Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 30th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

I'm going to go to Ms. Dabrusin on a point of order.

Go ahead.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I believe that we are now about an hour into this meeting. I have had the floor but have been unable to speak. I don't think we need to delve further down into the list, because we know who's next: It's me. I would ask that I be given the floor so that I can speak to this piece of legislation that is so important, not only to the economy in our Atlantic provinces but to workers right across our country.

They have been waiting to see us deal with these two pieces of legislation. I believe it's been three weeks and 19 hours, and we have yet to complete even this subamendment to be able to move along. I would ask that I have the floor, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin. Yes, you do have the floor, and I am going to go to you, but I do have Mr. Dreeshen on a point of order that was just prior to you, and another point of order. After Mr. Dreeshen, I will recognize the next individual.

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

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Thank you.

There are a couple of points.

First of all, you indicated that I asked to be on the list. However, I felt that I was already on it and always had been on it. That is the issue that happens when we don't have clarity. I have been in committees for 15 years and I have never seen a situation of the chair not giving a heads-up as to who would bespeaking next on a subamendment, an amendment or a motion. It's not necessary to go down the whole roster, but certainly to give a heads-up to the next person up to speak I think is fair.

The second and last point I want to make goes back to the comment I made earlier. Mr. Simard did not hear that which I was talking about because it had nothing to do with his comments, in which he had taken a run at me, but if an MP asks the analysts, for example, to give information, we expect that the analysts will give us information. If we ask the clerk to give us information, we expect the clerk to give us information. That is what I asked for at the very end of the last meeting. It was for the clerk to give us that information.

Mr. Chair, you chose to take that information and, I submit, somewhat editorialize. Therefore, we get to this stage where people are concerned about it. I don't understand why the clerk couldn't answer the question as I had posed it to him. Had that happened, that would have been over as far as I am concerned. That is my point of order.

Again, as far as the lists are concerned, I believe we all have the right to know what it is at various stages. As for our interactions with the clerks, the analysts and so on, I believe that if we ask them for a statement, we should have it directly from them.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

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

I will just remind all colleagues that the information was provided to me by the clerk and that I brought it forward to committee members. The clerk has advised that he has nothing else to add regarding the specific information that was provided.

Now, on your speaking order concern, Mr. Dreeshen, you are correct. You are on the speaking order from earlier motions. I do have you listed to speak on the subamendment after other speakers as well, but I did add you to Mr. Falk's subamendment, because previously I did not have you acknowledged on the subamendment. I have been keeping track. I have acknowledged that you are on the list.

I hope that today maybe we can deal with the subamendment. You will have an opportunity to debate if we get to you today. Hopefully, we will. You'll also have an opportunity to fully engage in debate today on the subamendment, and once we get back to the amendment, you'll get to do the same again, just like all members of this committee have the right to do.

If you would like to be acknowledged to participate in debate, please let me know, and I will add you to the list.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

On the subamendment....

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

You would like to add your name. Okay.

Mr. Dreeshen, do you have a point of order?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I have Mr. Dreeshen on another point of order.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

It isn't particularly a point of order, but I do need to get your attention to do this. Because we had asked who was on the list and in what order, I removed my name from the discussion on the subamendment. Now you've indicated that I do have a position on the other one. That's all I was asking for. It was for you to give us—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Okay. You know what? I keep the names on the list. As Mr. Patzer provided earlier, sometimes members step out to maybe use the washroom or to get a glass of water. They may not be here, but they're still on the list. If their turn comes up and they're here, we'll acknowledge those members. I want to make sure that those members do have the ability to participate in debate.

Mr. Dreeshen, I'm still going to keep you here. When that comes up, I can take you off at the time. You can decline at that point in time and another member can proceed who has raised their name after you. Thank you for your point of order.

Now, we have dealt with all these points of order.

We have a point of order. I want to go to Mr. Patzer on his original point of order so that we can finish that. Then we will have dealt with all the points of order, other than Ms. Stubbs' new point of order, and we can proceed with Ms. Dabrusin having the floor.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Angus was using language earlier, not even in his most recent point of order but in one prior to that, probably half an hour ago, for which I initially tried to flag you on a point of order. It was something that we had brought up at a previous meeting, the issue of Mr. Angus insinuating that he is being abused in this committee.

We made the point that there are people who legitimately, actually, have experienced abuse or are currently undergoing abuse. When he insinuates that he is being abused because members of Parliament are simply doing their job, I would like you, Mr. Chair, to make a ruling. Is Mr. Angus actively being abused in this committee? Do you share his opinion?

It's a real point.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Patzer, you've made a point of order. Mr. Angus, as mentioned, in several meetings, was trying to speak on the debate. The member did have an opportunity to speak in the last meeting, and he has moved on from that point.

I don't have information on how any member here feels unless you provide it through debate or an exchange. I'll let colleagues determine how you feel or how you feel about the comments others may have made and how they impact you and your debate.

Thank you for your point of order.

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

Just on that, Chair, because—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I am going to ask you to hold, Mr. Patzer. We are not going to engage, as I mentioned earlier.

A point of order is for a procedural issue, not for debate. I do have you on the list. At the time when you have the debate, if you would like to debate on the subamendment, you'll have the opportunity to do so, but we have dealt with the point of order.

I've already dealt with the issues of committee disorder earlier in my opening remarks. I think colleagues are quite aware that I've had to suspend many meetings over the last several weeks because of disorder, and I have done so again today.

I would ask members throughout the meeting to allow other members to participate, and to use parliamentary language, because as honourable members we all have the honour and privilege of being on this committee to do important work for Canadians. We'll remind everyone we have a motion on the floor by Mr. Sorbara on the Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act, Bill C-50, and on Bill C-49, the Atlantic accords. We also have an amendment placed by Ms. Stubbs and we now have a subamendment placed by Mr. Falk on Timmins—James Bay. That is where we're at.

I have Ms. Dabrusin. I know you've been very patient. Thank you.

I have one more point of order by Ms. Stubbs and then we will proceed to.... We'll go to Ms. Stubbs on a point of order.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would just suggest that the consideration that you've been asked to give around language will be a key thing in terms of decorum here and certainly it ought to be evenly distributed.

I would just say, in the case of Mr. Angus' words, as I addressed last meeting, I have been picked up by the scruff of my neck and thrown onto the ground. I have been knocked off my feet and had a wooden swing belted at me because I didn't water all the —

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

—I have been held under the water until I couldn't breathe—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Ms. Stubbs, I would ask you to hold.

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

I am sorry, but I think that there should be a trigger warning for everyone in this room. We do not know the experience of everybody—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We are suspended now.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We are back from our suspension and we are resuming.

I want to inform committee members that we will be suspending for this evening.

Have a great evening. The meeting is suspended.

[The meeting was suspended at 5:58 p.m., Wednesday, November 22]

[The meeting resumed at 11:07 a.m., Monday, November 27]

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome back to meeting number 80 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

Today we are meeting in public to discuss committee business.

In accordance with our routine motion, I am informing the committee that all remote participants have completed the required connection tests in advance of the meeting.

When we suspended on Wednesday, November 22, Ms. Dabrusin had the floor. We had resumed debate on the subamendment of Mr. Falk.

To remind colleagues, we have a motion on the floor. We had an amendment that was moved. We now have a subamendment by Mr. Falk. We are resuming through our speaking order.

Ms. Dabrusin, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm happy to be able to take a moment to speak about this subamendment that was proposed, as you said, by Mr. Falk. The subamendment is to add specificity to witnesses being called from one riding as part of a study that's proposed within an amendment to our study.

I trust that all members of this committee will make decisions to call everyone we need to be heard as part of our study of offshore wind and Atlantic accords in Bill C-49 and sustainable jobs in Bill C-50. I don't think that we need to be naming specific ridings. There are 338 ridings, all of which may have really important witnesses to call.

I will not be supporting this subamendment. I think that we have, throughout all of our studies, been very able to call the witnesses who need to be heard for a study. There's a process for that.

I was trying to figure out where the location for this meeting was. I realized I had to look back to October 30. This is actually a continuation of our October 30 meeting. That's basically a month that we have been at the stage of continuing to debate, essentially, the subamendment. It has been a long wait. I'm happy to see that today I have been given the floor.

I know that people in our communities are eager to see us study offshore wind in Bill C-49 and sustainable jobs in Bill C-50. This is a moment for us to move forward. Both of them provide economic opportunities for our country.

This is a really nice morning to see us actually get into the debate on the subamendment and talk about how we could move forward with a concurrent study of these two bills. I'm looking forward to doing it, and I'm hoping that we can keep this pace going so that we can all move forward with these very important bills.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin.

We'll now go to Monsieur Simard.