Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 30th, 2023

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

Point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Ms. Stubbs, we have a point of order from Mr. Angus.

Mr. Angus, go ahead.

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

Thank you.

The rule in Parliament is you can't do indirectly what you're not allowed to do directly.

The issue is Ms. Stubbs is making the argument that her motion on C-69 needs to take precedence, but she's doing it by referencing the motion that's there. Right now we have a motion. The motion has to be voted on. Then Ms. Stubbs can bring her motion and we can debate that—

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

Point of order, Mr. Chair.

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

—to actually override—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Angus, we have a point of order from Mr. Patzer.

Go ahead, Mr. Patzer.

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

I'm not sure if Mr. Angus is having problem with his Internet connection, but I think he should keep track of what we're actually talking about.

Ms. Stubbs has not moved a motion. She is speaking to the government's motion that it has put forward to schedule committee meetings. She is talking about the relevance of the particular government bills that are before us and why we, as Conservatives, as opposition, want to prioritize which bill in which order—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Patzer, we're getting into debate.

Do you have a point of order?

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

Mr. Angus should stay on point as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you for your point of order.

Mr. Angus, thank you for your point of order.

Once again, members, I will remind you to try your best to stay on topic and be succinct so other members also have an opportunity to participate in this debate. It's a very important one to discuss this motion.

Ms. Stubbs, it's back to you. The floor is yours.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate that and certainly appreciate all of the input, the advice and the constructive criticism about all the intricacies of all the rules here in Parliament. You all know me well enough by now to know that I certainly do have to brush up on that stuff, and I thank everybody for their input.

I will never stop fighting for the people I represent and for jobs and for affordable lives for every single Canadian in every corner of this country.

As I was saying, I hope that I have made the case so far in response to this motion that we have received today to dictate the scheduling for this committee without the facts that we need to know in advance and why we must do it in this order.

Let me explain why the C-69 issue must be prioritized because of how it's related to C-49. I'm not sure if all members of this committee have had a chance to read C-49. It is an issue you can imagine that is near and dear to my heart as a person whose mother came from Newfoundland and whose family is there, and whose father came from Nova Scotia. In fact, my grandmother was the first woman mayor of Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, so certainly it's near and dear to this first-generation, born and raised Albertan.

Those provincial governments want C-49, but this is the problem, and this is why the government has been so negligent in not dealing with this. The government has been sitting on their hands since the Supreme Court said a law that the NDP and Liberals both voted for which is in place is unconstitutional.

Sections of C-69 are embedded verbatim, identical language, no less than 33 times in C-49. Let me say that again for why it's so important that these things be ordered in the way they are.

The Supreme Court of Canada said that the most cornerstone, most significant piece of legislation that the Liberals, the Prime Minister, the ministers at the time rightfully said was their flagship, their most cornerstone legislation underpinning resource development, which I know every member on this committee agrees.... They are people like Viviane, who represents a riding that is very dependent on natural resources development, on mining. She is a champion for those people. I know that it's important for every Canadian in every region. It's important to people in Toronto, too, for example, because of the impact of energy stocks on the TSX and the many jobs that are dependent on that.

The issue here is that this bill is still in law. It's sitting there. It's largely unconstitutional. The government is not fixing it or responding to it in any kind of efficient way whatsoever. The Friday announcement was—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Ms. Stubbs, we have a point of order from Mr. Angus.

Mr. Angus, go ahead on a point of order.

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

I hate to keep interrupting, but we are debating Bill C-50 and Bill C-49.

Ms. Stubbs continually wants to debate Bill C-69. That is not the issue here.

I've reached out to her office and said we're more than willing to bring forward a motion, but she doesn't have a motion. She can't off-end what's being debated now.

I would suggest, Chair, that we keep it focused. We could be here all day and all night perhaps. We have to get this motion passed so we can get down to committee business.

We're discussing Bill C-50 and Bill C-49.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

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

I'd ask my colleague to keep relevant to the motions at hand, which are Bill C-50 and Bill C-49 and to what's been presented here today.

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

I have a point of order.

I'd just like to do it after Mr. Angus and before Ms. Stubbs begins. I don't want to interrupt her.

On the bills at hand, Bill C-49 and Bill C-50, and on the motion I read out—thank you, Parliamentary Secretary Serré for the differentiation between the scheduling and programming motion. It's always good to have a refresher.

We do operate here on committee and in the House under the Standing Orders. I think we all know that. There are a set of rules and within those rules we debate, bring forth legislation and do the work that our residents, who voted for us, sent us here to do.

I would agree with Ms. Stubbs on that fact.

I would actually like to ask MP Stubbs if there are amendments to be brought forward on the motion that was put forward. We can get work together to ensure we invite the witnesses that all parties wish to invite, so we can look at the legislation.

If there are things the official opposition wishes to bring forward, we're obviously here to work collaboratively to get through the legislation that the House has sent us. It is our responsibility on this committee to look at these two pieces of legislation.

With regard to—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Sorbara, I just want to make sure we're not getting into debate, so just on the point of order....

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

I'm just asking if Ms. Stubbs would like to bring forward amendments. We definitely would like to look at them and consider them. We would move forward from there.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Sorbara.

Ms. Stubbs, I think our colleagues are asking, through the points of order, if you're going to be tabling any amendments.

The floor is yours. Once again, I'd just make sure we keep it on the motion at hand and keep it succinct, so other members have an opportunity to participate in this debate.

Just keep it focused on the motion. If there's an amendment, that's great. We'd love to hear an amendment, if there is one.

Thank you.

The floor is yours.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that.

Of course, if the schedule hadn't been table-dropped on the same day, and we were all serious and honest about collaborating, working together, doing our job on behalf of everybody and viewing each of us as equal, with equal voices and equal roles, we wouldn't have to do this in real time in public right now, but here we are.

It's also funny. Charlie's comment is odd, because both times, didn't he...?

[An hon. member]

He did.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

He suggested that I didn't have a motion about Bill C-69 in his last comment. In the comment before that, of course, he said that I did. We'll just leave that there. It gets slippery sometimes. It's slippery here.

The relevance of Bill C-69 to Bill C-49 is that Bill C-69 is in Bill C-49 33 times. There's a reference to Bill C-69 33 times in Bill C-49.

This is, again, why I am saying it's the five-alarm fire and absolute priority for this NDP-Liberal government, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and certainly anybody from resource-based ridings. However, everybody who knows the outsized importance of all kinds of natural resources development, which underpins the economy, which gives jobs and opportunity to indigenous communities, often where there are very few, the same thing for remote, rural and northern communities.... Often, resource development is the only option people right across the country have for jobs, for businesses and to support their families. It has been the key driver for decades in Canada, and it is the key driver to close the gaps between the wealthy and the poor in Canada. It's extremely significant.

When we have these sections in Bill C-49 that reference Bill C-69 like this.... Among other provisions, there are the unconstitutional sections 61 to 64 of Bill C-69, as per paragraph 163 of the majority Supreme Court decision.

By including these parts of Bill C-69, we risk massive litigation, delays, costs and uncertainty. That's something the Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador premiers and all of those people certainly don't want to see happen. This is why they want a certain, clear and predictable regulatory framework for their provinces and for the private sector. It's also why they insisted on ensuring that provincial ministers would have a say, not only federal ministers.

Section 64 of Bill C-69 is determined by the Governor in Council's determination. Section 62 is based on section referral to the Governor in Council and section 61, as per the factors of public interest, which is section 63.

In terms of section 61 in Bill C-49, as it relates to Bill C-69, it's this. This section therefore incorporates the unconstitutional conditions of section 64 of Bill C-69 into the licensing approval and authorization process. The entire clause 62 of Bill C-49 incorporates the designated project scheme, which was found to be unconstitutional in paragraph 204 of the Supreme Court decision.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

In clause 169 of Bill C-49—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Ms. Stubbs, I would ask you to hold.

We have a point of order from Mr. Serré.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Honourable member, I have two points. One is referring again to Bill C-69 and the Supreme Court decision.