Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 30th, 2023

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

Thank you.

I'd like to comment on that point of order briefly.

If Mr. Viersen wants to join this debate, even not as one of the four voting Conservative members on this committee, he can do that. He's fully within his right to do that.

If one of the independent members or a member from the Green Party were to walk in and sit down at this table, they'd be able to join in this debate. This is a debate on a motion. It's not a substantive part of committee policy. Right now we're debating a motion, and they'd be able to join into the debate.

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

Point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We have a point of order from Mr. Aldag.

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

Could we get clarification on whether that's factually correct?

My understanding is that's not the case. I'd like to have a ruling from the chair as to whether what Mr. Patzer is alleging is indeed the case.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

If you are a sitting member of the committee, you can speak, but if you are not....

Now that Mr. Viersen has substituted for Mr. Falk, he would be able to raise his hand and add his name to a list if he so chose. Now that he has, we will add him to the list.

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

On that point again, as I understand it, when it comes to allocations of time slots in regular committee, it's parties with official status that get time allocations for committee.

When we are debating a motion such as we are here, I was under the impression.... I appreciate what you have said, but I want to clarify that since we're not in the traditional framework in which, for example, Conservatives have a six-minute slot and the Bloc has a six-minute slot, it is the case then that only the four at the table.... I want to get some clarity around that.

I understood that any member of the House of Commons actually had the ability to be recognized at a committee table outside of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

It's my understanding, Mr. Patzer, that a member can cede the floor to another member on the committee if they wish to, but in this case, Mr Falk was here and Mr. Viersen was not substituting for him, so he was not able to participate or gain the floor. That's the ruling.

After getting information from the clerk, I'll stick to that ruling.

The floor is yours. You can continue on with your debate on the subamendment that was proposed.

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

I would like to challenge the chair on that point then, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We have a challenge by Mr. Patzer. He is challenging my ruling on the allowance of other members in committee.

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

We need to vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

The question is this: Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?

If you support my ruling as the chair, vote yes. If you don't, vote no.

[An hon. member]

I'd like a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

It will be a recorded vote.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

As per normal committee rules, yes.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 7; nays 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you. The ruling of the chair is sustained.

We have a point of order by Mr. Genuis.

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

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, when a roll call vote is made, the expectation is that members cast their votes yea or nay, not that they provide rationale for their vote and the process of voting. If every member provided rationale as part of the vote, it would slow the process down considerably. I think the rules are fairly clear on that.

Mr. Serré tried to take advantage of the rules, I think, and I hope you would rule that he should not be providing rationale for his vote in the context of a roll call vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

On the point of order, I would remind members that when it is time to vote to just vote, and also vote with your microphones on—not have your microphone off and vote—so that our interpreters can register your vote in both official languages.

Very good. Thank you.

We will go now back to Mr. Patzer.

Mr. Patzer, on the subamendment to the amendment.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Sorry, Mr. Chair, but let me just ask a question.

On the point you just made, did I accidentally vote with my microphone off or were you talking to someone in particular?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

It was another member, Ms. Stubbs, but thank you for that clarification.

Mr. Patzer, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you for that, Mr. Chair.

On the subamendment we have at hand here, as we laid out the case before, the case will be laid out again as to why we want to hear from witnesses all across the country. Certainly, we want to hear from folks who work at the mines in and around Timmins and James Bay. I think Mr. Falk highlighted very well the importance it has for the greater region and greater area—in particular, for resource development for economic reconciliation—and opportunities for all of Canada to be able to participate in the economy.

We have lots of proposals for witnesses. We just want to make sure that the area in the riding of Timmins—James Bay won't be left out and forgotten, as we found out not a single person there has received a heat pump or a carbon tax carve-out either. I think it's important to make that note as well. I think it would be good to hear from people from Timmins—James Bay. The government hasn't done much in the way of helping those folks out.

We look at how just transitions have previously gone and been attempted. We heard previously that workers have been left out in that region of the country, so we want to hear from them about what might happen when another just transition is forced upon resource workers in this country. It's not just the smaller scale of the first attempt that spectacularly failed and how that was done up; now we have a national scope and scale for a so-called “just transition”.

Conservatives put forward another common-sense subamendment to another common-sense amendment. As we know, after eight years of this government, the penchant to do things that are largely unconstitutional, as we saw with Bill C-69, is problematic. It would be good to hear from the folks in and around Timmins—James Bay about what their thoughts are on that.

If we don't deal with the issue of Bill C-69, how's that going to play out for the folks in that area? They're obviously looking for more involvement in the development of natural resources in that area. We've heard the extensive list of critical minerals available for the energy transition—not just here in Canada, but around the world—that people want for components. Therefore, trying to get the best opportunity for people to be able to speak to what we're dealing with here at committee with this bill and getting their perspective will be of the utmost importance.

I would recognize Timmins—James Bay as another area of the country.... I was talking about the stats earlier. In Ontario, with a pretty significant amount of gas and oil that is still used for power and energy production, and without a doubt with the amount of mining that goes on in Timmins—James Bay, certainly a lot of it would be used there as well to make sure that they can power their operations and keep the work environments in a manner that is suitable for the workers.

I think it's important that we deal with witnesses from all across the country. That's why we have another common-sense subamendment here that we're looking forward to dealing with.

I want to thank Mr. Falk—I know he has left—for moving this amendment. I look forward to seeing what the good people of Timmins—James Bay have to say.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Patzer.

We will now proceed to Monsieur Simard, who is next.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you.

We can spend the whole day naming everyone's ridings and saying we want to add them, but I don't think that'll change much. We can also shout the words "common sense" at each other 15 times, but I don't necessarily think that's "rational".

I see that my Conservative colleagues want to be heard. The best way to do that maybe to conduct the clause‑by-clause consideration of Bill C‑50. If they don't agree, they need only vote against it. I personally voted against Bill C‑50 in the House and did the same with Bill C‑49. I'm nevertheless prepared to hear the witnesses who will be here to express their views on the bill, just as I'm prepared to hear the minister and officials tell us about bills C‑50 and C‑49.

I don't know what my Conservative colleagues are trying to do with this mountain of oddball amendments they're proposing to us this morning, but I know that people are watching us now. Some of them are starting to think my colleagues' conduct is a bit much. The Conservative Party leadership tells the House that people are requesting medical assistance in dying because they have nothing to eat. Some people in my riding who hear that find it appalling.

There are some MPs here today who, instead of seriously discussing a bill, are proposing oddball amendments and citing the ridings of certain members in an attempt to find an excerpt that suggests those members don't want to listen to the people. I don't think that's a serious gambit. If we're being serious today, this afternoon, we will promptly vote on the subamendment and Ms. Stubbs' amendment. Then we'll decide on the motion before us so we can begin the work we have to do on bills C‑50 and C‑49.

I'm telling you that even though I voted against those bills in the House. I'm prepared to hear witnesses because the mandate given to me by the people in the riding of Jonquière is to act as a legislator, not as a buffoon. I therefore request a vote on my colleague's subamendment.

Perhaps then we can move on to something else.

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

I have a quick point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Simard, for your comments.

Mr. Patzer, go ahead.

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

Thank you.

I have a point of clarity on an earlier ruling that was made.

Standing Order 119 does state that only members may vote or move a motion, but it also says this:

Any member of the House who is not a member of a standing, special or legislative committee, may, unless the House or the committee concerned otherwise orders, take part in the public proceedings of the committee, but may not vote or move any motion, nor be part of any quorum.

It actually does say that they may take part in the debate, but they can't vote, move a motion or be part of the quorum. If they want to just have their voice heard, according to Standing Order 119, they are able to do so.

I'll just leave that with you, Chair.