Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 30th, 2023

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

Thank you.

There was a soft allegation put out there about decorum. I think we've all done a good job of raising our points of order and waiting to be acknowledged. I just want to make sure we're not impugning the integrity of individuals around here.

I just want to make it clear that we've done, I think, a very good job of making sure we are respectful of the order and, as we raise the points of order, waiting for you to acknowledge us, Mr. Chair.

I look forward to hearing Mr. Angus's closing remarks.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Patzer.

I think that was a reminder that from that perspective, I think we've learned in today's meeting. We had the constituency week to think about the previous meetings. Sometimes a bit of a break at home helps us refocus. I do appreciate everybody's effort here, from what we've seen today, to work in the appropriate fashion.

I'm going now to Mr. Angus, where we started this meeting today, to finish his remarks.

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

Thank you.

An hour and a half in, I hope I will finally be able to finish.

To that point, I certainly support the subamendment, but I would carve it out after we do this.

If the Conservatives are serious about dealing with mining, indigenous and clean energy issues, I think representatives from the regions I represent would be more than willing to correct the record in terms of the Ring of Fire. It's not Bill C-69 holding it up. It was a decision by Doug Ford to exclude the Eabametoong and Neskantaga first nations that caused the trouble, which resulted in a $95-billion lawsuit by Treaty 9 against the Ontario government. It is very problematic, because we have multiple mining projects that are set to go ahead and will go ahead with good programming.

To end my comments—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Angus, before you end, we have a point of order by Ms. Stubbs.

Ms. Stubbs, go ahead on the point of order.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Chair, I am mindful of what the Speaker has been saying in the House of Commons, over the last little while, about ensuring issues and comments raised in the capacity of our roles as federal members of Parliament have to do with actual federal government policy. Certainly, there is example after example of this government's anti-private sector, anti-development, anti-energy and anti-resource policy holding back clean tech, critical minerals and LNG.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Ms. Stubbs, I would ask you to get to your point of order.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Perhaps you have some comments to share about boundaries around comments made about different levels of government that aren't our purview here, in a federal committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Stubbs.

The subamendment is on Timmins. The importance of what the member said on the mining industry.... He's tying it into mining.

If the member would like to conclude his remarks, I'll turn it over to Mr. Angus to finish up.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Yes, it's now past 12:30, and I'm still trying to say that I am concluding without being interrupted. I am concluding.

As I give up the floor, which I still have, I support my colleague Mr. Simard in that non-voting members should not be recognized to speak without the unanimous consent of the committee.

I believe that is a non-debatable motion. We should vote on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Okay.

What Mr. Angus has brought forward is that members who are non-voting members and who aren't subbed in are not able to participate in the proceedings of the meeting, unless there is unanimous consent to do so through a vote.

The member has asked for that. He has the right to do that, and it goes right to a vote.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

That's a substantive motion, not a dilatory motion, as far as I understand it.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We'll go to a vote.

It was a procedural motion raised when the member had the floor. It can be raised.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Where in the book does it say this is a —

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Genuis, I would ask you not to turn on your mike.

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

There is no point of order. The member has asked for a vote and we will proceed to a vote.

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

Yes, there are points of order. Mr. Chair, you're making things up again. It's a point of order.

[An hon. member]

It moves to a vote. You called for a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We can go by the raising of hands on this.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

You're bound by the rules.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

On the point of order, Mr. Genuis, because we have not started the vote.

On the point of order.

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

Thank you, Chair.

The motion that Mr. Angus has put forward I believe is clearly a substantive motion. You've said it's a dilatory motion. I would like to know where this allegedly dilatory motion is listed in the rules.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice provides a pretty clear and limited number of dilatory motions. I think you'll find them on page 1168, but I'm working from memory there, so I might be off a little bit. I believe it's on page 1168. There are motions like proceeding to a certain matter or adjourning debate. In any event, even when it is a traditionally dilatory motion, with a condition attached to it, for instance “adjourn debate until tomorrow”, as soon as you attach a condition, it becomes a substantive motion.

Mr. Angus provided a series of conditions in association with his motion. Frankly, although his motion would normally be substantive anyway, the attachment of conditions to it clearly makes it a substantive motion, which means it's debatable.

Again, Mr. Chair, if you are seeking clarity on this, I would suggest you suspend or allow the clerk to speak on it. You can't just make this up as you go along here. There is a rule book. You have to follow it. It makes it pretty clear that Mr. Angus's motion is a substantive motion, not a dilatory motion.

I would love to hear from the clerk. I would love to hear the sections of the book cited, and I'll leave my comments there for now.

[Marc-Olivier Girard, Committee Clerk]

I was telling the chair that, indeed, given the fact that Mr. Angus moved that motion but added something like, except by unanimous consent of the committee members, one can make the point that it makes the motion more debatable. It adds a requirement.

That was what I was telling the chair at this very moment. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

So—

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

Thank you. Chair, I'd like to be added to the speakers list on this motion.