Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 25th, 2023

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

I appreciate that, Chair. I appreciate your patience in having to deal with this.

Mr. Simard raised an important point. It's about the issue of our role as parliamentarians, not acting, as I said, in this partisan rat pack kind of behaviour.

Mr. Simard talked about what was out of order, but the Supreme Court did not rule that legislation out of order. They raised questions about certain parts of that legislation; other parts of that legislation are still intact. This motion is inaccurate and an attempt to just throw everything that was voted by Parliament into question, when it's not in question. There are certain elements that the Supreme Court ruled on, but not others.

I agree with Mr. Simard. I think it's a very reasonable position.

Mr. Simard and I don't always agree on everything, but he comes to this table as someone who takes the work of Parliament seriously. The work of Parliament is about legislation. The work of our motions must reflect our larger obligations to the system that we are—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Angus, we're getting into debate now.

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

I'm not debating. I'm just wrapping up.

I think that Mr. Simard's point is important, in the light that this motion was written improperly—which doesn't surprise me—and what it claims to cover it actually can't cover.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

Now, do you have a point of order on Mr. Angus's point of order?

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

Yes, I do have a point of order.

It goes to the conduct of the member: using words like “rat pack”, thinking that it's okay to be all belittling and saying “shh” to different members. In a previous meeting, he told my colleague here to grow up—a very strong, competent woman who's also been very accomplished in public policy on natural resources for a very long time.

That's not to mention that last week, when my colleague here moved her motion, somebody from that end of the table used an expletive, which started with “f” and rhymed with “yuck”. I'll let you figure out what word was uttered. I know that it was not the member from the Bloc because of the language it was spoken in—we can rule him out—so we know where it came from.

There's a pattern of conduct from the member from the NDP that is very unbecoming. I wouldn't say the entire committee...but we have members from the other parties who are enabling this kind of behaviour for him. I think it's extremely ridiculous. Given that this is supposed to be the most feminist Prime Minister ever, we have a party sitting over there that is doing absolutely nothing to try to prevent this from happening.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Patzer, on the point of order—

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

No, it's about the way he is conducting himself here. He wants this committee to try to be all cordial and whatever, but it's his behaviour and his tone and the language he has chosen to use to belittle and berate my colleague over here, and other people are aiding and abetting that. I've just had it up to here with that.

I would ask you, Mr. Chair, to please make sure.... I know we all disagree and we all get a little bit animated from time to time, but there is still a certain level of respect. The way he has treated several members, especially my colleague from Lakeland, is extremely inappropriate and very unprofessional.

I would ask, Mr. Chair, that you would, now and in the future, do something about it.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you for your point of order.

I would ask all colleagues to work in committee with mutual respect, not interrupt each other, not talk over each other and not use any language that could be harmful to others. That's a request I'm making to all of you, so we can work together in this committee to accomplish what we're here to accomplish on behalf of Canadians, which is to work through the studies and the reports and to listen to our witnesses who take the time to come.

I'll ask that of everybody. We're not going to get into a debate on who said what, because I did not hear any of those comments specifically from one member to another.

You've raised your point of order today. Thank you for your point of order.

Mr. Falk, you had a point of order on the point of order.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I did. It's similar to the comments from Mr. Patzer.

Charlie has gone out of his way to be rude and antagonistic in this committee. He's been name-calling again in this committee. He's been antagonizing—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We're getting into debate. This is specifically on the point of order.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

My point of order is that you're not calling out this unruly behaviour. When he can berate my colleague, Mrs. Stubbs, and ask her to grow up, and when he can tell someone else to shush, that is a very demeaning type of behaviour. You, as the chair, sir, need to call out that behaviour. If you're unwilling or incapable of doing that, you should just tell us, “I don't have the ability to recognize those things” or “I don't have the ability to make tough decisions.” Tell us that.

As far as this—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Now we're getting into debate, so stay on the point of order.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

The point of order is that you need to address the behaviour coming from Charlie Angus.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Okay, I will address the behaviour of many members on this committee who have become disruptive. I have not heard any member call any other member anything that you've suggested. If we do hear that as a committee member and we think it's out of order, then we will.... I am trying to chair a committee and listen to our witnesses. That's what I'm trying to do as the committee chair, to allow all of you to have an opportunity to participate.

Now we will go to Mr. Simard.

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Simard, you had a point of order.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

As I pointed out earlier, I wonder if this motion is in order. Not only are we talking about a bill, but we have to be aware that this bill comes under the Department of the Environment. I don't see how the Standing Committee on Natural Resources would be empowered to say that a bill that falls under the Department of the Environment should be repealed and would have to signify this to the House.

In my view, the motion is not in order, since the Supreme Court ruling in question applies to a statute, not a bill. Even if the motion were in order and a committee were to examine this, it would be up to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to do this work, since the bill in question, i.e. Bill C‑69, falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Environment.

I'd end by saying that perhaps it's best to move on. My advice to my Conservative colleagues is to either rewrite the motion, or submit it to another committee.

The respect my colleagues are talking about applies to everyone, starting with the respect we must show the chair. If everyone listened to the chair's statements without heckling, we'd have a much more interesting committee than what we've experienced in the last few minutes. I don't think that's a great example to set for the witnesses we're currently hearing.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Simard.

I'm going to go to Mr. Angus on a point of order. We are running to the end of our time for this first hour.

Mr. Angus, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I just want to say that I respect the chair and I always abide by the chair's rulings. That's why when the chair speaks, I stop and listen. I appreciate your rulings here. I'm not going to get involved in this back-and-forth about who said what, because I don't even know, half the time, what's being said about me, except that I intervened to support Mr. Simard, who had a very reasonable position. I think it is our role as parliamentarians, and I'll continue to do that work.

My point of order is.... It's 5:30. Since the Conservatives did not want to let the witnesses speak and since they did not allow them to be questioned by other opposition members, should we not go in camera now, and then we can move forward?

I move that we adjourn this part of the meeting. Then we can go in camera and actually start planning what we need to do. We're not getting anywhere with our witnesses—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

But, Chair, I have the floor.

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

—so I move to adjourn.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Angus, we can't move a motion on a point of order.

I am going to ask quickly, on the point of order.... I have Mrs. Stubbs and then Mr. Patzer, very quickly on the point of order.

Before I go to you—this might help with your point of order—I'm going to ask the clerk to provide some information to committee members because it might clarify and answer your point of order. If your point of order is still there.... I want the clerk to be able to comment on Mr. Simard's and Mr. Angus's comments regarding—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I need to clarify that I didn't move a point of order. I have the floor because I moved a motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Yes, but we had a point of order—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

But I can also.... Given that I've been responsible for the official opposition on the natural resources file—you know this well, George, because people in Alberta are well aware of me and—