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.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I would like to be added to the list.
By the way, just ever so briefly, Mr. Angus accused me of a drive-by smear, and I think that's very offensive. I think my criticism of the chair was actually quite direct and pointed and did not have a drive-by quality. I haven't driven away. I'm still here, and I still think you should apologize for presenting false information to the committee during previous sessions.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Thank you for your point of order.
A ruling and information has been provided to the committee, and it is quite clear what it was. I thank everybody for their co-operation and patience from the last meeting and the previous meetings to get this information that was requested by members.
Mr. Dreeshen, you had a point of order.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer—Mountain View, AB
Yes, I did, Mr. Chair.
At the very end of the last meeting, I had a point of order where I asked if the clerk could give us information as to what he has heard from the head clerk with regard to committees when it comes to the issue of health and safety. I appreciate the fact that you relayed, perhaps, what you had heard, but my point of order was directed to the clerk—for him to be able to bring back information. I appreciate the fact that you have done so. It has perhaps put you in a bit of position because of that, but nevertheless I'm still awaiting the clerk to let us know what he had heard. Now when you have that information, it perhaps makes it a lot more understandable why you would have made the pronouncements that you had.
My point at the very end of the last meeting was simply that sometimes we use words like “health and safety”, and so on, that do not fit the actual definition, and therefore it becomes a problem. I would ask, as I had mentioned in my point of order of the last day, at the very end, if the clerk could inform us of the position that the head clerk has for committees with respect to the concept of crosstalk versus health and safety.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Thank you, Mr. Dreeshen, for your point of order.
I clearly provided the committee information at today's meeting that the clerk had gone to make sure that the appropriate individuals were contacted—such as multimedia services, the translation bureau and the clerk's office—and that this information was provided so I could provide this.
I would like to remind committee members that several meetings ago.... We've had different clerks, and the clerk advised, based on consultation at that time with our interpreters, that they had concerns. I relayed those concerns to committee members to make sure that we operate here with mutual respect among each other and that we refrain from causing any potential health and safety concerns that may arise, as the clerk advised me.
I provided that information, and I will continue to provide and relay information to committee members.
For the interpreters to do their job effectively, we have to make sure that we refrain from multiple members speaking at the same time, so that they can provide accurate and timely interpretation.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
The ruling has been made, Mr. Dreeshen. The information has been directly provided and relayed to committee. If there is something that was not provided.... What you have asked for has been provided to the committee through the clerk.
Thank you for your point of order.
I am going to go to Monsieur Simard on the point of order.
Monsieur Simard, go ahead.
12:55 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
I invite Mr. Dreeshen, Mr. Falk and all my colleagues to listen to this.
It probably won't happen, but if one day 10 francophone MPs start talking at the same time, Mr. Dreeshen won't hear anything because the interpreters won't be able to translate the remarks of 10 individuals simultaneously.
What Mr. Dreeshen wants is to waste our time. I know it. I agree, but he could do so in a much more interesting way than he's doing it now by asking you a question that I consider absurd. I don't know that his question is absurd—I don't want to make him angry—but it seems absurd to me. He's asking if this undermines the interpreters' safety. It's quite simple: if 10 of you speak at the same time, you aren't using the interpretation, unless I'm the one speaking. I'm the only person speaking French here. The interpreters can't do their work if you talk at the same time. Every time 10 of you speak simultaneously, they tell me that interpretation is impossible.
The point of order that was raised concerned only that. You can ask the chair to apologize for mistakes that you feel he has made or for any harm that might have caused, but the Conservative Party doesn't understand the basic principle regarding interpretation: the committee has to be accessible to everyone, and everyone must have access to what is said in committee.
The main problem is that I can't understand anything when everyone speaks into a microphone at once. It's as simple as that.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Thank you, Monsieur Simard, for providing that point of order. I was listening very carefully.
I hope I'm one of those members who will be able to engage with you and others en français in the near future, as many members do a tremendous job in both official languages. People like me are trying to work hard to be fully bilingual.
Colleagues, what I would say is that a ruling has been made and the information has been provided.
Ms. Dabrusin has the floor.
I have made a ruling and provided the information. If there is a concern, committee members—and we've heard from many members—you have the right to challenge the chair. We can proceed with the committee if they believe in a different ruling and the chair's ruling is not supported.
I think we're all looking to work on the subamendment. We've had a great debate for many meetings so far, and we would like to proceed.
Ms. Dabrusin has waited very patiently for several meetings to get the floor. I would ask colleagues to allow Ms. Dabrusin to now engage in her debate so that others can participate as well.
12:55 p.m.
An hon. member
There are three more points of order.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Okay.
Mrs. Stubbs, if your point of order is on a different point of order, other than health and safety, or anything that has not been stated.... Otherwise, we are going to move forward.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
I would like to respond to Mr. Simard because, of course, we agree. The point of order at the top of the meeting is still the one that we haven't gotten to yet.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I also have a point of order on Mr. Angus's comments.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
I don't want to move us backwards.
Thanks for the heckling about how I'm backwards and how we're backwards and all of the things from over there, from the peanut gallery, the high-carbon hypocrites. Here they are being hypocritical again.
My point of order at the top of the meeting is related to when we move on to Ms. Dabrusin, but I would also like to just set the record straight on Mr. Simard's claims.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Mrs. Stubbs, I apologize. I just want to be clear. Is your point of order on Mr. Simard's point of order or on a different point of order?
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
There are two, because we still haven't gotten back to my first one at the top of the meeting, and—
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
—it's related to the subject at hand. What I'm asking you is what order you want me to do that in, because, of course, now Mr. Simard has made comments that have compelled me to respond.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
If there's a procedural issue.... If it's debate, I can put you on the list. You are more than welcome to debate the subamendment. If it's something that's procedurally relevant to the conversation that we've had, I can put you on the list.
If it's on interpretation, health and safety, and everything I discussed in my opening, I think that everything has been discussed, and I've made a ruling on that. Therefore, I would ask members to move on from there. If we still want to engage in the issue of health and safety or anything to do with interpretation that has been stated, then I would ask, colleagues, that you challenge the chair so that the committee can rule on how it would like to proceed.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I had a point of order on Mr. Angus's comments earlier.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Colleagues, I have a list of acknowledging, and if you do not acknowledge and I don't catch your attention, or the clerk, I'm not sure when or what you might have a point of order on.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
I am monitoring this. If it's on health and safety, on the interpretation or on the information provided, that ruling and decision has been made. Therefore, I will ask anybody who has a point of order on something related to something else that has been brought forward procedurally to state your concern so that we can deal with it and move on to other members and their points of order.
Mrs. Stubbs, I will go to you if you have a point of order.