Charlie Angus

[Government Business No. 31—Proceedings on Bill C-50, December 4th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I would like to know about the language for “globalist agenda”. Did she make that up? There is not a single witness who used such outrageous language.

[Government Business No. 31—Proceedings on Bill C-50, December 4th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, certainly over the last six weeks, we watched a toxic gong show from the Conservatives, who did not allow witnesses to come forward. The minister was going to come, but they did not want him. Instead, it was like watching European soccer players rolling around on the pitch. I mean no offence to European soccer players; at least they get a goal in once in a while.

I would ask the member about the way she has misrepresented all of these issues. Last year, there were 133 witnesses and 120 hours of hearings on clean energy. At no point did any of those witnesses allege some kind of conspiracy, yet the member is going public and using very loaded language about a globalist agenda. I would like to know whether the language for a “globalist agenda” came from her or whether it came from her leader's office? That needs to be explained—

[Government Business No. 31—Proceedings on Bill C-50, December 4th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I am apologizing to Luke and Steve for the fact that their Conservatives were bragging about seventies muscle cars; talk about entitlement. Poor Luke and Steve are asking how come the member they voted for will not support offshore wind.

No, the Conservatives do not want to. They want to talk about seventies muscle cars. Let us talk about boomer entitlement. While we were talking about workers and offshore wind, they were talking about muscle cars. No wonder Luke and Steve are so upset and fed up with the Conservative lot.

[Government Business No. 31—Proceedings on Bill C-50, December 4th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, now, Luke and Steve are being conjured up by the Conservative member who is blocking offshore wind projects for Newfoundland and Labrador. What were his colleagues talking about instead of talking about Luke and Steve? They were talking about their seventies muscle cars—

[Government Business No. 31—Proceedings on Bill C-50, December 4th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I want to apologize to Luke and Steve. For a year and a half, there was nobody from the Conservatives speaking for workers. They were not interested in hearing workers. Now, we are hearing about Luke—

[Government Business No. 31—Proceedings on Bill C-50, December 4th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, we have had over 133 witnesses and 120 hours of hearings on the issue of the energy transition. The Conservatives had nothing to say to any energy worker.

When we brought the Canadian Labour Congress, the Conservatives shut them down. When the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers came, the Conservatives shut them down. When the carpenters union came to speak, they shut them down. When the International Trade Union Confederation came, they shut them down. When the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs came, they shut them down. It was New Democrats who brought representatives from the coal transition. The Conservatives had no interest at all in hearing from workers.

This legislation is about workers having a seat at the table, and the Conservatives have turned to gong-show gibberish politics to stop workers from having a seat at the table. I want to ask my hon. colleague why he thinks the Conservatives have fallen down the rabbit hole of conspiracy in their attempts to stop workers from having a seat in a discussion about their future.

[Privilege, December 4th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to be clear. We know that if the Conservatives talked the clock to 1:30, the House would not be able to proceed with the business at hand. I was just asking to see the clock at 1:30 so we would not have to waste any more time, and—

[Privilege, December 4th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, we know that the Conservatives are trying to talk the clock out, but if there is a question of privilege from a committee, it has to be brought from the committee. The member did not have that support, so he is trying to overrule the Chair of the committee, who made a ruling.

It is up to you to, then, decide whether you are going to overrule the Chair of a committee to whom this was brought forward and who had the support of the majority of the committee. It would set a very bad precedent for the Speaker to allow the member to override a committee Chair. I do not think that is within our rules.

[Privilege, December 4th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, we want to hear a ruling. This is a serious issue. What I am seeing, though, is like allowing a free pass to take partisan shots that are needless. If we are going to have a chamber that does the job of dealing with something as serious as this, I want to hear a ruling. I do not need to see this descend into this kind of partisan gamesmanship. I am asking you to bring the proper focus to this.

[Privilege, December 4th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. What we are hearing is a serious question. The member is just throwing out partisan junk. He was not talking about the question at hand. As Speaker, you have an obligation to ensure that this is not descending into partisanship, but that we are actually dealing with something very serious, which is the contempt of the House potentially by the Speaker.

I would ask that this be kept on focus, rather than allowing the Conservatives to play games.