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.
5:25 p.m.
An hon. member
I want you to clarify your ruling.
5:25 p.m.
An hon. member
They're talking over you, Chair.
5:25 p.m.
An hon. member
Members like to call each other liars.
5:25 p.m.
An hon. member
We need to hear from the clerk.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
I will ask members, if they do not like the ruling I've provided, to challenge the chair.
5:25 p.m.
An hon. member
What was the ruling?
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
The chair will now move to Mr. Falk.
Mr. Falk, you had the floor on a point of order previously. Go ahead, please, on a point of order.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I believe that Mr. Genuis has just challenged the chair, and I actually agree that we should vote to sustain the ruling of the chair.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I think we should vote. He did challenge the chair. I heard it.
5:25 p.m.
An hon. member
I heard it.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Mr. Falk, I'm going to you on a point of order, but before I do, sir, for committee members, I'm going to give a quick reminder on some important reflections I've had over the last few minutes.
On page 1058, in chapter 20, partway down the paragraph on disorder and misconduct, it states, “If a committee desires that specific sanctions be taken against those disrupting the proceedings, it must report the situation to the House. The House may then take such measures as it deems appropriate.” Then it says, “In the event of disorder, the Chair may suspend the meeting until order can be restored.” That's what I've done on several occasions today.
In previous meetings and in this one, the health and safety of our interpreters with members speaking over each other with many mikes on was a concern, and it still is a concern. Today, I'm very delighted to see that we have not gone down that path. I know that our interpreters are very grateful for one mike at a time, and I'm very grateful that we are taking the health and safety of our interpreters seriously. I hope that will continue. As mentioned, I will suspend the meeting if I feel that the health and safety of our interpreters is being jeopardized.
Under “Decisions of the Chair and Appeals” on page 1059 of chapter 20, it says, “Decisions by the Chair are not debatable.” It says that very clearly here. It also says, “They can, however, be appealed to the committee.”
Colleagues, every member of this committee has the right to participate in the proceedings of this committee. If you feel that a decision that's made is not one that you believe is the right one, you have the right to challenge the chair and the ruling—not to engage in debate but to challenge the chair. That is a clearly stated rule. I would encourage members to use that if you deem it's necessary.
I would also encourage members to allow members to participate. An important part of this committee's proceedings is that members who have the floor are able to debate the motions that are presented.
I'm going to remind everyone, for all those folks sitting at home who may have just tuned in, where we are. We have a motion on the floor presented by Mr. Sorbara regarding the Canadian sustainable jobs act, Bill C-50, and the Atlantic accords bill.
We then have an amendment that was brought forward by Ms. Stubbs.
We then have a subamendment that was brought forward by Mr. Falk, which we are currently on, and we are debating. On that subamendment, Mr. Angus has the floor and, as a member of this committee, has not been given the opportunity to participate in debate on an important subamendment that is actually related to his constituency.
I hope that provides clarity to all members. I know that Mr. Falk, who has brought forward this subamendment, would like to see it presented and debated. I know that Mr. Falk also has a point of order.
Before I go to Mr. Falk on a point of order, I would ask members, on points of order, to please be succinct and let's not engage in debate. I want to give you the opportunity to make your relevant points of order.
Mr. Falk, you have the floor, sir, on a point of order.
6 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Yes, I've waited a while to make my observations here and discuss my point of order.
First of all, I want to start off by saying that when the meeting was suspended during the debate on the subamendment I made, Mr. Genuis had the floor and should have been given the floor at the subsequent meeting.
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Mr. Falk, I'm sorry, but I'm just going to remind you that the chair had made a ruling. That ruling was made. There is the ability of committee members to challenge the chair, so we're not going to engage on a point of order in debate of that ruling. If there's a challenge to the speaking order in a ruling, you can challenge the chair, sir.
I would ask you, on the point of order that you are now bringing forward, to say what the point of order is and present that, please, and not engage in debate on a previous ruling that's been made. I'd ask you to use your point of order to bring forward the procedural concern that you have on the point of order that you've raised, I believe, on a previous point of order that was made sometime back. If you could bring us back to the point of order that you had....
I'd like to acknowledge that you have waited patiently on the previous point of order, because we've had many other members who had points of order as well on that point of order, so I'll ask you to proceed and not engage in debate, but speak specifically to the point of order at hand that you're raising right now.
Go ahead, sir.
6 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Okay. Yes. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Just to be clear, I was actually not debating. I was clearly just making an observation, which I believe the chair should consider. It's not a point of debate, but just my observation of my recollection of that meeting.
My point of order is this. Mr. Genuis got cut off when he was expanding on his point of order. What I have noticed is that whenever Mr. Genuis is making his point of order, he frequently is interrupted with other points of order for which you immediately stop his point of order and defer to the other points of order. But in the case of when Mr. Angus or Mr. Kelloway were making points of order, there were points of order interrupting their points of order which you did not accept and you allowed them to continue to make their points of order.
My suggestion would be, if you want to maintain a little better decorum here, that you not allow some members, some parties, to be able to interrupt points of order and others not, and—
