Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 30th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Stubbs.

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Hold on. We had a point of order from Mr. Angus. We're going to him first on the point of order.

Mr. Angus.

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

I'm waiting to speak on this latest boutique subamendment. If they don't like the ruling, they have the right to challenge the chair. Otherwise, what they are doing is obstruction.

Challenge the chair or let's carry on.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

A ruling was made earlier. The chair was challenged, and the ruling was upheld, so we are going to proceed to—

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

I had a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Go ahead on the point of order.

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

Part of why I brought up that standing order was that I am also concerned about the precedent we are setting by ignoring certain standing orders and basically effectively stripping the rights and privileges of members of Parliament—of all members, whether they are part of a party with official status or not. I am concerned about their being able to have their rights stripped from them in this situation.

I do think that we need to be mindful of the precedent that is being set here because, as my colleague from Peace River—Westlock mentioned, he was actually denied the opportunity to speak. According to the Standing Orders, he had every right to have his name on that list.

Now, he was not able to move a motion, which he was not attempting to do. He was not asking to be a voting member of this committee, which was clearly established because Mr. Falk was still here. He was merely attempting to get on the speaking list. The standing order itself does specifically state that they may “take part in the public proceedings of the committee,” and that is what Mr. Viersen was attempting to do.

I think it is very important that we make very clear what is going on right now.

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

Then challenge the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Yes.

Thank you for your intervention.

As mentioned, our colleague is on the list. He will get an opportunity to speak. Actually, he'll be up pretty quickly if we can move to our next speaker. Then he'll have an opportunity to provide his interventions as he wishes.

The chair made a ruling earlier—

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

I have a point of privilege.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

—and I'll uphold that ruling. The chair was challenged. The ruling was upheld, I would say, by committee members. I think there are a number of committee members who supported that ruling, so we will proceed back to the subamendment. If I get further clarity on any changes to that, we will provide them.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Yes.

Is it a point of order?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Chair, it's a point of privilege. I'm going to put this—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

There's no point of privilege. If you have a point of order, you can—

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

A point of privilege is....

Mr. Chair, there are two interventions you can make. One is a point of order and one is point of privilege. A point of order is when it has to do with the operations of the meeting. A point of privilege has to do with either your participation in the meeting or somebody else's ability to participate in the meeting. That's what that is.

You might raise a point of privilege if there was too much noise in here. You might say, “Mr. Chair, there's too much noise in here. Can you get the meeting calmed down? I can't hear what's going on.” That would be a point of privilege.

In this case, the point of privilege is that I was not placed on the speaking list. Therefore, my privileges as a member of Parliament were being denied. I would ask you to rule on that point of privilege as well, as to whether my privileges were denied by your action of not putting me on the speaking list.

I look forward to your ruling on that.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I—

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

Mr. Chair, can I—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

You need to have a point of order. If you have a point of order—

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

I'd like to speak on the point that was raised.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Do you have a point of order?

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

I believe—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We're not debating. It's not up for debate. It's up to that—

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

Mr. Chair, you are bound by the rules, as we all are. The member—