your point of order and what your procedural concern is?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The issue is this: We're not debating the fact that Mr. Genuis has the floor, because you recognized him.

Mr. Simard asked about other members here who showed up and were heckling and playing a role as part of the gallery. Is it their right to speak if they're objected to by a voting member of this committee? That's what Mr. Simard asked.

Mr. Genuis has the floor. I don't think it's for you to ask Mr. Genuis what he thinks of that. We know what Mr. Genuis thinks of that. We want to know whether a non-voting member of the Conservatives, who are lining the room here, who starts to speak and is objected to by a voting member has a right to speak, yes or no.

That's the question.