Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 30th, 2023

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Fantastic. It was at the end of the Liberals' programming motion.

I apologize for suggesting that this was the NDP-Liberals' motion. I hope that I can be forgiven. Of course, there's a backroom coalition agreement to prop the Liberals up until 2025, even though more Canadians individually voted Conservative in the 2021 and 2019 elections.

I apologize for making the assumption that this was from the coalition partners who are working together to drive their agenda through all aspects of Parliament.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

On a point of order, Chair, can we ask the clerk whether it's admissible? If it's admissible, can we make sure it's sent in both official languages?

We should suspend. We have to ask the clerk to give us his advice.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Chair, I would be okay, too, if Francesco....

I think you brought the programming motion originally, right?

Given the amendment, which now I've had to put in public because you guys brought your motion in public.... I'd be open to it going wherever you want it to go. I just thought at the end or potentially it could go after.... My colleague is saying right before section a).

Since you brought the motion in, I'd be happy to collaborate more and work with you on that, as you said in the beginning when you moved the motion.

To any colleagues who are worried about anything going on here, I don't think we have to be concerned about it at all. Of course, it's all happening in public with the full sunlight as a disinfectant. It was supposed to be sunny ways, we thought, so all Canadians can see what's happening here.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Ms. Stubbs, if we can pause for a moment, there were two questions raised on the point of order from Mr. Serré.

If members require it in both official languages to follow along was one question.

The other question was on whether it is the will of the committee to continue.

Mr. Angus previously asked for timing, and we're at about 1:03, if my eyes are correct on the clock. To the delight of members, I'm sure, we have extended time of services until 2:30. We can continue to that point.

If it's the will of the members of the committee to continue until that time, we'll continue. If it's the will of the committee to ensure that we get it in both official languages, we can make sure that happens as well, so committee members can follow along.

It looks like it is the will of the committee to continue.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We have some members wanting to continue and some not wanting to continue. We will need clear acknowledgement from members that we want to continue.

If I could have members wanting to continue as of now until 2:30, maybe longer—we have resources to continue—would you raise your hands.

The majority of members want to continue. Anybody who does not want to continue, make your objections known now.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Chair, we have a problem either way to get this done.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Ms. Stubbs, I just want to make sure that committee members know that committee members have voted to continue. We will continue until 2:30, and if we get additional resources, we can continue beyond that time as well.

My second question was, do members require it in both official languages? That was raised by Mr. Serré.

Yes, we do. We require it in both official languages.

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

I have a point of order on a procedural note, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Colleagues, we are working on getting it translated, and we're hoping to have that shortly.

We have a point of order.

Mr. Patzer.

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

Under the last chair, when we were going through reports and whatnot line by line, we had this issue of just assuming that the will of the committee was as such and then just carrying on without going to actual recorded votes. I know that you quickly just said to put our hands up for this or our hands up for that, but I'm just wondering if it would be proper to do an actual roll call vote to make sure that people understand what is actually happening.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I think that it was quite clear to members. Everybody raised their hand that they were in favour of continuing on. I asked, to that point, if members were not in favour and had acknowledgement from the members who weren't. That was not asked for by members, so I proceeded in that manner. However, in the future, if the committee members want a roll call vote, they can ask for that at that time.

We will continue.

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

I have a point of order.

I'm sorry. I don't want to belabour things in terms of resources.

If it's being translated, should we suspend for five minutes? That might give you a chance to see if we can get resources for longer than until 2:30. I think it's very important that we get Bill C-50 debated and back to the House. If it takes longer, then maybe we need to see if we can obtain more resources, but I leave that you, Mr. Chair, and to our wonderful clerk.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Colleagues, I will look into the further resourcing that Mr. Angus has proposed in order to go beyond 2:30. I will ask the clerk to do so.

We are working on translation.

What I propose is that we suspend for a few minutes to see what we can find out. At that time, we can come back and continue on. Folks can also take a quick washroom break if they need to. We will suspend for a few minutes, and we'll resume at 1:15.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I call the meeting back to order.

We are resuming debate. For all those watching at home, we have an amendment that's been moved by Ms. Stubbs.

Ms. Stubbs, the floor is yours on the amendment you have moved.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I apologize for doing this as we come back from a point of order, but I just want to make sure that we've actually received the motion in both official languages. That was the whole point of pausing, and I have still not received an email confirming that we have the motion in both official languages.

I'm curious to know whether that's been circulated yet.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

The motion has not been circulated yet in both official languages. That's my understanding.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, can we get clarification from the honourable member on whether the amendment was for the back of the motion I presented earlier this morning or the middle?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

On the points of order, I've addressed the first one.

On the point of order by Mr. Sorbara, clarity needs to be provided by Ms. Stubbs.

Can you provide clarity once again for members? There is a bit of confusion on where your amendment is to go in the existing motion that we have on the floor, which was circulated and provided to all committee members. I believe it has paragraphs (a) to (i). We just need to know to make sure that we have your amendment inserted in the right spot.

I will turn it back over to you, Ms. Stubbs, to provide that clarity so we can continue on.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Yes. Thank you, Chair. I appreciate it.

Of course, right before we broke, I suggested through you, or directly to my colleague, that I would be happy to work with him on it. However, since you want that crystal clarity from me, we would suggest this amendment:

1. First undertake the following study on Bill C-69: “Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study of the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling that Bill C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, is unconstitutional; for the purposes of this study, the committee: (a) hold at least 5 meetings, (b) invite the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change to appear for one hour each, (c) report its findings and recommendations to the House and, (d) pursuant to Standing Order 109, request that the government table a comprehensive response to the report”

That would go after the opening paragraph of my colleague's motion, ending with “have both been referred to committee, that the committee initiate its consideration of both C-50 and C-49 with the following schedule”. It would then say “(a)” with what I just outlined, and the next one would be:

2. Complete its consideration of Bill C-49.

After that, it would be 3, and thereafter it could flow.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, through you to the clerk, can I ask about the admissibility of the amendment Ms. Stubbs just tabled?

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

On that point, Chair....

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

The clerk has advised that it's inserted as an addition to what exists. It is an additional item to what we had presented.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

I have a point of order for clarification.

Is it inserted at the end of the motion?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

No. Per Ms. Stubbs, it was inserted at the beginning as a new (a) and (b) and then the following items would flow under that.