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.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
—you can raise it and then we can move on.
We do have a point of order and I appreciate you pausing because the member has also initiated a point of order based on what you've just said. I'm going to ask you to hold for one second so we can hear the point of order by Mr. Angus.
6:30 p.m.
NDP
6:30 p.m.
Conservative
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
And I raised a point of order. It's not a big deal.
6:30 p.m.
An hon. member
Shush.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Colleagues, I'm going to ask everybody to hold right now because this is extremely important.
Multiple mikes turning on at the same time for debate on who or who does not have the floor is an issue. At previous meetings, I've clearly stated that the chair will recognize the speaker. When my mike turns on, this red light turns on. I really try to pause and wait so I don't have to cut you off.
We cannot have multiple mikes and multiple committee members speaking at the same time. I'm going to remind everybody why. It's for health and safety concerns that I have as chair. I know all of you committee members have concern for interpreters who are doing a tremendous job. It is a challenge for interpreters to interpret effectively, but it can also pose a risk for the health and safety of the interpreters.
Before we proceed, I thought this would be a good time to provide this intervention specifically on this issue. I'm hoping that everybody on all sides of the table.... As a reminder before we move forward, when I turn on my mike, the light comes on. Try to get my attention. When I get the individual to pause if there is a point of order, I will recognize the individual. I won't have my mike on while others have their mikes on. I am going to do the best I can to make sure that I recognize members. If I do turn on my mike and I do not get your attention, I will have to ask you to pause.
Based on that, Mr. Angus, I'm going to ask you to finish your point of order on the procedural issue and then we have a point of order from Ms. Stubbs.
6:30 p.m.
Conservative
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Once again, I will recognize a member to come back to, but Ms. Stubbs also has a point of order.
Mr. Angus, go ahead procedurally on the point of order, then I'm going to go to the point of order Ms. Stubbs has on Mr. Angus's point of order.
6:30 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
It's very simple, Chair. I have the floor, so I'm discussing the motion. Mr. Patzer is attempting to interfere and undermine by saying that he wants to talk about something else.
6:30 p.m.
Conservative
6:30 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I'm sorry. I need to finish this because of the abusive behaviour of Mr. Patzer and his immaturity.
I have the floor.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Thank you, Mr. Angus, for your point of order.
I'm going to Ms. Stubbs on a point of order first and then I'm going to go back to Mr. Patzer on a point of order.
Go ahead.
6:30 p.m.
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I guess you'll enlighten me as to whether or not I'm asking this question appropriately.
Certainly Conservatives support and value the expertise and the objective service of our clerk, the interpreters, the analysts and all of the support staff for committees. We are, of course, also deeply concerned about any impacts on health and safety in the workplace.
Could someone clarify if the logistical challenge is the ability to translate comments when mikes are competing? Is there a distinction between the ability to deliver on the core function of interpretation versus concerns about physical health and safety in the workplace?
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Thank you, Ms. Stubbs, for your point of order. If you give me a moment, I'll get clarification.
When multiple mikes are on, it is difficult for the interpreters to translate effectively for the committee. It also does pose a health and safety concern. It's a concern both for interpretation and for the health and safety of our interpreters when multiple mikes are on.
Thank you for your point of order. That deals with that point of order.
Do you have another...?
6:30 p.m.
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
I do, and it's related to that, Chair.
We, of course, have heard different information. We have heard that the primary challenge is the ability for interpreters to effectively translate and therefore do their jobs effectively. We all know they are 100% dedicated, too. Is there a way for us to have written clarification from the Clerk of the House of Commons on this issue?
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Thank you, Ms. Stubbs, for your point of order.
We have a point of order from Ms. Dabrusin.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I believe the issue is that it's disrespectful to the interpreters. From my perspective, I think we can all agree that we shouldn't be speaking over each other. I don't think we need to go far down that road.
Mr. Angus has had the floor now for, I believe, almost three weeks. We've been trying to get through his argument on a subamendment. He was going through that, and I would really like the opportunity to hear from Mr. Angus and finally give him the floor. If no one is challenging the chair on the fact that Mr. Angus actually does have the floor 16 hours in, I believe it's time that we went back to Mr. Angus and allowed him to complete his argument.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin.
I do have a point of order by Monsieur Simard. Monsieur Simard is raising a point of order on Ms. Dabrusin's. Mr. Patzer, I do have you recognized on the original point of order from Mr. Angus, but we're in a whole other list of point of orders.
Monsieur Simard raised a point of order based on what Ms. Stubbs and Ms. Dabrusin said, so I'm going to go to Monsieur Simard. Then I'm going to come back.
Go ahead, Monsieur Simard.
6:30 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
I just want to intervene and perhaps inform my colleague Ms. Stubbs.
You don't get the real experience when you listen to the interpretation in French because I'm the only francophone here. I don't think I can shout over my own voice.
When four or five of you speak at the same time, it's only logical, and you can easily understand, that it's impossible for someone providing simultaneous translation to interpret the remarks of five or six persons shouting at the same time. It's hard enough for the interpreters to interpret the remarks of the person who has the floor.
It's simply a matter of logic. For these people to be able to do their work with the skills they have, it would be more intelligent to yield the floor to the person named by the chair than to shout in the background. I can't hear what you say to each other. When more than one of you speaks, I can't hear what the others say because it's impossible for the interpreters to do their work.
I don't think we need any more information because it's logically inconceivable for anyone to interpret the voices of six individuals simultaneously.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Thank you, Monsieur Simard.
We have a point of order from Ms. Stubbs, and then we'll go to Mr. Patzer.
Go ahead, Ms. Stubbs.
6:30 p.m.
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
Chair, I just want to thank you for offering the opportunity for clarity around interpretation and translation, and also Monsieur Simard for his clarity about, obviously, the complications. It does make common sense, as he says, that it would be difficult to interpret multiple people talking at the same time in multiple mikes.
You know, I myself experienced childhood physical abuse. Of course, after eight years, all of you will know that I'm a strong advocate for victims of crime, victims of abuse, and I am particularly concerned about the health and safety of individuals, vulnerable women and vulnerable people everywhere.
I just want to raise this concern because I'm deeply concerned about the use of abusive language and abusive behaviour, as well as any potential concerns about the health and safety of interpreters, particularly in light of that work and from my own personal experiences as well. I'm sure we all have loved ones who have faced different degrees of violence. I also lost a childhood best friend to murder in 2011, after she faced repeated violence and physical abuse from a domestic partner.
I am raising this issue because it is one that Conservatives are concerned about deeply in terms of health and safety in the workplace, as well as the language that is being used here—in my view, in a very casual way—about members of Parliament in this developed country and this free democracy, as we all seek to do the best that we can in advocating for the people who have elected us and for the public interest of Canadians right across the country.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Thank you, Ms. Stubbs.
From a previous point of order and also just on one that's been raised by many, the interpreters will let us know if they have concerns about their health and safety as they arise through a meeting when multiple mikes are turned on. Several meetings ago, I raised this with committee members, and I constantly remind committee members of this health and safety concern because it was raised through conversation we had with interpreters several meetings ago.
I would like to say that for today's meeting, I think, so far, we've moved very well. It's nice to have that reminder because I know all of us have come off a constituency week where we were and where we're moving forward.
I appreciate all committee members' concerns about health and safety, and we will proceed forward.
I want to go to Mr. Patzer because he had a point of order. Then, I hope to resume our debate on the subamendment, which we were on when Mr. Angus had the floor.
Mr. Patzer, go ahead. Finish your point of order, so we can go back to where we were.