Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 30th, 2023

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

At the start of his intervention, we were unable to hear him.

All of us have done Zoom committees, Zoom Parliament, and as you said at the start of the meeting, the members have all done their sound checks.

The member has dropped on and off the call numerous times. His headset has been on and off numerous times, therefore making his sound check, I would say, null and void.

I'm just curious to know at what point we say that you have to keep the headset on and keep from moving it, because you're wrecking that sound check, which causes issues for interpretation and unnecessary delays.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you for the point of order.

Every member has the ability to participate remotely.

Mr. Angus has been cleared with the pre-work for checking his headset. There's nothing wrong with his headset. Sometimes the mike just needs to be adjusted, and he's loud and clear in the room. The member does have a right to take off his headset if he needs to give his ears some air.

I would request that we respect the members online as equals, just like we do in the room.

A member does have a right to make a point of order.

Do you have another point of order, Mr. Patzer?

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

I do.

I just wanted to clarify, Mr. Chair. I'm not trying to impugn the member and his ability to be an equal over Zoom. I'm merely suggesting, though, that in the interest of timeliness, but also in respecting interpretation, that taking one's headset on and off constantly and moving the boom up and down makes that approval of the sound check.... As we go through the sound checks, quite often it's a matter of adjusting the boom and making sure things are proper.

That's all.

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Angus, you have a point of order on his point of order. Go ahead.

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

Chair, it's this continual game that's being played here to drag this out.

The question was, does she have an amendment, yes or no?

If no, I think, Chair, we need to move the speaking order to people who actually want to speak to this legislation and this motion, so that we can actually get work done on behalf of Canadians and workers.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Angus, on the point of order.

Once again, I want to make sure we don't get into debate when we're having these points of order, because they're not meant for debate. The speaking order in debate is meant for debate.

I have Mr. Dreeshen on the point of order.

Mr. Dreeshen, there have been a number of points of order. Are you referring to Mr. Angus's, Mr. Patzer's or Ms. Stubbs'?

Okay. It's on Mr. Patzer's point of order.

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

A few moments ago, Mr. Cannings was in to take the place of Mr. Angus. I'm asking the clerk, had he been checked in or is Mr. Angus considered to have been on the committee for the full length of time?

He's off the line now, but my reason for asking that question is that if he has been subbed out, would that change the order of speaking?

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

I've been here.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

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

There was no substitution made.

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

Thank you.

That's why I asked.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Every parliamentarian, just like others in the room, has the right to be in the room.

Mr. Angus has been a member in great standing in today's meeting and in others I've seen.

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

The point is that many times when one has to leave, they have someone else who is subbed in. If that is officially done.... All I was asking is if it was officially done. If it was officially done, I believe my point of order is accurate.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Dreeshen.

As mentioned, Mr. Angus has not left the meeting. He's been participating since the start of today's meeting.

We will continue with the meeting.

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

My point was on Mr. Cannings and whether or not he had been officially—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Yes. As mentioned, members do have the right to enter the room and leave the room, as many do, to follow the proceedings in the natural resources committee, because we're debating some.... Really, we're talking about some important topics and about an important motion on the floor, brought by Mr. Sorbara, on Bill C-50 and Bill C-49, which we're discussing today.

I want to make sure that Ms. Stubbs, because I think she was alluding to.... She might have an amendment or she might be wrapping up—I don't know—so others may get a chance to have the floor and others can debate. I know that others are eagerly waiting to get involved as well.

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

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that.

There was no harm, no foul on the headset and all of those things. It's just amazing. Even on Friday, I was in a call and forgot to unmute my mike. You'd think that this far in we would know these things, but here we are.

Again, colleagues, I hope I have made an effective case to you and all Canadians about the importance of this work and why we must put first things first in this common-sense approach to our scheduling for this committee, especially because it's so important to bring home affordability and combat the cost of living crisis the NDP-Liberals have caused. They've admitted this as of Friday, with their temporary sham of a relief of the carbon tax for only one area, which pits Canadians against each other. This is their MO. Obviously, all these things are interconnected, and they are extremely important. I agree.

As Conservatives, and as our leader Pierre Poilievre has always said, we want to accelerate both traditional and renewable energy development, exports and technology in Canada. We want light, green projects. We want to make Canada the supplier of choice for all kinds of energy sources and technologies for our allies around the world. We also want to bring home energy security and self-sufficiency, as well as affordable power and fuel bills, especially for people who have no other options, which is the case for many Canadians right across the country.

This is connected to Bill C-69, Bill C-49 and Bill C-50. They all work together. In different ways, they are going to hold back, roadblock and gatekeep both traditional and renewable energy development, which will cause a brain drain and limit innovation as well as entrepreneurial and private sector creativity in Canada—for which we are world-renowned—when it comes to developing the fuels of the future and continuing the energy transformation that has been going on for decades among oil and gas workers, energy developers and innovators in Canada. All of these things are extremely consequential. They certainly are to our ridings individually and to the entire country as the resource development-based economy and country we are, which we should be proud of.

I have an amendment to the NDP-Liberal programming motion that seeks to dictate all of the work unilaterally, complete with dates for our committee. Again, I note it's the opposite of the legislative way they brought these bills through in the first place. It still doesn't make any sense.

I move that, before the committee consider Bill C-50, the just transition....

You'll note there was only one committee witness who called it “sustainable jobs”. It was quite clear that when the NDP-Liberals put their documents out, they had done a last-minute copy and paste everywhere it said “just transition” to replace it with “sustainable jobs”. That's because Canadians didn't know what the just transition was, at first. Once they found out, they sure didn't like it. Of course, the NDP-Liberals are masters of words and words over action, and they tried to slip that in and pull the wool over everybody's eyes. I suggest that's not going to happen here, but we'll see.

To that end, I would like to propose an amendment to this programming motion by the costly coalition. Before the committee consider Bill C-50, that it, one, 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—

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I'm sorry, Ms. Stubbs. We have a point of order.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

This is my amendment.

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

That's not an amendment. That's an attempt to bring her motion, which is already out there.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

No, I'm amending. He's talking about an old motion. I'm not talking about that motion.

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

No, this is the same tactic she's been using the whole time.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

No, it isn't.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Angus, your point of order is noted.