Evidence of meeting #80 for Natural Resources in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was point.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
You're yelling over people who are trying to speak.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Mr. Patzer, we're not going to engage in debate on the rationale.
A ruling was made. If you would like to challenge the chair—
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
He has the ability to make arguments about order. It's in the rules.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Mr. Chair, I do not think it reflects well upon yourself that every single time we restart a meeting you're going to tell people—
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
—that if they don't agree with you, they have to challenge you on every single point.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Colleagues, once again, I said this earlier today. If you are not going to provide me the opportunity to allow members to speak and multiple members are going to turn on their mikes—
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
I know, but there are a number of other members who are turning on their mikes and speaking. It is a health and safety issue for our interpreters.
Once again, Mr. Patzer, I'm going back to you on the point of order. Be very succinct on the point of order, not debate. On the point of order, be very succinct about what your point of order is and what standing order you're referring to, if you could, please.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Thank you.
Thank you for turning your mike off, because I had the floor. The only person who turned their mike on to interrupt me was you, Mr. Chair. I think that was a bit of a problem.
Again, the point I was simply trying to make is that we do not need to have to challenge the chair every single time there's a question.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
We expect the chair to be able to uphold the rules of the committee—
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
—the rules of the Standing Orders. They're there for a reason.
October 30th, 2023 / 3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
On your point of order, the ruling has been made.
We're going to Mr. Angus on a point of order, and then I have Ms. Dabrusin on a point of order.
Mr. Angus.
3:50 p.m.
An hon. member
Julie was first.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
What concerns me, now that we're into the second day of my attempting to participate—and I've been shut down consistently—is that it is devolving now into classic intimidation where Ms. Stubbs sits right beside you and yells at you. She doesn't even ask for a point of order. Mr. Patzer refuses to follow the rules. He's outraged that we have rules—challenge the chair or the rules.
I sit the furthest from you, so I'm attempting to exercise my obligations as an MP following the rules. I respect the rules of the chair. The chair has made a ruling. The chair has been challenged, but what we're seeing now is just a level of intimidation, so I'm asking you to ensure that the Conservatives are not shouting over and not trying to shut down the chair and other members who actually would like to participate.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Thank you for your point of order, Mr. Angus.
Ms. Dabrusin, you have the floor on your point of order.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We are now, even just today, hours into a debate about.... It's literally a debate.
You have made a ruling—I've said this before—that Mr. Angus is next on the list. What we're having is multiple points of order to prevent him from being able to speak.
We are on a subamendment to a scheduling motion. It is not an unusual type of motion.
If the members opposite, from the Conservatives, would like to vote on that subamendment, debate that subamendment, that is an option. However, preventing any debate on this scheduling motion through points of order is just, frankly, disrespectful to the members of this committee and to the Canadians we work for.
