Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 30th, 2023

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Chair, relative to your points earlier about being judicious and accurate in our comments about each other and our work here in the committee, Mr. Angus would know that we supported the study that is ongoing on the electricity grid, on efforts for decarbonization. In fact, Conservatives have proposed more work, as a first step, on the progress of inter-ties among provinces and north to south. I wouldn't want to accuse a fellow colleague of spreading falsehoods, but that allegation about Conservatives not interested in the work on the grid is such.

Second, the claim that you won't find a first nation that supports the Ring of Fire is just absolutely flagrantly false, given that, for example, there are two first nations communities—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Ms. Stubbs, we are getting into....

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

—that are proposing infrastructure specifically to be able to access the Ring of Fire. There are a number of first nations—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Ms. Stubbs, I'd ask you to hold.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

—that led proposals in the Ring of Fire, and of course that's all being held up by the red tape—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Ms. Stubbs, I'd ask you to hold.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

—the development of the regional assessment plans, which aren't complete yet.

Again, I wouldn't accuse colleagues of spreading falsehoods here at the committee, but that claim is false too.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Ms. Stubbs, I don't want to cut you off.

Let's not use points of order for debate. If you would like to debate, Mr. Angus does have the floor to debate the subamendment.

As a reminder, I want to make sure that all colleagues make their point of order on the procedural issue they have. If there is a procedural issue, make your procedural issue, and then we can move back to what we were discussing.

I do have Mr. Patzer on that point of order, Ms. Stubbs, and then I'll go back to you on the point of order as well.

Mr. Patzer, go ahead on the point of order.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to say that I am paraphrasing, because I do not have your direct quote in front of me. At a previous meeting, you said that when a member has the floor on a point of order, as Ms. Stubbs did, that we were not going to be interrupting them, because of the issue of crosstalk and the fact that there are multiple problems that come with this.

You had asked us previously—and I would be happy to stand corrected by you if I am wrong here—that we would let points of order finish, and then proceed to the next one so that we could maintain order. This would also allow members to finish their points of order without being interrupted, because there's been a point of emphasis from you to make sure that we don't have crosstalk, excessive noise and things like that.

When Ms. Stubbs was giving her intervention, there were multiple attempts to try to cut her off and not allow her to finish her point of order.

I would like to know what's going on here.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Patzer.

I, as chair, did turn on my mike to allow Ms. Stubbs to finish her thought, but I did want to interject to let her know to use the point of order as a point of order, not to go into extensive debate.

I, as chair, will do that. I do not want to interrupt members mid-sentence. They can finish their thought, but I also want to make sure that we follow the rules and procedures we have here at committee. The chair acknowledges the speakers, but makes sure that a point of order is focused on a point of order and it is not used for further debate. At times, I do have to interject.

Colleagues, once again as a quick reminder, what I normally like to do, when I feel like it's getting into debate, is turn on my mike, as a first. I know sometimes folks have their heads down looking at their notes or are speaking to colleagues around the room and I do not get your attention right away. That's where I step in to ask you to pause. I will continue to do that. I'm hoping that's a good process that works.

I think today it has been working well, so I know we can all continue to make sure that happens.

I have Ms. Stubbs on a point of order and then I have Mr. Angus.

I'm going to Ms. Stubbs on the point of order and then I'm going to go to Mr. Angus.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thanks, Chair.

Given your comments and also from the comments of my colleague, I did want to clarify my aim in that the point of order was specifically related to what you had been talking about procedurally this meeting about alleging falsehoods and lying among members. I don't think my interjection was that extensive, although I suppose we could start timing so that we have proof for it.

I only used the examples that are publicly verifiable that, of course, Conservatives do support the work on assessing all of the existing gaps as well as required grid capacity towards electrification. There is the reality that first nations communities also support development in the Ring of Fire. Bill C-69 is holding back the Ring of Fire because of the gatekeeping requirements for the regional assessment.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Ms. Stubbs, I will ask you to pause—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

They are still not complete, which is what's holding back the development in that region, which is very strongly supported by both indigenous and non-indigenous communities for those opportunities and jobs there.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Ms. Stubbs, we do have a point of order.

Ms. Dabrusin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As for the point of order, first of all, I am noticing a repeated issue. I do not see certain committee members respecting the fact that when your microphone is turned on, they must stop. That is something you have ruled on and warned us about now several times, yet time and again I see people continuing to speak even after your microphone has turned on. Ms. Stubbs just did it twice.

I'm going to ask again, out of respect for our interpreters, that this stop.

Also, points of order are being used to debate points that were raised, where people might disagree with the person who has the floor.

That's why we have a list of people who will be speaking in debate on this subamendment about bringing witnesses from Timmins. I believe that's what the subamendment is. We do not get to jump in on a point of order to talk about the subamendment itself.

Mr. Angus has the floor, and I would suggest that we try to move along so we can actually vote on that subamendment, hopefully as quickly as possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin.

We have a point of order from Mr. Patzer.

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

Based on what Ms. Dabrusin just said, but also by Mr. Angus's own admission, he was talking about somebody outside of Timmins—James Bay, so he wasn't speaking to the actual motion either. He was not on point. He even admitted that himself.

The other part is we were making sure that Mr. Angus was speaking on facts. My colleague was simply pointing out what Conservatives have actually done, such as a motion that is in front of the committee. It's not the one that's being studied, but we want Mr. Angus to have the facts.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

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

Colleagues, if you want to debate the merits through the time you have on the floor when you do get the floor, please go ahead. Debate the merits of the motion and counter any arguments that may have been placed today, when you have the floor. You can raise your hand, we can put you on a speaking list and we can get you on to participate moving forward.

I want to make sure that colleagues can finish their arguments, but if you do have a point of order that relates to a procedural issue, we can identify that and deal with it at the time. If you do want to engage in debate, do that when you are recognized and have the floor.

Now we have a point of order from Ms. Stubbs.

Ms. Stubbs, I would ask you to just focus on the point of order and try to avoid engaging in debate.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Related to your procedural comments earlier about respecting each other and not alleging, allying and falsehoods—Ms. Dabrusin emphasized that and so have you—then I won't belabour it at this point. But as my colleague, Mr. Patzer, just articulated, the issues we raised previously, and that I did just immediately, so that your direction could be delivered here about not alleging, falsehoods, or lying, how is it...?

I just gave three instances, which are not matters of opinion but they're in fact publicly verifiable, just to prove to colleagues that I'm not just making this up as I go along. There were three specific and very concise examples that are publicly verifiable facts. They're not matters of opinion or subjectivity. I endeavoured to do that, not to get into the substance of the debate. You're surely right that there will be lots of opportunity for that, and we'll certainly exercise that time and that ability and responsibility we have as members of Parliament as well as the official opposition. If we are to help you deliver successfully on your ruling about not alleging, allying, then how would you like that to be done?

I just thought that the really short three examples of publicly verifiable facts would be a way to show that, since we also do seem to face untrue allegations of partisanship and so-called monkey business.... That's just why I had endeavoured to give those short points.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Stubbs, on your point of order.

The only thing I'd say is focus on the point of order and note the arguments that you may have, and place those arguments when you have the floor and you can engage in that debate, but not use points of order to do that—to engage in debate.

I am going to Mr. Angus, but before I go back to him, I'm going to go to Monsieur Simard on a point of order.

Go ahead, Mr. Simard.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I have a very brief point of order. I would just like to make one thing clear for everyone.

I see that the voting members are Mr. Dreeshen, Mr. Falk, Mr. Patzer and Ms. Stubbs.

According to one procedure, if the committee agrees, only voting members may speak. Since many points of order are being raised, this is a long and laborious process. I'm going to object to the idea that an MP who isn't a voting member may speak, even to points of order. I think that's a guideline that the committee can follow. I would therefore like to propose that voting members be the only ones allowed to speak so we can promptly move forward.

I want to emphasize that the committee's proceedings haven't advanced at all for nearly a month, since October 30. I would ask that my colleagues co‑operate, and I would just like to remind them that we aren't sitting in camera. This meeting is public, and I think that anyone watching this later may see that certain individuals have acted in bad faith several times by repeatedly raising points of order.

I don't think it reflects well on the legislative function for us to be proceeding in this manner. To sum up what I just said, I want us to move forward smoothly. I'm going to object to the idea that all individuals who aren't voting members may have the floor. I think the committee can decide the matter.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

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

I will just hold for a quick second here.

I'm actually going to suspend for a moment at this point, and we will continue shortly.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Colleagues, we are resuming our meeting.

We had left with Monsieur Simard who raised a question on a point of order, which I am going to address.

A member can move when a member has the floor, but it cannot be moved on a point of order. Members who are participating who are voting members of the committee are allowed to participate in a vote. Members can participate, and if there is an objection from a committee member, they can raise that when they have the floor and not through a point of order. At that time, the committee can decide based on the objection that's raised by the committee member.

I hope that provides clarity specifically on that.

Mr. Patzer, has a point of order.

Is it a point of order on the point of order, or on Mr. Angus's...?

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

No, it's on your....

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Go ahead.