Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 30th, 2023

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

“Duplicitous”?

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

Yes.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Well, if you're saying two different things, what is the second one?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Colleagues, I would ask all members of the committee to use points of order for procedural concerns that we may have.

I would also ask all colleagues to make sure that we use parliamentary language in how we conduct ourselves at the committee today. It's always how we've conducted ourselves in the past, and today and into the future it's important that we conduct ourselves by using parliamentary language in the House of Commons but also here at the natural resources committee. Thank you.

We have a point of order by Mr. Brock.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Chair, I just want to clarify: Is it the ruling of the chair that the use of the term “duplicitous” by my colleague Mr. Falk, in pointing out two different versions from Ms. Dabrusin with respect to the state of the witnesses and the urgency by which he wants to hear these witnesses, is unparliamentary?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I've asked colleagues to use parliamentary language. I'm not referring to any comment made by any member, but we should refrain from using unparliamentary language at committee. It's a reminder that I'm providing committee members at today's meeting.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Well, if it's a ruling on the use of the word “duplicitous” in the point of order by Mr. Falk, I would be challenging your ruling on that, sir.

In my view, that is not unparliamentary. It is not derogatory. It's merely pointing out two versions of fact. All members of this committee have a right to know exactly where Ms. Dabrusin stands on that particular issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Brock, you are challenging a ruling that I made. I will ask committee members if they would like to sustain the ruling of the chair, if you're challenging my ruling. Is that what you're doing, sir?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I need you to clarify whether or not you as the chair have ruled the use of the word “duplicitous” to be unparliamentary, as opposed to your description of being mindful of unparliamentary language in this particular committee. I think everyone at this committee needs to know exactly where you stand, sir, on the word—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Brock—

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'm not done speaking yet.

I think everyone at the committee deserves to know if you feel that the word “duplicitous” in relation to the comment by Mr. Falk is ruled to be unparliamentary.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Brock, I was referring to the use of parliamentary language here at the committee, not to any terms or words used by committee members. I just asked all committee members to ensure that as we conduct ourselves through the meeting—as we have in the past, as we have today and as we should in the future—we use parliamentary language. I did not refer to any specific word that any member has made.

I want to make sure that all committee members respect each other, have a workplace for everybody that has mutual respect, and consider using language as we move forward that is parliamentary and that does not veer off from that.

I hope that clarifies and answers your point of order, and—

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

It does. I have another point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

That being dealt with, Mr. Brock, I'll go to Mr. Dreeshen, who has a point of order. If you still have a point of order then, I'll come back to you.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I believe you will find that the issue here has more to do with what Mr. Sorbara had mentioned as he attempted to present to the committee that there was an issue from us indicating that this particular word should not be mentioned. At that particular point, instead of indicating that, from everything you have ever heard, such a word would not have been considered unparliamentary....

Had you mentioned that to Mr. Sorbara, we would not be in this position at this point in time. The problem is that if we don't stop that the moment it is presented, then we can get into a situation where anybody can challenge a word. Unless they are challenged back by the chair to indicate that, sorry, that is not an unparliamentary phrase, then we will get into this situation constantly.

This is in order to help the committee. If you had addressed what Mr. Sorbara had said and indicated to him that nowhere in any precedent did the word “duplicitous” sound as though it would be unparliamentary, then I don't believe we would be in this position. I think the issue isn't so much related to the things Ms. Dabrusin said. It was because of the intervention from Mr. Sorbara. That is what we are dealing with.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you for that, Mr. Dreeshen.

As I've clearly said, based on the points of order that have been presented, number one, we should all conduct ourselves to make sure that we are using parliamentary language and not using anything that would not be parliamentary towards each other. Number two, we do not use our points of order to engage in debate. As I've said to a number of members, we focus on the procedural relevance of the point of order.

We will move forward to Mr. Brock.

Do you still have a point of order? I want to get back to Mr. Genuis, who has the floor.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I do. You may rule it not to be a point of order, but since the word “duplicitous” has not been deemed by the chair to be unparliamentary, I would like a response, if possible, from Ms. Dabrusin to clarify the discrepancy.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you for your point of order, Mr. Brock.

If a member would like to provide that when they do have the floor and relate it back to the subamendment that's being debated, the member can do so, but I think we will move forward to where we were.

Mr. Falk, do you have a point of order?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You know, Mr. Sorbara did make an accusation that there was a word that I'd used in my previous intervention that was unparliamentary, and I think you do need to make a ruling, sir, on whether it was unparliamentary language or whether it was a word that is very descriptive of the circumstance we found ourselves in.

I think, for Mr. Sorbara's better understanding and ability to make further interventions, he needs to know whether, in fact, he was making a valid point or not. That's a ruling, sir, that you should make.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

As I've stated numerous times, we should focus on ensuring at this committee we don't use language that is not parliamentary, and I'll stick with that. I am sure everybody can move forward in that manner so we have mutual respect working together on this committee.

Thank you for all your points of order, colleagues. I do want to get back to Mr. Genuis, who has the floor.

Mr. Genuis, we have no more points of order, so you have the floor, sir.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We're in unprecedented territory for this committee in that we've exhausted the available points of order and that I, having had the floor, have been allowed to continue to have the floor by you, the chair. These are some noteworthy developments, given the recent history of the natural resources committee.

I will respond to what obviously was not a point of order from my colleague opposite, Ms. Dabrusin, who objected to my use of the term "December 4" on the basis that it is, in her view, not December 4. I was referring to a motion before the House. In the House, as on the rest of the planet, it is undisputably December 4. At least it is in most. I think the time zones line up right about now, and it is, in fact, the case more or less everywhere.

She said it's October 30 in this room because we are continuing a previous meeting. Her point, I think, was to try to get out there the allegation that this is some lengthy filibuster process or something. I would just remind everyone of how we got here and where we're at. This has not been the sustained process of Conservatives making arguments about the motion before the committee. It's quite the contrary. Actually, what we've seen at this committee, over the last month or so, is consistent objections to the complete miscarriage of process because we had a situation in which one member had the floor and then was arbitrarily deprived of the floor. This was a matter that was discussed, extensively, over multiple sessions of this committee that went on for a number of weeks. It was not a matter of debating the motion in those exchanges, it was a matter of asserting the privileges of members of Parliament, the right of members to be able to speak and raise their concern before the committee.

I think anyone would find, if they reviewed the discussion that took place in those instances, that, in fact, the vast majority of the speaking being done was by the NDP-Liberal coalition. I think it is clear if you say, whose talking is taking the time, that, in fact, over the last month, most of it has been Ms. Dabrusin and Mr. Angus. I think that's fairly clear, although Conservatives were trying to get the floor to try to raise specific comments about this legislation, the important issues that it raises and the debates that need to take place around it. We were in a situation where it was Liberal and NDP members speaking, raising points of order, interrupting, not allowing members to have the floor, that was clearly the cause of this process having continued such that, formally speaking, we are in a committee meeting that began on October 30, although it's been suspended and scheduled under the circumstances, relatively sparsely by the chair.

All of these things are things that are beyond the control of Conservative members. We have sought to put some specific points of concern on the record and we have been snowed in by interruptions, points of order and flagrant violations of the rules. I think the worst was when, on multiple occasions, Mr. Angus used flagrantly unparliamentary language and was allowed to do so by the chair, even when points of order were raised at that time. This is what brings us to this point where Conservatives are looking for an opportunity to set the agenda of the committee in a responsible way and to speak to our concerns in the process about aspects of this government's agenda, an agenda that aims to shut down highly productive parts of our economy and force workers who are working in those highly productive parts of the economy to no longer be able to work in those sectors.

In terms of the doublespeak associated with the phrase, "just transition", I think, by now, it is extremely clear to workers and to everyone who follows these discussions that when the government says, "just transition," what they mean is to shut down critical industries in our economy.

The effect of this is likely to push those jobs overseas and to leave Canadian workers with very few options, but maybe under this rhetoric of just transition to offer them welfare payments.

The folks who are working hard in the energy sector, who are benefiting from energy-related extraction and manufacturing, are not looking to be transitioned to government benefits. They're looking to have the opportunity to continue to work in their field, which is a growth field globally. The Canadian energy sector is leading the world in terms of improvements in environmental performance, and this is why Conservatives strongly oppose the absurd doublespeak associated with the government's so-call “just transition” agenda.

It becomes so clear to workers that this rhetoric is aimed at shutting down jobs. In fact the labour minister admitted in the House that he no longer likes using the term “just transition”, because workers don't like it. Quite strikingly, he admitted as much. Yes, they don't like the term, but they also don't like the substance of it. The government, in trying to change the verbiage they use to describe their agenda without changing the substance of the agenda, hasn't fooled anyone before, and it's not going to fool anyone now.

The fact is that the Liberal-NDP coalition has been consistent in not standing up for workers.

We want to hear from workers at this committee. This is what we have been saying from the beginning. We want to be able to have hearings in a—

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

I have a point of order.

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

I suspect it's not a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

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

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

I just have a question for you and the clerk.

I believe the motion that I submitted was done on October 30. Is that correct?