I call the meeting to order. Good morning, everyone.
Welcome to meeting number 32 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources.
This morning, I'd like to welcome guests Mr. Barlow and Mr. Lemire. I think that's all of our guests for the committee today.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee is continuing the study of creating a fair and equitable Canadian energy transformation. Today is the ninth meeting with witnesses on this study. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022.
I would like to remind all participants that taking screenshots or photos of your screen is not permitted. Today's proceedings will be televised and made available via the House of Commons website.
For the benefit of some of our witnesses—I think all of the MPs know the rules here, but for those who are joining us for the first time—please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, please click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute it when you're not speaking.
There is interpretation available for those online. You have the choice at the bottom of your screen of “floor” for the language that's being used at the time, or “English” or “French”. Those in the room can use the earpiece that is provided and select the desired channel.
All comments should be addressed through the chair.
For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will do our best to manage the speaking order between those in the room and those participating virtually. Bear with us as we try to find our way through the two formats here.
On the study of creating a fair and equitable Canadian energy transformation, we're going to go right to the witnesses today, so—
Okay, let me do the welcome and then we'll do your point of privilege. Then we'll get into opening statements.
Attending virtually from the International Trade Union Confederation, we have Samantha Smith, director of the Just Transition Centre. Welcome.
From the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, we have Judy Wilson. Welcome.
I missed Ms. Saks, who is joining us virtually as a guest today.
In person, from the Carpenters’ District Council of Ontario, we have Mike Yorke, director of public affairs and innovation. He is joined by Finn Johnson, director of communications. Welcome to you.
Now we'll go to Mr. Bragdon's point of privilege before going to our five-minute opening statements by witnesses and then into our rounds of questions.
Go ahead, Mr. Bragdon.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it.
I wanted to bring this to the committee today. It's a point of privilege with regard to the order of witnesses.
I give all due respect to the witnesses who are lined up today. Thank you for taking the time. We look forward to hearing your testimony at some point.
The concern and point of privilege I raise, Mr. Chair, is with regard to.... It's been a long-standing tradition and long-practised tradition of committees within the House of Commons and Parliament to ensure that there's proportionality of witnesses and that the witnesses from each of the parties are definitely considered, approached and added so that the witnesses who are heard in any committee, any hearing or any study properly represent the representation within the House and the structure of the committee.
When we look at the makeup of this particular study we've done and the witnesses we've heard from—
Good morning, everyone. It's great to be here today.
First off, thank you, Mr. Bragdon, for your intervention. I understand that every member wishes to raise concerns and issues they may have as we continue our work here at this committee. Unfortunately, on your behalf, it's not a point of privilege.
A motion was adopted by the committee for said witnesses, so I defer to you, Chair, to continue to move on with the study at hand. We have witnesses here who have flown in and witnesses here virtually whom we would like to hear from, and I wish to continue on that point. This is not a point of privilege.
The Chair: Okay. I have Mr. Melillo, Mr. McLean and Mr. Bragdon on points of order.
Go ahead, Mr. Melillo.
Mr. Eric Melillo: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I in no way mean to challenge your decision. I know that we've worked together quite well so far throughout this committee, but I would like to read a quick quote from page 1060 of Bosc and Gagnon, which reads as follows:
If a member wishes to raise a question of privilege during a committee meeting, or an incident arises in connection with the committee proceedings that may constitute a breach of privilege, the committee Chair allows the member to explain the situation. The Chair then determines whether the question in fact relates to parliamentary privilege.
Mr. Chair, I would respectfully contend that you have not given enough time to hear Mr. Bragdon's point to be able to make that determination of whether or not it is indeed—
Mr. McLean, we'll just ask everybody for silence for a moment. I'm just confirming a procedural piece with the clerk and we'll be right back.
I appreciate, Mr. Bragdon, your bringing your point forward. I've heard from enough people to determine that I'm not accepting this as a point of privilege. We've had points of order and I've heard from all sides, and what I'm going to do now is say that you have a motion that's been made that can be brought forward. It can be voted on at such time as it's deemed appropriate, but at this point I'm not accepting the point of privilege, and if anybody wants, they can challenge the chair on that—
I have the floor right now, Mr. McLean. I'm speaking and I'm going to ask you to stop speaking when I'm talking, or I'm going to have to.... Anyway, we'll just ask you to cease and desist when I'm speaking.
We've had this discussion before; it's the issue of proportionality of witnesses according to seats in the House of Commons. That is the point that's being raised. In this particular study, we had decided that the parties had put forward their witnesses and they were accepted. We had a motion brought forward by the NDP, which we accepted, to have one more panel of witnesses today, and that's what we're doing.
To go back to another point of proportionality, we can have that discussion at another point in subcommittee if we want. There's a subcommittee meeting on Tuesday. We have the opportunity for other parties to bring forward a motion that can be voted on to add additional witnesses to the study, but at this point I'm ruling that there is no point of privilege here. I'm not going to take any more. We are going to move forward with hearing from our witnesses.
If somebody wants to challenge me, I will take a challenge to the chair. We'll go to a vote and then we'll go into hearing witnesses. That's how we're going to proceed through this morning.
Look, again we have talking over going on here, but I do have a point of order on the table that I would like to address, Mr. Chair. If you can hear the point of order, then perhaps we can progress in this matter.
If I can say this without being interrupted this time, I would really appreciate it. The procedure we have to go through here, of course, is to put on notice the work order here. We've done that.
The next procedure we have to go through in raising a point of privilege in the House of Commons is to raise that here and discuss it here with this chair. This is the procedure that we have to go through because, in our opinion, you have breached a point of privilege in this committee. We were going through that step here, and the first step of that, of course, Mr. Chair, is for you to hear what the point of privilege is. That's what Mr. Bragdon has put on the table here: a point of privilege that I think is, according to parliamentary procedure in Bosc and Gagnon, incumbent upon you to entertain at this time.
Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you very much for the invitation to appear before the standing committee.
My name is Sam Smith. I work for the International Trade Union Confederation. We represent more than 200,000,000 organized workers in 162 countries. In Canada, our affiliate is the Canadian Labour Congress. I'm the director of the Just Transition Centre at the ITUC, which was set up in 2016 in the aftermath of the Paris Agreement and the negotiation of just transition guidelines in the United Nations to help unions and their members as well as governments and sometimes even employers to get good plans for a just transition so it does what it says on the tin.
I want to address two points in the opening statement. The first is on the international structures and rules for just transition and a bit of what's happening in countries other than Canada. Second, I have some practical observations after six years of working on just transition, mostly in the energy sector, with unions in countries around the world.
The first thing is that we have international rules for just transition that have been negotiated in the United Nations in the International Labour Organization, of which, of course, Canada is a prominent member state. Those rules are pretty clear about the processes for just transition, and there are two.
One is that you have to have social dialogue, which is negotiations between workers and our representatives and employers. Collective bargaining would be a part of social dialogue. Sometimes governments are a party to social dialogue.
Then the other is this broad multistakeholder process. I know you have heard testimony about the Scottish government's process, for example, on just transition. That is a broad multistakeholder process designed to bring people together and to get a consensus from which governments can build policy.
There are, then, two different processes with some different participants. They are both equally important, but there is one that is specifically related to unions, to employers and to governments, and that is social dialogue.
The other thing about just transition is that there are some outcomes we're trying to achieve. Those are also in international rules. One is to have decent work, meaning good jobs and making sure that the people who have good jobs today, for example, in the energy sector, also have good jobs in the future, and that where new jobs are being created in new sectors—let's say hydrogen, or carbon capture and storage, or electrification of transport—those new jobs are good ones.
The other part is social protection. That would be things like expanding EI. It would be things like making sure that people have education, that they have health care and that they have secure pensions, because in times of uncertainty, when jobs and sectors are changing, that part of just transition becomes even more important.
Just transition also has these other objectives, and these are seen through the lens of the world of work. Just transition is about poverty eradication and about bringing more people into the benefits of well-paid union jobs with rights.
Those are the international rules. That's also what we're seeing now in countries around the world, including now in the United States.
For the other part of my opening remarks, I thought it might be useful to share some of the experiences we have had. We work with unions around the world in some of the sectors that are experiencing the most change, such as the energy sector. We work with unions in oil and gas, in coal mining and in other forms of mining, and in the power sector. We work in everything from coal mining to nuclear to renewables; in auto, transport, construction and heavy industry, for example; and in steel and cement.
The first observation is that not one of us likes to be told we're going to lose our job, but the second is that when people see good jobs on the table, they see that path forward for themselves. They see a plan; they see investments; they see that they and their families are going to be okay, and their views about just transition and about the energy transition change.
This is a process that works. It works in different countries and in different sectors, and we would love to see federal legislation in Canada that also reflects these principles.
Thank you very much.
Good morning. I'm Chief Judy Wilson, secretary-treasurer for the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, which is more or less half of the first nations in British Columbia. I'm chief of the Neskonlith Indian Band.
Canada's current economy is unjust, and not only because the reliance on oil and gas is fuelling the climate crisis and leaving behind a less safe and less sustainable world. The status quo approach to energy and natural resources in this country has completely ignored our rights as indigenous peoples and the long-term viability of the oil and gas industry.
The economic prosperity promised by the industry is, in most cases, stolen from indigenous peoples' territories without their free, prior and informed consent. After over 150 years of colonization and being confined to tiny remnants of our traditional territories, in most cases we do not have the restitution that we have the right to for the lands, territories and resources that have been taken and damaged without our free, prior and informed consent.
The Government of Canada passed legislation to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Any just transition of the Canadian economy must have the rights outlined in the declaration as a pillar and include the full participation of title and rights holders to avoid replicating the inequities that we currently live with.
In terms of indigenous rights, what is Canada transitioning to? Is it a similar extractive economy, in which indigenous peoples' rights are ignored and ecosystems are destroyed for clean energy rather than oil and gas? In a country whose wealth has been gathered from natural resources stolen from indigenous lands, transitioning to an equitable, safe and sustainable economy represents a deeper level of change than the need for new jobs that don't directly contribute to the climate crisis.
These are tensions that won't be resolved by limiting the just transition discussion to skills training for oil and gas workers. Our rights as indigenous peoples to control the resources and economic activities in our territories have been continually violated, and change at the scale that the committee is discussing needs to be made with the free, prior and informed consent of rights holders.
The implications for this energy transition are wide-reaching and absolutely require a holistic approach. This does not just affect workers in the energy sector; most communities in the country have been forced to be reliant on oil and gas in some way because that's really been the only option supported by generations of successive governments.
Canada has long been a friend to the owners of the oil and gas and continues to embed the wanton use of fossil fuels into public infrastructure and the economy, even in the decades since the UN convened the Framework Convention on Climate Change and clearly identified fossil fuels as the main driver of climate change.
The myth that fossil fuels are a cheap source of energy is coming undone. We are witnessing the costs in our communities and on our lands as climate-driven disasters escalate in their frequency and scale. We desperately need significant investments in radically different ways of living and structuring our society.
For Canada to make good on its climate change commitments and commitments to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, our communities must be involved and adequately resourced to contribute to the transformational struggle.
Those are my remarks. Thank you for the opportunity to present.
Thank you very much, Chair.
As noted, my name is Mike Yorke, director of public affairs and innovation. With me is Finn Johnson, director of communications.
First of all, thank you very much to the chair and the committee for the opportunity to appear here. I wanted to say that we could have done it virtually as well, but it was obligated on two members of the carpenters' union to appear in this beautiful room in the magnificently restored and revitalized West Block. We're very proud to be here today, in fact, in the rooms that our members had worked on.
I'll give a quick introduction, and then we'll get into what we think is key to a sustainable workforce and green building.
We're a council of trade unions throughout the province of Ontario, and we represent over 30,000 working men and women in all sectors of the economy, in the construction industry and in manufacturing.
Admittedly, there are other provinces, such as Alberta, that are more involved in Canada's just transition and the extraction of the oil and gas, and other unions may have a more direct interest in our energy transformation. That being said, Ontario will still have a huge role in transforming Canadian energy policy, as we're one of the largest consumers of energy in Canada.
In order to achieve a fair and equitable Canadian energy transformation, we believe there is a two-pronged approach: first, rethinking how we produce our energy, and second, addressing the amount of energy we consume and the way in which we do so.
From there, we move on to our sustainable workforce and green building.
On the second point, net-zero targets have to involve Ontario and Canada changing how much energy we do consume. How are we going to make the changes in our construction industry to facilitate this? Individual construction projects involved will vary in scale and size from massive dams and other hydro projects to potentially small retrofitting in individual homes, so to speak.
Added together across the country, the total volume of work will be massive. Given the sheer volume of future work, it can't be assumed that we will have the skilled workforce necessary to do the work that needs to be done, and therefore we need a real plan, with government help and support, to make sure we have the workers we need. We need a well-trained, fairly paid cohort of young Canadians and new immigrants. It's no secret that we're facing a huge shortage in the skilled workforce. This is currently putting a strain on our industry, and it will only become more difficult over the next five years as we see, according to BuildForce Canada, up to 160,000 retirements across the country.
We also need a sustainable workforce. For example, in the city of Toronto where I live, there are many undocumented workers insulating homes for cash. We need to put an end to that underground economy, which impacts and hurts workers. The government's in a real position to make sure this will happen.
A sustainable workforce will have the technology and techniques to be able to build a more energy-efficient Ontario. Mass timber, for instance, involves using timber more prevalently in major construction projects, as opposed to other non-renewable building materials. Building with mass timber will not only support immediate areas where the infrastructure is being built, but also communities across Canada that harvest and manufacture timber products. With our abundance of resources and innovation, Canada has an opportunity to be a world leader in this technology, and we call that a symbiotic relationship between the urban centres and the resource-based communities and indigenous communities across our country. We can really be a leader in that, and that opportunity exists before us.
Federal funding needs to be targeted to achieve a fair and equitable Canadian energy transformation. We need requirements on sustainability and training for future infrastructure projects to ensure that we are supporting green building, in addition to the future generation of a Canadian skilled trades workforce.
I want the committee to be aware that we are an interested partner in that. I speak not just for carpenters. If I look at the industry, I see that the partnership and the potential collaboration is huge. Recently, one of our better-known architects in the country, Don Schmitt of Diamond Schmitt Architects, wrote an editorial pointing out that industry and architecture and construction cannot wait on regulators to make a green economy. Right there, that's a solid position from the industry recognizing that we can play a leadership role.
With the committee's work and the work of the government, we can be real collaborators in terms of the transformation to a green economy.
With that, thank you very much. We look forward to an opportunity for dialogue and questions.
To the witnesses, thank you for your testimony today. We really appreciate your taking the time to share your valuable insights with us as a committee.
At this time, Mr. Chair, I would also like to move a motion. It does pertain to the nature of the business.
That motion is as follows:
That, before moving to finish the study “Creating a Fair and Equitable Canadian Energy Transformation” the committee invite as witnesses: the Government of Saskatchewan, the Government of Alberta, and the Government of New Brunswick.
I have also received, Mr. Chair, in relation to this, a letter from the Premier of New Brunswick—
In reference to this motion, Premier Higgs, the Premier of New Brunswick, submitted a letter to me as of last night, saying:
Members of The Standing Committee on Natural Resources (RNNR),
I want to express my disappointment at not being called upon to participate as a witness in relation to your study on “Creating a Fair and Equitable Canadian Energy Transformation.”
It is more evident than ever that the reality of energy security, both domestically and internationally, is in peril. We need national policies that allow for a transition to requirements that will reduce our emissions while ensuring reliable and affordable energy supplies.
This is of crucial importance to New Brunswick, the Atlantic Region, and Canada.
A variety of voices should be part of the conversation to ensure that all factors are considered as we move toward a net zero carbon energy source, while at the same time, identifying clearly the shortfall to meet current and forecast energy supply demands.
We have first ministers, and we also have letters here from the Government of Saskatchewan and the Government of Alberta that I can read as well. I don't mind. I'll just continue to read what they're saying as to the importance of hearing their perspectives on this very important study. I find it somewhat shocking that those governments have not been invited to this committee to give testimony on such an important study for the future pathway of energy transformation in this country.
Then when you look at the proportionality of witnesses, we see that my honourable colleague from the NDP and others have had the same number of witnesses called before the committee as we have as His Majesty's official opposition. That breaks the convention of committees and of Parliament. I think that at the least, the committee could consider inviting these important witnesses.
The broad strokes of responsibility for implementing and carrying out this just transition and this transformation of our energy sector is going to be borne by our provinces; therefore, given the fact that first ministers who want to appear before this committee have not yet been invited and have not had the ability to get in front of this committee to share their perspectives, Mr. Chair, I think it behooves us as a committee to act upon this and take them up on their willingness to appear before the committee and be heard. It's going to be very important information for us to have in taking a holistic, balanced approach as it relates to the full study that's being composed.
I think we've received a lot of input. When we go back to Confederation and how we were founded, we see that we obviously recognized there was a role for the federal government, but there were also distinct roles for provincial governments. We have to respect those jurisdictions. A lot of the implications of this study and what we're researching fall upon, and become the burden of, our provincial governments.
They want to speak into this matter. They want to have their voices heard. I think we as a committee can at least do our best to make sure that this desire is facilitated and make sure that those voices are brought to the table.
I will read from the Government of Saskatchewan. It is addressed to the committee and the chair, and it says:
I am writing in response to the Government of Canada's study on the “Just Transition.” As global events have notably caused energy crises in European countries, it is incumbent that all Canadian governments focus our efforts on advancing the conversation around energy security instead of an approach that seeks to phase-out our oil and gas industry and move to arbitrary electricity emissions targets that do not take into account the reality in individual jurisdictions. This misguided federal focuses on prematurely shutting down critical industries in Canada — some of the most sustainable in the world — would have significant and severe consequences for Saskatchewan workers and families and miss a critical opportunity to support our international allies.
Our government remains deeply concerned by the Government of Canada's approach to a Just Transition for coal workers and communities. The unilateral approach to phase-out a sector of the economy without a plan to transition displaced workers to comparable jobs within their communities has left workers, many of whom are unionized employees in Estevan, Coronach and surrounding areas, understandably concerned about their futures and livelihoods.
It is our government's every intention to grow our economy, to provide a better quality of life for our residents. Saskatchewan has a unique opportunity to provide the world with sustainably and ethically produced critical minerals, food, fertilizers and fuel that the world needs for energy security, food security and climate security.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will continue.
I believe this is so important that we need to hear it. I think this further substantiates the point we've been making in this motion, which is that the first ministers and the provinces want to have input into this vital and important study that the government has undertaken, that this Parliament has undertaken, and right now, obviously, they feel their voices have not been heard yet and have not been brought to the table.
When provinces within our Confederation are not being welcomed to this committee or are not able to present their viewpoints, their concerns, their thoughts, their suggestions on a subject of such absolute importance as we move towards the future, I think it really is troubling for us as members. We have a responsibility to make sure the voices from our region and around the country are heard, including the provinces. When first ministers are reaching out to us and ministers responsible for various areas want to make sure their voices are heard before this committee, we have a responsibility as committee members, I would think, to want to hear their voices, as we have from other great witnesses all throughout this time. I think we want to make sure that these voices are included.
The minister goes on in his address to the ministers responsible, as well as to the committee:
Below is the Government of Alberta's response to the Federal People-Centred Just Transition Initiative.
Alberta's energy sector is a key source of revenue and employment for Canadians, underpinning the quality of life enjoyed by citizens across the country. As skyrocketing energy costs and other recent global energy challenges have shown, there is a growing demand for energy that is developed responsibly and that is affordable. It should come from us. Alberta and Canada are among the most responsible energy producers in the world. However, federal overreach into Alberta's jurisdiction over its energy and natural resources jeopardizes the province's ability to drive prosperity through a robust oil and gas sector while balancing the need to reduce emissions.
In the name of centralized planning, the federal Just Transition initiative for oil and gas workers threatens to undermine the economic future and livelihoods of Albertans and Canadians by prematurely signalling the end of Alberta's oil and gas sector. It implies that Canada is moving away from oil and gas, and essentially Canadian workers. However, all credible forecasts show oil and gas will continue to be integral to the global energy mix.
The Just Transition initiative erodes investor confidence in the sector, discouraging the investments needed to provide the energy the world needs at a time when energy affordability can no longer be taken for granted. The result is counterproductive to Canada's climate and social goals. If energy production does not come from Alberta, it will come from jurisdictions with much lower environmental human rights standards, at no net-zero emission benefit to the world and at no benefit to Canada's jobs and economy. To be clear, no change in our supply of oil and gas will affect the world's demand for energy.
The federal government's poor track record on its previous transition initiatives for coal workers and fishery workers is cause for serious concern given that many federal promises were made with no coherent follow through or fundamental understanding of the economics, with those workers left unemployed and their communities left behind.
Alberta urges the federal government to listen to the concerns raised by industry and provinces and end the Just Transition initiative. Federal efforts would be better spend continuing to work with Alberta to develop and deploy clean technology, such as Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage (CCUS), and enhance provinces' capacity to target emissions directly. Creating an attractive and stable investment environment that encourages industry—
With regard to this, Mr. Chair, it's so important that the provinces and first ministers who desire to be heard are heard in a study such as this, which has such ramifications and potential.
The strength of our Confederation is the effective work between the federal and provincial governments. A committee of this nature is going to have some major ramifications. The outcomes of this study could find their way into various sources of legislation.
It could have massive ramifications for provincial governments that are going to bear a disproportionate weight of the responsibility of implementation. They need to be heard from; they should be heard from; and they should be welcomed here at this committee, whether they're from Alberta, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick or Newfoundland. We want to make sure that whatever their province may be, they have a voice at this table and they know that when this committee is doing its work, it's valuing their perspectives.
Yes, we need to hear from all sectors, and we have been hearing from them, but I think our provinces and especially our first ministers and those responsible for carrying out a lot of the implementation of whatever recommendations find their way into legislation have their voices heard at this committee.
It's of paramount importance that we consider this. I ask that you support this motion and make every effort to ensure that we are able to hear from the governments of those provinces, whether it be the premiers or ministers of natural resources, so that they are able to have a voice at this committee and so that those voices are given consideration when it comes to the findings of this study. It's absolutely important.
If we go back to our founding.... I'll quote our first prime minister, John A. Macdonald, who said:
It is our desire to do so. I hope that we will be enabled to work out a constitution that will have a strong central Government, able to offer a powerful resistance to any foe whatever, and at the same time will preserve for each Province its own identity – and will protect every local ambition; and if we cannot do this we shall not be able to carry out the object we have now in view.
Our first prime minister understood the absolute importance of making sure that there's adequate consideration for our provinces and their perspectives and the burden they're going to have to bear. When we have representatives from those provincial governments reaching out to us as members of this committee, saying, “We want our voices heard”, I feel it is part of our responsibility to make sure that their voices get heard and that we bring their concerns forward—
What we have here, Mr. Chair, is that we are moving to make sure that voices are being heard at this table. We absolutely value the voices of our indigenous communities and indigenous leaders who spoke, but I would like to also submit that we have seen first-hand in this committee that when indigenous representation was made at this committee, some of their voices were disrespected by other members of this committee. That was totally inappropriate.
When we talk about having indigenous voices heard, we want to make sure that all indigenous voices are heard and respected, not just those that align with one particular ideology or perspective. All voices and perspectives of indigenous peoples are welcome at this committee and need to be heard and respected, but the voices of our first ministers also need to be heard and respected. The voices of our provinces and provincial governments need to be heard and respected. The weight of the decisions or the recommendations that get put into legislation as a result of the work of this committee is going to fall on them disproportionately. They have concerns. They want those concerns to be expressed. They want to be able to have their voices heard. I believe we as a committee have a responsibility to ensure that those voices are heard at this table.
Mr. Chair, I really appreciate the ability and the opportunity to bring this motion forward. I thank you for that. I appreciate your effort. I get along with you very well. I respect you as an individual. I just really feel like we're missing a major opportunity by not hearing from our provinces on a study of such consequence. We need to make sure that their voices are here at this table. It is key to national unity.
We're hearing from our people—every one of us here at this table is hearing from our constituents from across the country—that their cost of living is going up. They're seeing energy prices soar. They want to make sure their representatives on these committees are bringing those concerns forward. Those who are hearing that every day are also our provincial governments. They have people who are worried about their livelihoods and their future employment, or whether they'll have to move or relocate as a result of any kind of transition that comes into place. If we don't take into adequate consideration those perspectives, those fears, those sincere concerns, then we have not done our full job as a committee.
That's why I moved this motion here today. I ask my fellow committee members to give this due consideration and make sure that we have adequate representation from the first ministers and provinces that want to speak before this committee. I think all of us would want to hear from the provinces that want to make sure their voices are heard here, so I trust that we'll have good support for this motion going through.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There have been a number of violations of order by you, respectfully, in the last 10 minutes.
Number one, when it comes to a vote, you have to read the question in advance, which you did not do.
You have to then allow members the opportunity to request a roll call vote, which you did not do. I was trying to do that. As you'll note, I was talking continuously throughout that process.
We'll have one person talking at a time.
Mr. Genuis, I'm asking you to stop talking.
In consultation with the clerk, where we're at is we have a motion on the floor to adjourn debate. There are other questions and obviously some confusion about speaking order. I will go back, with the clerk, to the record. I think I was clear on what was being voted on. There has obviously been some lack of clarity or confusion based on, frankly, the chaos that people have created by not respecting my role as the chair when I ask people to mute their mikes and not doing so.
We're out of time. We're at one o'clock. The speaking order is, at this point, for today, irrelevant. We will go through to figure out what happened, and I'm happy to bring that back, but for the moment, we have the motion to adjourn debate and we'll do a recorded vote on that. At that point, we are then out of time and we'll adjourn the meeting for today.
If everybody is clear with that, we'll get the clerk to call the vote on the motion to adjourn debate, and then we will be finishing today's meeting with apologies to the witnesses for not being able to get any further into the witness testimony today.
We will call the vote on the question to adjourn debate.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
The Chair: With that, we are now adjourned.