Natural Resources Committee on May 23rd, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Hold on. Before we get into other points of order, I want to address the issue at hand.

Ms. Dabrusin has the right to read it into the record, since she has the floor for debate, as long as it's relevant to the motion at hand. She's talking about electricity and a letter she received, and that was the study we were studying. As all of us members know, we have the ability, when we have the floor, to provide context and support for whatever arguments we're trying to make.

Now, before I go back to you, Ms. Dabrusin, I have Mr. Jowhari on a point of order as well.

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

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know I'm new to this committee. However, in all the committees I've been in over the last, let's say, eight years, we've always referred to our colleagues with either their gender and their last name, or MP Dabrusin, PS Dabrusin, etc. I take offence when my colleagues are being called a “he” or a “she” in a reference.

I ask all our colleagues to please use appropriate titles when referencing each other.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Jowhari, for your point of order.

Colleagues, I'll remind everybody about this. I think it's an important time to reflect. Please debate, but let's ensure you address each other in a parliamentary and appropriate manner.

I have a point of order from Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you.

My honourable colleague can refer to me by my gender. I don't have a problem. I'm often referred to as “Charlie” here. If you lived in Cobalt, you'd call me “Chuck”, but you're not from my hometown. I don't want people doing that. I would take offence.

The reason I'm intervening is to apologize to Ms. Dabrusin. I didn't mean to say she was going to talk about prom night. I was saying that I didn't have a problem if she did, because this is a filibuster. This is about stopping the work of the committee. Therefore, if we are going to spend five days of meetings.... I don't have a problem with whatever she is going to talk about. However, I do have a problem with reading into the record something we have not had access to. That was my concern.

I apologize if I anticipated something about prom night. We don't have to talk about prom night. I don't have a problem.

I don't know whether I often refer to her as “she”, but I will refer to her as “Ms. Dabrusin”. Mr. Jowhari can call me “he” if he wants to. He can call me “Charlie”. Just don't call me “Chuck”.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Angus, for withdrawing that as well.

We can proceed. Once again, I will state to all members that a member has the opportunity, as long as it's relevant to the topic at hand, to bring forward evidence that might help support committee members in making a decision on the potential upcoming vote on the amendment, and then on the main motion.

Ms. Dabrusin, after that little break, it's back to you.

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

I've read or quoted other things along the way. The reason I want to read this letter is that it goes to the very point I've been raising, which is the need for and the urgency of continuing the study on electricity that we started.

Before I go back to that letter, I'll very much point out that Mr. Angus himself opposed it when the Conservatives previously tried to stop one study in order to move on to the next. Therefore, it's very much something I would think he'd understand—the need for us to stay with the plan that was agreed upon.

However, going back to the representatives in the electricity industry, they wrote:

As representatives of the electricity sector, comprised of industry associations—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Ms. Dabrusin, we have a point of order. Can you hold again? Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Falk.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

This goes to my original point of order, Mr. Chair. The letter that is being referenced has been addressed to the entire committee. I've checked with Mr. Simard. He does not have a copy of that letter in the language that he communicates in.

I think it's unfair to reference a letter that is addressed to this committee when the committee hasn't seen it.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Falk, but as I reminded earlier, members will get a copy. If that letter was sent to the clerk and the clerk is translating it, it will be provided to our members.

The member does have the right to bring forward any letter or information she has that she believes supports her argument. That's what Ms. Dabrusin is doing. I'm not sure if this letter is the letter that was sent to everybody in the committee or if it's something that was just sent to her and that she's reading into the record. I'll let her continue on with her debate. She is allowed to present information that supports the argument she's making.

If you are reading the letter, Ms. Dabrusin, the translators will be following along. That's the only thing I would say on top of that.

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

I appreciate that.

Many of the people who signed this letter were actually the people who were here on the panel that was suspended when this motion and then this amendment were brought forward. They weren't able to complete their evidence—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Ms. Dabrusin, you have my apologies. I missed Mr. Schiefke. He has his hand up. I don't want to cut you off midstream, but I do want to give Mr. Schiefke an opportunity.

Is this an old hand or a new hand?

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

It's a new hand, Chair. Thank you.

To my understanding, every member of the committee received this letter from the organization individually. I believe a copy was also sent to the chair as well as the clerk. If this is something that's important to all members, perhaps I could recommend, being a chair of another committee, that we suspend until all members have a copy of the letter so that we can actually reference it and discuss it. This is an organization that wants to be heard and has sent a letter about the importance of continuing with the study we were on.

My recommendation, Chair, is that we suspend until we're able to provide copies to all members in both official languages.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you for that, Mr. Schiefke.

Members, the clerk has sent it for translation. It will be provided to members as soon as translation gets it back. Members will have the letter, but if we do that, I don't know if we'll get it back by the end of the meeting today.

If it's the will of the committee to do so, we can suspend until we get the letter back. I will leave it up to colleagues to think about that. If we proceed, and Ms. Dabrusin would like to read in the letter she's received.... If we do want to suspend—I'll let committee members reflect on that for a few moments—we can do that, but we may not be able to come back to today's meeting today because of the timing needed for translation.

Ms. Dabrusin, before you begin, I will go to Mr. Angus on a point of order.

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

I'm just trying to clarify. You're saying that we could suspend and look at the letter, but then we would have to decide whether or not we could bring the letter in if it's not in both official languages...?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

No. What I'm saying is that Ms. Dabrusin is reading into the record the letter she has as evidence that she believes is important to her debate at today's meeting. If members would like a copy of the letter, you will receive one once it's translated. You do have one copy in English, I believe. If you want a translated version in French, the clerk has sent it for translation. It is being translated, because it was sent to the committee and, I believe, to all committee members.

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

What was the element you said about suspending the meeting?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

That was a recommendation made by Mr. Schiefke—that we could suspend and wait until the letter was translated. What I'm suggesting is that it may not happen today. It might happen tomorrow or Thursday or beyond. It depends on translation.

Monsieur Simard, I'll go to you.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Chair, I just want to be clear, because I sense that my Liberal colleagues disagree on how to proceed.

According to Mr. Schiefke, we should suspend the meeting, since we don't have the letter in both official languages.

Earlier, you ruled that Ms. Dabrusin could use the letter and refer to it, even though it hadn't been translated. However, I think it may be problematic for Mr. Schiefke to ask to suspend the meeting because we don't have a French version. Perhaps the simplest solution would be for Ms. Dabrusin to set the letter aside and filibuster on something else. I know it can be a little baffling.

Even in a filibuster, both official languages must be respected. So she could forget about the letter and come back to it at a later meeting, when we have the French version of the letter. That is my proposal to you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Simard.

I think it's up to the member to provide evidence that supports the argument. Based on the advice that I've been given by the clerk, if it's a letter that everybody wants to have, a member does have the ability to reference material that he or she may have received as part of the evidence here today. If the member chooses not to, that's up to the member. I know members were sent this letter by an organization, and it may have not been in both official languages. If it's for the record of the previous study, the committee does need to translate it, and that's what the clerk has endeavoured to do.

I'll go back to you, Mr. Simard.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I understand completely, Mr. Chair, but you're repeating to me what you said to Mr. Angus earlier. Clearly, this letter is creating some discomfort, not only for Mr. Angus, my Conservative colleagues and me as francophones, who raised it, but also for Mr. Schiefke, who moved to suspend the meeting.

In my opinion, since the majority of members feel uncomfortable with Ms. Dabrusin continuing to read this letter, it goes without saying that, if you listen to the committee, you will recommend to Ms. Dabrusin that she set the letter aside and come back to it later, once we have received it in both official languages.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Monsieur Simard.

It is up to the member. I can't tell the member how to use their time, as long as it meets with the committee.... However, if members would like to suspend until we get that letter translated, just so they can follow along, I'm happy to accommodate members here today, if that's what they would like. What I'll say is that the member doesn't have to read the letter entirely in, but could talk about it in terms of the aspects of the letter or in any other way. However, that's up to the member. The member is allowed to present ideas or information that supports their argument. However, the official letter that's sent to the committee does need to be translated so members have it, and that's what the clerk has done.

I will turn it back to members. If the members do not want to proceed at this point, we can proceed in that direction.

I'll go to you, Mr. Angus, on a point of order.

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

Thank you.

I'm feeling a lot of discomfort among my colleagues, and that's the last thing I'd want to be the cause of for having raised this, so I vote to suspend.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I don't see any objections, but I think members would like to suspend until they have that information.

We will suspend until we get that information provided to all members. I don't know when we'll get the letter. I don't think we'll be getting the letter today. It could be tomorrow. It could be Thursday.

We're suspended.

[The meeting was suspended at 4:06 p.m., Monday, June 3]

[The meeting resumed at 3:50 p.m., Thursday, June 6]

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Mario Simard]

Order, please.

We are resuming meeting number 99 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

Before we begin, I have a few instructions to avoid audio feedback incidents. I would like to ask all members and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents.

Please take note of the following preventative measures in place to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters.

Only use a black approved earpiece. The former grey earpieces must no longer be used. Keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. When you are not using your earpiece, place it face down, on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose.

I thank you all for your co-operation.

We are still discussing the motion tabled by Mr. Angus, and, if I understand correctly, there is another motion that we would be prepared to discuss. To do so, we need the unanimous consent of the members to proceed with the consideration of this new motion.

Do I have the unanimous consent of the committee?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.