Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 1st, 2024

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

—I say to Mr. Kelly that those insinuations have to stop—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Ms. Jones.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

—and they are applied to all members.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I'm going to recognize you in a moment, Mr. Small.

I don't think we're going to get to start this round and finish.

Ms. Jones, thank you for your point of order. It's not a procedural issue on your point of order, so thank you for that.

Colleagues, I'll encourage you, again, not to use a point of order for debate, but to have procedural relevance under a point of order.

I'm going to go to the point of order over here. Then, I'll go to you, Mr. Angus, on a point of order.

Mr. Small, go ahead on the point of order, with relevance procedurally, please.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Yes, absolutely, Mr. Chair.

I'm not going to rip apart all the careless handling of the truth that Ms. Jones just displayed there, but in terms of Katie Power and the FFAW, what I said was that they weren't consulted in the creating of this bill. They were consulted afterwards.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you for your point of order.

Once again, you have lots of time to clarify the record when it's your opportunity to ask questions and provide clarification. Once again, it's for procedural relevance when we use a point of order, not for debate.

Mr. Angus, go ahead on a point of order.

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

Thank you.

I may be willing to withdraw everything I just said, because I was trying to deal with facts, and I realize that really set people off.

I wanted a clarification from Monday. This is maybe why I ended up scratching my head about the Conservatives opposing jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador. It was Mr. Small, and I'll quote him. He said, “We oppose this legislation. When we voted for it, obviously we opposed it.” In my 20 years in Parliament, I didn't know that when you voted for something it meant you opposed something, so if my colleague is opposing it, you vote against it, but since he said he was voting for it, which obviously meant he opposed it, I got confused. I did hear them say again and again that they oppose this legislation, which would oppose the right of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, where they have a veto over these projects, to actually exercise that veto.

If he votes for it and he opposes it, could he just clarify where the heck they are going on this thing? I feel like I'm getting tossed at sea.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Angus, thank you for your point of order, but once again we need procedural relevance on your point of order.

We're not going to use points of order for debate. Other members are not going to use a point of order to respond. You have an opportunity when—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Hold on. When I'm done, I'll go to you on a point of order.

You have an opportunity if you want to engage in debate with each other at the House of Commons, or you have an opportunity to ask questions and get answers from our witnesses, who've taken time out of their schedules to come here to do so.

Now, we go Mrs. Stubbs on a point of order.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

You just said that there wouldn't be responses, but since you did allow Mr. Angus to make his point—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I just want to make sure that we have procedural relevance. If you can state what it is, you can continue.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

You acknowledged his point of order, and you let him make his speech, so I'm assuming you're going to apply your approach equally to me. In response to his point of order, I will just clarify, because I know he's wondering.

Conservatives opposed Bill C-49 because it will end Atlantic offshore petroleum development, which the private sector already showed by putting in zero bids after this legislation was introduced, which clearly gave them the signal. You can see that because, the year before, there were five bids worth hundreds of millions of dollars. We also opposed Bill C-49 because it will introduce uncertainty and lack of clarity. It is based on the unconstitutional Bill C-69, which will open it up to challenges and hinder the development of offshore renewable technology, too.

That, to be clear, is why Conservatives oppose Bill C-69. We will accelerate traditional oil and gas for the—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mrs. Stubbs, I'll ask you to hold right there.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I'm going to complete it right now so we don't talk over each other.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I want you to hold because we have another point of order—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Conservatives will accelerate traditional oil and gas development and green-light green projects.

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Dabrusin, on a point of order.

Once again, before you begin, I want colleagues to use procedural relevance.

You've raised a point of order, Ms. Dabrusin. Go ahead.

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

I have two things. I would like to clarify that when the chair is speaking, we're not supposed to speak over the chair. I believe that's established as a practice and a rule.

Additionally, we have officials here. I'm just wondering if we can go to our last two minutes. I'm just looking at my phone and see that we have two minutes left. Can we take those two minutes to get some questions and answers?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin.

Colleagues, I will remind everybody that, as Ms. Dabrusin has said, when the chair is speaking, we don't interrupt and speak. Let one person speak at a time as you're recognized by the chair.

I do want to take an opportunity to thank the officials for coming today. We are at the end of our time. We won't get the additional round in that I was hoping to do, but thank you so much for your testimony, for answering questions and for taking the time out of your busy schedules to join us and inform the work we've done on Bill C-49. Have a great day.

Is it the will of the committee to adjourn the meeting?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

The meeting is adjourned.