Evidence of meeting #80 for Natural Resources in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was point.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you, Chair.
We are dealing with issues of great importance to workers. We have people watching this, and we need to rise above this level of—
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
—intimidation of the chair.
Every time I speak, we are interrupted by the Conservatives who try to shout people down.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
This is about decorum. This is about respect for the chair. This is about respect for Parliament—
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
—so I'm asking that when you speak and make a ruling, Chair, if you need to cut mikes off, you should cut mikes off because what you're being faced with is total intimidation.
Conservative
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
How many times did you raise a point of order at the last meeting?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Order.
I'm going to say to all members, our interpreters need to listen and follow the conversation. When we are talking over each other, when we are not allowing other members to speak, it is very difficult for interpreters to interpret what is happening here. We need to get back to the order of business that we've been focusing on and to the speaker who presented the other day.
If there are no points of order, we will continue—
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Ms. Stubbs, if you can, go directly to your point of order and do not engage in debate so that Mr. Genuis can resume where we ended the other day.
I'll go to you on your point of order, but on the point of order, please.
Thank you.
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
Thank you, Chair.
On the point on order on Charlie's earlier point of order about workers and livelihoods and families and communities who depend on resource development, who work in traditional oil and gas and who want to seek futures in renewable energy development and the development of the fuels of the future, let us have no contest here about who believes—
Liberal
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
Sure.
I want to believe every single person around this table, but let me tell you without a shadow of a doubt that every single Conservative who has been fighting this agenda non-stop is related to and represents hundreds of thousands of those people. That's what we are doing, Chair.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Ms. Stubbs, we are engaging in debate. That's not a point of order, but I—
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
I think that if you were to view this objectively afterwards, you'd see that's exactly what Charlie did, but thank you. This is gaslighting of the truest order.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Thank you, Ms. Stubbs.
Mr. Genuis, when we concluded the last meeting, you had the floor. Would you like to cede the floor or would you like to continue?
November 1st, 2023 / 4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Chair, upon serious reflection on the matter, I have decided I would like to keep the floor because I do have more to say. I will now do so.
I do want to begin, though, by recognizing the incredible hard work of our shadow minister for natural resources, my friend and riding neighbour, Ms. Stubbs, who represents the riding of Lakeland. She has clearly shown already today and will continue to show what a passionate advocate for the energy sector, for Albertans and for all Canadians she is. In particular she's also a strong voice for indigenous communities that are part of and benefiting from the energy economy, and she brings a great deal of understanding and authenticity in her discussion of those issues.
We are, however, primarily focused at the moment on the privileges of a different member, that is, privileges of the member for Peace River—Westlock. I will just remind the committee that we are debating my motion that the privilege of the member for Peace River—Westlock was breached when the chair and committee refused to allow him to speak in the debate on Bill C-69.
Maybe a good place to start is just on the series of events that took place in committee that involved the violation of the privileges of my good colleague from Peace River—Westlock. We were in debate on a programming motion in relation to this government's “unjust transition” legislation. The context of this is very interesting, and I think this explains the eagerness of many members to speak to this issue.
The minister made an interesting admission in the House during time allocation on this bill. He actually told the House that workers don't like the term “just transition”. I thought it was a prescient observation that workers don't like the term “just transition”, although his solution to this was to call it something else. He said he was not going to use the terminology “just transition” anymore and that they were going to describe the same set of policies in a different way, right?
This is sort of like when I'm trying to get my children to eat their brussels sprouts and they won't eat them, and I say, “Well, let's just call them chocolate cake.” It doesn't change the substance of them, though. They're still brussels sprouts, right?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Mr. Genuis, can we just hold on that point of order, please?
Mr. Angus, go ahead on the procedural point of order.