I'm talking about Bill C-49.
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.
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.
Liberal
Marc Serré Liberal Nickel Belt, ON
The government has committed to bringing legislation in to look at that.
Conservative
Liberal
Marc Serré Liberal Nickel Belt, ON
It's before the court.
She then mentioned the premiers several times.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
We have a point of order on the point of order. It's on the point of order.
I have Mr. Patzer on the point the order.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Mr. Patzer, on the point of order, let's not get into debate. I understood what you mentioned in the point of order.
I'm going back to Mr. Serré on the point of order.
Liberal
Marc Serré Liberal Nickel Belt, ON
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
On the motion, again, we talk about Bill C-50 and Bill C-49. The member says she seems to have issues with Bill C-50 being first, and she's okay with Bill C-49.
I would remind all members that the motion itself is concurrence. We have the opportunity to bring the minister to talk about both motions. Actually, the minister could have been here today, in the next session, to talk about both Bill C-50 and Bill C-49. This is important.
Again, as Francesco mentioned, if there is an amendment to this motion, I encourage the member to do so. If not, we can move ahead on these two important pieces of legislation, which the committee has a responsibility to do. It's good for jobs, and it's good for Canadians.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Thank you, Mr. Serré.
I would ask all members once again—I know I've said this a few times and I'm going to keep saying it—to focus on the motion at hand and make sure that our conversation and debate are about the relevance of the motion. Let's make sure we focus on that.
Ms. Stubbs, I know you're discussing a number of items related to the motion, but let's try to keep it within the confines of the motion at hand.
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
Okay, thank you.
Listen, I have to admit to everybody here—I'm sure it will surprise no one who has known me for a while—that I was one of those people where my report cards always said “very conscientious and a very good performing student, but talks a little too much”.
Please forgive me. I'm still that same passionate little...well, they used to call me a hyena because of my ridiculous laugh.
Anyway, as my colleague, Jeremy Patzer, pointed out, and I thank him, what I was doing right before the point of order was reading from Bill C-49. I'm a bit concerned about what seems to be—I want to word this properly—a lack of awareness or understanding about how all of these things are connected and the fact that they are connected.
Relative to this last-minute table-drop attempt to dictate the schedule for this committee, this is the case I'm trying to make in a thorough and comprehensive way, so I can't be, as is often the case, attacked for talking this slowly. I think Canadians want to see that their MPs actually know what they're talking about, so that's what I'm trying to do here.
I was reading from Bill C-49 to show everybody here—because it is germane to this scheduling motion—that Bill C-69 absolutely is the five-alarm fire emergency to deal with first, and then Bill C-49, which is actually the NDP-Liberals' own agenda. It reflects the way that these things were brought into the House of Commons. I don't even understand why I'm having to make the argument that we follow the script that the NDP-Liberals have already set—
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Each time, we get told that the Conservatives want to debate Bill C-69, then somehow they use Bill C-49 and then Bill C-50 as their platform to discuss Bill C-69. That's not what we're discussing.
The motion is on Bill C-49 and Bill C-50, and we actually have the opportunity to bring the ministers here so they could question them. I think that would be flame to those fireworks, but this is—
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Mr. Angus, if I could ask you to hold, we have a point of order on the point of order.
Mr. Patzer, you have a point of order.
Conservative
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I just want to make sure that Mr. Angus can hear what's being said in this room, because I know we had an issue in camera earlier. Ms. Stubbs is reading from the text of Bill C-49. It's a big bill, a long bill. There's a lot of substance in that bill.
You should maybe have a listen to what Ms. Stubbs has to say, because she actually knows what she's talking about. She has a long career and background in natural resource policy.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Mr. Patzer, on the point of order, please.
I would ask members not to use points of order for debate. This is directed to all members. This is not for one member specifically. This is for all members.
I think the point of order can sometimes go into a little bit of debate, but let's try to keep the points of order focused on the point of order and the debate focused on the debate with the individual who has the floor.
