Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 30th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

My intention is to go until 6:30 p.m., unless you cede the floor earlier. I don't want to give Mrs. Stubbs a moment or two to get started and then have to take a break before the next intervention. I'll leave it up to you how you'd like to proceed. We can proceed for another two and a half minutes to 6:30, because that's when we have resources until this evening.

You do have the floor. I'll let you decide if you want to provide a few more minutes of your important debate on Mr. Falk's subamendment.

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

It's a great subamendment, because, again, the number of projects going on in the riding of Timmins—James Bay is quite remarkable.

We can look at the strategic advantage that we should have in this country. It's quite remarkable to think that the United States' military is investing in Canada for our resources, because we have the critical minerals the world wants and needs. When the U.S. military wants to invest in Canada, I'm sure a philosophical debate could be had by everybody on that. We'll maybe leave that one for another day, possibly another committee. Who knows?

It really shows what we have in this country. I think it would be extremely frustrating to them to know that it could take 25 years to get a project producing. Again, that leads to the question of where else they might go to invest. What other countries around the world are trying to produce lots of the same minerals, trying to mine the same minerals we are or that we possess in this country?

Certainly when you look at the human rights atrocities of some of these countries around the world and the lack of good working conditions, I can guarantee you there's no unionized labour in some of those countries with the way these folks are treated. That's not to mention that they do not have the environmental regulations and sustainability initiatives we have in Canada. They also don't have an unconstitutional Impact Assessment Act. They wouldn't have an Impact Assessment Act to begin with, but the point is that we have a former bill from this government, Bill C-69, that's now a law and it's largely unconstitutional. Of all the things in the way of getting projects built so that good, sustainable Canadian projects can supersede and replace—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Patzer, I'm sorry to cut you off. We are at time, and I would ask you to hold that important thought for a future opportunity to finish up. Thank you.

Colleagues, we will suspend for this evening. Have a great evening.

[The meeting was suspended at 6:30 p.m., Wednesday, November 29]

[The meeting resumed at 11:07 a.m., Monday, December 4]

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Welcome back to meeting number 80 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

Today we are meeting in public to discuss committee business.

In accordance with our routine motion, I am informing the committee that all remote participants have completed the required connection tests in advance of the meeting.

When we suspended on Wednesday, November 29, we had resumed debate on the subamendment of Mr. Falk, and Mr. Patzer had the floor.

I will just remind everybody that Mr. Sorbara had moved a motion. We later had an amendment moved, and then we had the subamendment of Mr. Falk, and Mr. Patzer had the floor. Now, we will continue through with our speakers list after Mr. Patzer.

Ms. Dabrusin, I had you next on the list. Do you still want to speak to the subamendment?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Genuis, you had raised that you wanted to speak. You now have the floor, sir.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

For a long time I have been seeking to have the floor here at the natural resources committee. Frankly we've seen an unprecedented situation that has limited my ability to have the floor. I had the floor, and it was taken away. We had instances of extended problems, confusion and a misstatement of the situation of interpreters by the chair. I have been in and out throughout that process.

I am grateful for the opportunity to finally be able to address the committee about an issue that is extremely important to my constituents. That is this government's anti-energy—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Genuis, I'll ask you to pause for a minute. We have a point of order from Monsieur Simard.

Monsieur Simard, go ahead.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I'd simply like some clarification.

My colleague just said that there had been a misstatement of the situation of interpreters by the chair. I'd like him to explain what he's referring to. What is he talking about?

If he is alluding to the fact that the uproar caused by a number of Conservative members made it impossible for me to hear the simultaneous interpretation, then in that instance, I wouldn't think you've interpreted this incorrectly, Mr. Chair. But I think that it's really bad behaviour on the part of my Conservative colleagues, who care very little about the welfare of the interpreters, and even less so, about francophone participation in the debate.

I'd like him to clarify what he meant.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Monsieur Simard, for your point of order.

I think this is also a good time to remind colleagues about the importance of interpretation, which has been raised. Only one member at a time speaks through the mic, so that interpreters can effectively do the great job of interpreting that they've been doing through all of the meetings here at our committee. It does become quite challenging for them if numerous speakers have their mics on and are speaking. It makes it difficult for interpreters to effectively interpret for the benefit of all committee members.

Thank you, Monsieur Simard, for that point of order.

Mr. Genuis, I'll come back to you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to respond to my colleague.

I have a great deal of respect for bilingualism and the French language. Your intervention clearly had nothing to do with the Standing Orders.

In fact, the chair lied to the committee. He said that when lots of people speak at the same time, it's a health issue. I would say that while it might make it difficult for the interpreters to do their work, it's not a health issue. We've already discussed this, but I'll take the opportunity to reiterate my position on this issue.

It's obviously not ideal when many people speak at the same time, but it doesn't have anything to do with the interpreters' health. That's obvious. We were therefore given inaccurate information.

Mr. Chair, we are now discussing committee business, but it is important to say in the context of that discussion of committee business that we now have a motion that was initially debated. It's begun debate in the House.

It would seek to impose an approach on the committee of considering this bill. This is motion number 31. It is an unprecedented, egregious and very draconian approach that the NDP-Liberal government is taking to impose a very specific timeline on this committee for Bill C-50. It's a timeline that is completely different from the approach that committees would normally take. This limits our ability to hear from any of the witnesses the motion we're currently debating would propose to enable us to hear.

The motion that is being debated before the House, which was put forward by the government—by all indications, with the support of its coalition partners in the NDP—says that in consideration of this bill, there will be, in effect, no witness testimony. Amendments would have to be submitted by four o'clock the day after the motion was adopted. It seems the government's intention is that the motion be voted on today, so amendments would have to be submitted by four o'clock tomorrow. The committee should meet “at 6:30 p.m. on the second sitting day following the adoption of the motion”—

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Chair, I have a point of order on relevance. We're not debating the motion that's in the House. We are in committee at this moment, and I believe what we have before us is the subamendment that was brought by Mr. Falk to call witnesses from Timmins.

Perhaps Mr. Genuis could get back to the subamendment.

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

I have a point of order as well, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin.

I will remind colleagues that we are on the subamendment introduced by Mr. Falk on the inclusion of witnesses from Timmins—James Bay.

I will ask the member, as you proceed in your debate on this important subamendment provided by Mr. Falk, to keep it relevant to the importance of enabling the stakeholders from Timmins—James Bay to participate in this.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

On a point of order, we have several new members—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Genuis, I'll ask you to turn off your mic, if you don't mind, just until Mr. Falk is done.

Go ahead, Mr. Falk.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We have several members here today who aren't typically members of this committee. They're helping us debate this very important subamendment, but they don't all have copies of the subamendment. I am wondering whether the clerk could circulate it.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Falk, for your point of order. We will circulate the subamendment to all committee members.

I want to welcome the committee members who have joined us today for the first time.

Ms. Barron, welcome.

Mr. Brock, welcome.

Mr. Genuis, welcome, as well, joining us today in committee.

Ms. Lattanzio is online.

Mr. Genuis, we'll go back to you, so you can continue your debate on the subamendment.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will remain relevant, as I always have.

Maybe to make it explicit for Ms. Dabrusin, who I'm sure is following intently every word that I am saying, the motion before this committee relates to the business of the committee, the study of bills, in particular, including Bill C-50. The amendment and the subamendment deal with which witnesses would be called during consideration of that bill.

Meanwhile, we have a motion before the House that, if passed, would make it impossible for this committee to hear from any witnesses. The government, with their coalition partners in the NDP, are moving in the House to impose a shutdown of debate here at the natural resources committee. Committees are supposed to be masters of their own domain, and we could be debating this subamendment based on the idea that we actually get to decide. It is the intention of the government to rob us of our historic and ancient rights and privileges as a committee, by imposing upon us this draconian situation where we would not be able to hear from any witnesses.

That is not merely tangentially relevant to the point; that is the point, because the subamendment is about which witnesses we would call.

This motion from the House, which I was discussing before being interrupted by Ms. Dabrusin's point of order, would make it impossible for the committee to hear from those witnesses.

Again, based on the government's scheduling and intentions, it appears to be their intention to impose the passage of this motion by the end of day today, December 4. This means that tomorrow would be the deadline for submitting amendments, and that the committee would meet “the second sitting day following” at 6:30 to begin clause-by-clause. I believe that means two days after, so that would be Wednesday. It would have two hours to do clause-by-clause; and if, by 8:30—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Genuis, I'll ask you to pause for a second. We have a point of order from Ms. Dabrusin.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I wanted to clarify for the member opposite, because he is relatively new to this committee today, that we are actually still on October 30 in this room—in that strange place where this filibustering from the Conservatives began. In fact, we are not on December 4; we are in a meeting of October 30. If we had in fact been able to proceed on October 30, we would have been hearing witnesses by this date.

I just wanted to clarify, because he may not realize what date we're actually on in this room.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin, for your point of order and your remarks for clarification.

Mr. Genuis, before you proceed we have a point of order by Mr. Falk.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I would like to make it very clear that on Friday Ms. Dabrusin spoke in the House very passionately about Bill C-50 and about the work of this committee. She made a declaration in the House that day saying that she's looking forward to hearing witnesses here at committee. She knows full well that the motion that's presented by her party would prevent any witnesses from attending committee, so she's being very duplicitous in her comments between the House and our committee. I think she should maybe take an opportunity to clarify what she meant on Friday in the House by saying she was looking forward to hearing from witnesses she knew would never appear.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Falk, on the point of order.

We have a point of order from Mr. Sorbara.

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

There are two things on my point of order, and whether it is or not, you'll be the judge of that, Chair.

The first thing is Mr. Falk is absolutely correct. My colleague, MP Dabrusin, has a real passion for Canada moving to a net-zero economy, because we know the economic opportunities for workers from coast to coast to coast are enormous. We'll continue demonstrating that passion, whether it's through policy or through debates.

MP Falk, you mentioned something about my colleague, MP Dabrusin, and you used a word I will not repeat. I think you should give it consideration and withdraw that comment about MP Dabrusin, please.