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.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
He is not on the speaking list as he is not a member of this committee subbing for somebody right now.
We will go back to the speaking order. We have Mr. Falk up next.
Mr. Falk, the floor is yours.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It's a pleasure for me to talk to this amendment brought by my colleague, Ms. Stubbs.
Just to bring people up to speed again, I'm going to read what the amendment actually is so that viewers watching this by television understand what it is that we're talking about. The amendment is that prior to engaging in the Liberal study motion that was brought forward, we:
1. First undertake the following study on Bill C-69: “Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study of the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling that Bill C-69, an Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, is unconstitutional; for the purposes of this study, the committee: (a) hold at least 5 meetings, (b) invite the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change to appear for one hour each, (c) report its findings and recommendations to the House and, (d) pursuant to Standing Order 109, request that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.”, then
2. Complete its consideration of Bill C-49.
The rest of the motion that was brought forward would follow that.
Really, putting things in the right order is what this motion is doing. We've heard from the Supreme Court in their reference opinion that Bill C-69 has many parts of it that are not charter-compliant and are not constitutionally sustainable.
Bill C-49 and Bill C-50 all have references to Bill C-69 in there and, because of that—sometimes the language is verbatim—need to be studied in the light of Bill C-69, which should at least be charter-compliant and constitutionally sustainable. At the moment, it's not.
That's why I think it's incumbent on this committee to take a look at Bill C-69 and look at the reference opinion that the Supreme Court has provided. Then, in the light of that report, we're better able to deal.... Once we've done a fulsome study on Bill C-69 and the Supreme Court's opinion, we're better able, once that legislation has been modified and has become compliant, to look at Bill C-49 and Bill C-50.
What I would like to do is make a subamendment to the amendment at this time. I'd like the subamendment to be that the witness list for the study of Bill C-69, as proposed in the amendment, include representatives of the resource companies from Timmins—James Bay. I can repeat that: that the study include witnesses, that a representative of the resource companies operating in Timmins—James Bay....
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I have a point of order, Chair.
I hate to interrupt my wise and learned colleague from Provencher. I'm very grateful for your indulgence, Chair.
I'm wondering if you will maintain the speaking list that was used previously for the subamendment or if we should seek to be re-added to the list for a separate speaking list for consideration of the subamendment. I know there are some variations in the practice used by chairs across the committees.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
What we've done today when there's a new motion on the floor is to have a new speaking list, which we've already begun to establish once the motion has been moved.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Then there's a new speaking list for the subamendment from—
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I would like to be added to that speaking list.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Excellent. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm very grateful.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
I'm going to give a very brief rationale for that subamendment. This is, in essence, the rationale.
I think it's an important subamendment. It is that the James Bay Treaty No. 9 territory currently supports 11 operating mines and has a workforce of 7,832 direct employees or contractors. The James Bay Treaty No. 9 territory has identified 13 critical minerals that are of specific interest to the governments of Ontario, Canada, U.S.A., EU, Australia, U.K., Japan and Korea.
Even the member for Timmins—James Bay, who is a member of this committee, brought up the fact that he hasn't seen a single person in the riding receive a heat pump, and he made that comment as recently as September 27 of this year. We need to hear from people from the area of Timmins—James Bay.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Marc Serré Liberal Nickel Belt, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'm a bit puzzled here. I know I missed a few hours of the Conservative filibustering here on Bill C-50 and Bill C-49.
Where in this motion are heat pumps? Clearly, there are issues here where we're looking at inviting the minister to come to speak on both Bill C-50 and Bill C-49—
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
On a point of order, Chair, I think this might be debate. This is not a point of order.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
We have a point of order to the point of order.
Mr. Patzer, go ahead on the point of order.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
This is not germane to the conversation. He's debating the member. Perhaps he should stick to the point of order at hand, or maybe you should rule the point of order as out of order. I will let you decide, Mr. Chair. That's your prerogative and not mine. He should stick to the debate at hand. This is not a debate.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Thank you.
I want to remind all committee members not to debate during your points of order, which we've seen many members do throughout the day today. It's not from everybody. There were lots from earlier today. Moving forward, I'm sure we'll make our points of order and will get back to the person who has the floor.
Mr. Falk, the floor is yours, sir.
October 30th, 2023 / 3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate your ruling on that.
The whole issue here is that we need to hear directly from people who have been impacted by Bill C-69, and the people who have been directly impacted are people in the natural resource sector, like oil and gas, like mining, and these people need a voice at the table. They don't feel that they're being represented. There are lots of not only workers there but also companies that support all those jobs. We need to hear from them on how they feel about Bill C-69.
Once we can determine that and can get Bill C-69 to the point where it is actually constitutionally sustainable and compliant, then we're much better positioned once that bill is corrected. We don't want the Supreme Court to have to look at Bill C-49 and Bill C-50 and correct those again because of all the references made to Bill C-69, which would probably make it also not compliant.
Why would we want them to do all that duplicate...? They have important cases to hear. They don't need to hear about the failures of the Liberal-NDP government having presented legislation, which wasn't compliant, to Parliament. They knew it wasn't compliant. The Conservatives argued long and hard, when that legislation was before us in 2018, that this was not charter-compliant and that this did not meet the litmus test that was required for it to be constitutionally sustainable. We weren't listened to. We were mocked, and we were criticized. Now you see what we have today, and that's the Supreme Court making a reference opinion on that piece of legislation and asking for that to be corrected.
It's incumbent on this committee—we're the natural resources committee—to study that piece of legislation. Let's help the government get it right.
Thank you.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Thank you, Mr. Falk.
We will now go to Monsieur Simard.
My apologies, it's Mr. Patzer first.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I think you gave our friend from the Bloc a heart attack there.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
On a point of order, before Mr. Patzer gets rolling, could you read out the list that presently exists for the subamendment?
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Mr. Angus is after that.
I'd like to remind members that Mr. Viersen is not a substituting member of the committee, so I cannot acknowledge him. He can sit at the table—
3:50 p.m.
An hon. member
He's going to be subbing for me once—
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
We will, once that substitution happens.
Right now we will go to you, Mr. Patzer.