Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 30th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Do you have a point of order?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I want to speak to the point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Do you want to speak to Mr. Patzer's point of order or to Mr. Angus's point of order?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I want to speak to Mr. Angus's point of order because that's the point of order we're talking about.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

That's right, but I just want it to be clear.

Go ahead on the point of order, Mr. Falk.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I've sat here fairly patiently and listened to Charlie Angus interrupt the committee several times on a point of order. He always talks about relevance, that Bill C-69 is being referred to.

The problem is that Bill C-69 is so intertwined in both Bill C-49 and Bill C-50 that it needs to be referenced in order for Ms. Stubbs to build a proper road map to try to explain to the committee why the schedule that they've proposed—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Falk, we're getting into debate now, so I want it to stay on the point of order. I think you've made your point clear.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

My point, Mr. Chair, is that Mr. Angus shouldn't be interrupting the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

All members have the right to use the point of order for a point of order.

I will once again ask that members use their time in debate on relevance, being succinct and debate the motion at hand. That's what we're here to do as parliamentarians. We are here to debate the legislation that's been brought forward on the motion that was brought forward by Mr. Sorbara.

Ms. Stubbs, the floor is yours for you to continue. Unless there are any more points of order—and I don't think there are—the floor is yours for you to continue.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I see Charlie's hand up again, so maybe he's just planning on calling a point of order before he has even decided, or maybe it's old because I always forget to take my hand down.

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

I have a point of order.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I don't even know how to un-mike myself half the time.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We have a point of order. I'm sorry.

Go ahead, Mr. Angus, on the point of order.

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

I was just waiting to be in the speaking order. If I'm not going to get in the speaking order today, I'll take my hand down, but it is my right to have my hand up online if I am in the speaking order. However, if there is not going to be a speaking order, Ms. Stubbs, I don't mind. I can take my hand down. If we're going to go all day and into the evening, I'm willing to sit.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I have acknowledged that you are on the speaking order, a bit away, after a few speakers. I will acknowledge you when your time comes. If you change your mind, you can let me know at that point. Thank you.

Ms. Stubbs, the floor is yours.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I certainly apologize if I gave that impression. I didn't intend to suggest that Mr. Angus shouldn't be able to speak at this meeting. I just noticed his hand was up, and you had said that I could continue if there weren't any other points of order. I guess you can see it in front of you, Mr. Chair. I was looking behind your head, so I thought I would mention it. I don't have that angle.

Of course, I certainly would not, on this side of the table, vote for censorship, shutting people down or not allowing people to speak. I'm just endeavouring to make my case in a comprehensive way.

It's certainly not our job as the official opposition and the Conservative Party of Canada to fail to argue to do our due diligence to ensure that members of Parliament deal with these consequential pieces of legislation in a rush and in a hurry because others want to get their agenda through on their own timelines, which they are trying to dictate in real time to this committee. It is not our job to help that happen. It is our job to fight for members of Parliament to do their duty, to do their due diligence and to make sure that we get things right and do first things first.

Again, I'm confused about why I'm having to make the argument to the NDP-Liberals about the order of these bills' coming in to committee, which should be Bill C-49 and then Bill C-50. Of course, the NDP-Liberals introduced and time allocated and then passed second reading. In the case of Bill C-49, it was 7.5 hours, over two days, of debate—that's it—in the House of Commons, and it was passed on October 17. The Prime Minister and the NDP-Liberals used a very similar tactic with Bill C-50, the just transition, which, at the last minute, they're calling “sustainable jobs” because they're afraid of the fact that when people realize what it is, they don't like it. Bill C-50 was introduced and then time-allocated, also with very little debate on the floor of the House of Commons. That passed on October 23.

I'm actually making the case even for the NDP-Liberals' own legislative schedule and agenda in the way they brought these pieces of legislation forward. I find myself in the position of thinking, like, “Guys, just take yes for an answer. Let's do the order you've already outlined.”

Again, let's go back to Bill C-69. Now, I am going to read it from Bill C-49, as there was a technical issue.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

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

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

I just wanted to address my honourable colleague. When you're looking at obviously Bill C-50, Bill C-49 and the Conservative members want to bring Bill C-69 into the debate, you'll have an opportunity with this motion. This motion, as I said, would invite the minister. You'll be free to ask questions about Bill C-69 and how it intertwines with Bill C-50 and Bill C-49. Let's ask the minister those questions. Plus, as the honourable member knows, you'll be able to invite a lot of witnesses to come to the committee. She references what's happening in the House, but we have the bills. Right now one could argue that the Conservative Party is delaying the witnesses coming in to speak on Bill C-50 and Bill C-49.

I don't quite understand what the honourable members are bringing forward because we have the opportunity to bring witnesses and talk to the minister about exactly the issues you're bringing forward.

Isn't that what we want to do here as legislators in the committee?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Serré, on the point of order on relevance on the statements being made.

Yes.

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

I'd like to speak on that point order then, Mr. Chair.

Again, I just want to remind colleagues that Bill C-69 is directly referenced no less than 33 times in Bill C-49, so it is relevant, and it is unavoidably part of why Bill C-49 is being discussed. Right now, the two go hand in hand. It is absolutely relevant.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Serré and Mr. Patzer, for your points of order.

Once again, I will ask members to keep the relevance and be succinct with your comments.

Ms. Stubbs, there are no other points of order. The floor is yours.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I would just note, of course, while I certainly value the input from every colleague and member of Parliament at this table, it's certainly not Conservatives who have voted for the censorship measures or the shutting down of online news that Canadians can access. Conservative have always opposed those kinds of things against the NDP-Liberals. I certainly wouldn't suggest that I would be trying to shut down or censor anyone here.

One observation would be that I probably could get through my comments much more efficiently if people would stop interrupting, but that's their right and I respect it.

Let's go right to the motion, since everybody's urging me to do that.

[An hon. member]

Congratulations.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you for congratulating me for getting to the point that you want me to get to.

I will just finish, if I could, Chair. I know you're trying to give me every opportunity. Maybe the others around here could help a guy out once you give me this opportunity that you're so generously offering.

I will just finish my explanation, though, about what else of Bill C-69 is in Bill C-49 to make the case that Bill C-49 has to come before Bill C-50.

Here's another fact about Bill C-49. Perhaps if there was more debate in the House of Commons all of this would have been wrestled out. Again, it was introduced, time allocated, debate was limited and here we are. So here we are. Bill C-49 also incorporates section 64 of Bill C-69, which was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada.