Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 30th, 2023

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

On the same point of order, I'm happy to repeat the point if it was unclear.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I'm going to go to Ms. Gladu, who has been waiting very patiently.

Thank you, Ms. Gladu, for waiting patiently. You're now recognized on a point of order.

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

I have another point of order, Mr. Chair.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

In the hopes of moving things along, I think the intent of the order from the House was to have two full hours of discussion. It looks like things may become a little fractious, and perhaps it would be good to have the clerk keep a list of who has wanted to speak, in order, so that we don't fight about that. Then that will move things along nicely.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Gladu.

I have Mr. Patzer on a point of order and then Mr. Simard on a point of order.

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

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

At the start of the meeting you were already giving us a little bit of grief, supposedly, about not interrupting other members when they're speaking, yet when the bonus NDP member over there jumped in right away, there was no chiding of sorts from the chair as to that. I'm just wondering if you're going to apply the rules equally or how this is going to work.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Aldag, do you have a point of order on the point of order?

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Go ahead on the point of order.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

I just ask that we be respectful and not use language that's clearly meant to cause further debate. The Conservatives have more than four members. You're allowed to be here. The NDP are allowed to have extras here. I welcome Ms. McPherson—

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Why, thank you.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

—and I don't think we should be calling her out for being at the table and speaking, as the Conservative members are doing. I just ask that, as we get into the evening, we have a good, respectful discussion, as you have asked us many times to do.

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

On that point of order, Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Aldag.

All members are welcome to be here and participate.

Thank you, Mr. Simard, for waiting patiently.

We do have a point of order on Mr. Aldag's point of order, and I'm going to come to you, Mr. Genuis, on your point of order. Then I'm going to Mr. Simard.

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

Just to Mr. Aldag's point, I think some members are quite liberal about accusing people of unparliamentary language. My colleague described someone as a “bonus” member. I don't think “bonus” is a derogatory term. It's simply a description of the normal numbers and having additional numbers. I'd like you to maybe clarify if you view “bonus” as—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Genuis, thank you for your point of order, but you're getting into debate.

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

No, it's a question of the rules. Do you view “bonus” as parliamentary or unparliamentary language? I would like to know because I was actually planning on using the word “bonus” in a few points later in my remarks—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

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

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

—so I want to make sure I moderate myself accordingly.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Colleagues, once again I'm going to ask everybody to pause and reflect for a moment on the work we are instructed to do here. We've seen, over the last several months, interventions that our committee is not allowed to move forward. We do have important work to do. I would ask all members to give another member an opportunity to participate and speak, and that we avoid using unparliamentary or inflammatory language. I think that goes for everybody. We take that seriously. We make sure we consider what we say before we say it, because our words do have impacts on others.

On that note, I am going to go to Monsieur Simard. He has been waiting very patiently on that point of order.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Monsieur Simard has been waiting and I've acknowledged his hand a number of times. I'm going to go to Mr. Simard on the point of order.

Mr. Simard, on the point of order, please go ahead.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would ask all my colleagues to take a deep breath and focus on the work ahead of us this evening.

My Conservative colleagues seem to be saying that they would like specific rules. I congratulate them for doing so. They want to know whether there are going to be two hours allocated to the study of this bill. I would like to know that too. However, to keep things rolling along for the committee, are we going to agree for more speakers than usual from each party? The Conservative Party has four voting members. Does that mean that all the Conservatives can speak this evening? Does it mean that there might be two NDP members? On the one hand, I'd like clarification on this.

On the other hand, there are things in the bill that we have to discuss. For example, there's the matter of the labour agreements between Canada and Quebec. Unfortunately, that won't be possible, because if we have two hours and everyone keeps rising on trivial points of order, I don't think we'll be able to look in depth at everyone's amendments, or to study the bill.

If people keep rising on a point of order, it means they're not very interested in studying the bill and attempting instead to bring the committee's work to a standstill.

There are two options. Either we move on quickly with our study of the bill and put our amendments forward, or waste our time with trifling matters and procedures that don't amount to anything.

So I'm asking everyone to take a deep breath. We need to be legislators—it's what we do best—and stop behaving like idiots, which is what I've been seeing for a while.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you. I'm just going to ask everybody to pause for a moment. I was waiting for interpretation, and I just want to get clarification from the clerk as well.

Now we have Mr. Brock on a point of order, and we have Mr. Angus.

Mr. Brock, go ahead on the point of order, and then I'm going to go to Mr. Angus.