Skip to main content
Start of content

RNNR Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at

Previous day publication Next day publication
Skip to Document Navigation Skip to Document Content

House of Commons Emblem

Standing Committee on Natural Resources



Monday, October 30, 2023

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]



    I call the meeting to order.
    Welcome to meeting number 80 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources. Today we are meeting in public to discuss committee business.
    Everybody is aware of the Zoom reminders this morning. In accordance with our routine motion, I am informing the committee that all remote participants have completed the required connection test in advance of the meeting.
    I will go to Mr. Sorbara.
    You had your hand up.
    Good morning, everyone. Happy Monday to everyone back in Ottawa and back to work for the constituents and residents of your respective ridings.
    Mr. Chair, I want to start this morning by moving a scheduling motion as a basis to begin our committee discussion today. I believe we forwarded the motion to the clerk, who will forward it on to all the honourable and esteemed members who sit on this committee.
    I move:
That given Bill C-50, An act respecting accountability, transparency and engagement to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy, and Bill C-49, an act to amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, have been both referred to committee, that the committee initiate its consideration of both Bill C-50 and Bill C-49 with the following schedule:
a) That the minister and officials be invited to appear before the committee on Bill C-50, on a date to be determined by the Chair but no later than Wednesday November 8, 2023;
b) That the minister and officials be invited to appear before the committee on C-49 on a date to be determined by the Chair but no later than Wednesday December 6, 2023;
c) That members submit their lists of suggested witnesses concerning Bill C-50 by 12pm on Friday November 3, 2023 and that the Chair, clerk and analysts create witness panels which reflect the representation of the parties on the committee and, once complete, that the Chair begin scheduling those meetings;
d) That members submit their lists of suggested witnesses concerning Bill C-49 by 12pm on Friday November 10, 2023 and that the Chair, clerk and analysts create witness panels which reflect the representation of the parties on the committee, and, once complete, that the Chair begin scheduling those meetings;
e) That the Chair seek additional meeting times and that meetings be scheduled, if resources available, for up to three hours each;
f) That the Chair issue press releases for C-50 and C-49 inviting written submissions from the public and establishing a deadline for those submissions;
g) That the Committee hold at least four meetings with witnesses on C-50 before clause-by-clause consideration for C-50 is scheduled;
h) That the Committee hold at least four meetings with witnesses on C-49 before clause-by-clause consideration for C-49 is scheduled; and
i) That the Chair set deadlines for the submission of proposed amendments for C-50 and C-49 in advance of the beginning of their respective clause-by-clause considerations, but no sooner than after the completion of the respective witness meetings for each, and that the Members of the Committee, as well as Members who are not part of a caucus represented on the Committee, submit to the Clerk all of their proposed amendments to C-50 and C-49 no later than 5pm on the respective days established by the Chair, in both official languages, and that these be distributed to Members.
    Mr. Chair, the committee clerk should be distributing this motion now in both official languages, French and English.
    I would add that we've been waiting for the sustainable jobs legislation and amendments to the Atlantic accord acts for some time, given that they were both introduced before the summer.
    On Bill C-50 specifically, our study on the topic has already made this committee well acquainted with the subject matter. Now that Bill C-50 and Bill C-49 have both been referred to this committee, it is our obligation as parliamentarians and members of this committee to move forward with examining them. That is our job. Legislation has always been considered a committee priority. The sustainable jobs act is a brief 11 pages. It is self-explanatory, and the committee is well acquainted with the subject matter. Labour groups are calling for its consideration.
    Bill C-49 is a much larger bill, and a very important bill that the governments of both Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador are calling on us to advance. It is in the interests of their provinces and our country.
    This motion lays out a reasonable timeline to begin consideration of both bills concurrently and to submit witness lists for both bills for the respective public panel hearings.
    It would have the minister appearing on Bill C-50 first, perhaps even this week if we can vote on the motion today, and Bill C-49 in the coming weeks. As mentioned, we believe this motion lays out a very reasonable and pragmatic timeline for consideration of both bills, but if members want a little additional flexibility, we are certainly prepared to consider amendments today.


     It includes at least four public hearings on Bill C-50 and at least four public hearings on Bill C-49, for a total, if we have two-hour meetings, of 16 hours, and three-hour meetings in addition to. It calls for additional time to be added to scheduled meetings so we can facilitate the inclusion of even more meetings.
    At a minimum, we'd be looking at a month or more of public hearings, which will allow for substantial witness participation. It allows time for whatever is required for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-50 and Bill C-49 for the consideration of amendments. It allows for this committee to strenuously and judiciously analyze both bills.
    Colleagues, I hope we can allow for a vote on this matter today so that we can move forward on the business of the House of Commons, the business of our residents and the business of all Canadians with regard to this very important committee and the matters that have been referred to this committee.
    I thank everyone for listening to me on this Monday morning. I look forward to hearing everybody's feedback and hopefully moving forward as expeditiously and collaboratively as ever.
    Thank you, Chair.
    Thank you, Mr. Sorbara, for your motion.
    I will go to Mr. Angus online.
    The floor is yours.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Angus, there's a point of order.
    Chair, as soon as you gavelled in the meeting, I had my hand up and was acknowledged by the clerk. I'm curious how you determined the order of things in that regard, because I did not see Mr. Angus put his hand up at that point in time.
    Thank you, Mr. Patzer.
    As soon as Mr. Sorbara moved the motion, I saw Mr. Angus's hand up—that's where I looked to next—and then I saw your hand up afterwards. That's the way I saw it, and that's the ruling I'm—
    Okay, but as the meeting was gavelled in, I had a question and a point of clarity that I was seeking. As soon as you gavelled the meeting in, I had my hand up.
    I will recognize you after Mr. Angus.
    If you want to challenge the chair, if that's your will, you have the will to do that, but that's what I've decided. Mr. Angus is online. He had his hand up. You'll be next.
    Go ahead, Mrs. Stubbs, on a point of order.
    Chair, we seem to be having a consistent problem, which has developed especially rapidly in the last couple of meetings, where you're having trouble seeing what's happening on this side of the table.
    I don't really know what the remedy is, but we're all members of Parliament, equally duly elected and trying to do our due diligence and our jobs here on this committee for the people we represent and for all Canadians. I know we all come to this work with that view.
    I don't know. I will admit, Chair, and having known me for a long time, you'll agree, I often find myself—
    This isn't a point of order.
    It is about to be a point of order. I want to address this issue.
    Okay, not debate, on the point of order, please.
    Sorry, guys, just don't get too emotional.
    I was going to say that I've been short for my entire life, so it's very normal, standing in a crowd or at tables, that people can't see me or they overlook me.
    Is there something we could do with this to ensure that both you and the clerk have an easy time seeing us, and is there any other remedy that might be required? I think you need to give us one sooner than later to ensure that you're seeing the hands up here.
    Thank you, Ms. Stubbs.
    I can see you—
    Mrs. Shannon Stubbs: Can I just finish, Chair?
    The Chair: On the point of order.
    Chair, you rightfully told me not to interrupt. If I could just finish, I think we need a remedy so that everybody can have confidence in the proceedings here that the rules and the chairing are even for everybody.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you.
    To the point of order, I can see you. You are sitting here. I even brought my reading glasses today, just in case I need to take them off.
    Thank you. I will do my best to make sure I acknowledge everybody.
    I have gone to Mr. Angus. He is online. I did see his hand go up, so I'm going to Mr. Angus.
    Mr. Charlie Angus: Thank you so much, Chair.
    The Chair: Sorry, Mr. Angus, but we have a separate point of order from Mr. Falk.
    I'll ask you to hold for one minute, Mr. Angus.


    Further to what Mr. Patzer indicated, when you gavelled in the meeting, his hand immediately went up and it was recognized. After that, Mr. Sorbara tabled his motion, at which time Charlie's hand went up. There was a previous hand up before Francesco started with his motion, which isn't being recognized. I think that's very problematic.
    Thank you, Mr. Falk.
    We have another point of order from Mr. Aldag.
    I would simply say that you've made your ruling. You've given us a speaking order and you've acknowledged people from all sides—virtual, opposition, government side.
    If there's a problem with that, challenge the chair. Otherwise, let's move on.
     You've made your ruling and we have a speaking order. Let's move on. We have important business to get to today.
    Thank you, Mr. Aldag.
    We have a point of order from Ms. Stubbs.
     Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I don't think this is an issue that everyone has to be concerned or emotional about. I think that this is just a basic matter of fairness and confidence in the committee proceedings and in you, Mr. Chair.
    With regard to the former chair, I mean, he.... I'm 100% confident, Mr. Chair, that you can make these decisions on your own.
    Thank you.
    I will proceed with the decision that I made, and we will go to Mr. Angus.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    As someone who has spent his life in opposition, I am well used to how, when legislation comes, it bumps the work of the committee.
    I have a point of order.
    Mr. Charlie Angus: We have two pieces of legislation—
    I'm sorry, Mr. Angus. We have another point of order. If you could just hold one second.... I apologize.
    We cannot hear the member for Timmins—James Bay. I'm wondering if there is an audio issue that could be checked on here.
    Mr. Angus, I can hear you through the headset quite clearly. However, members in the room state that they cannot hear you. We'll hold for a second until we can ensure that everything is working.
    Imagine that. They can't hear me. I could speak a lot louder if that helps anybody.
    Wait just one second, Mr. Angus. I can hear you through the headset quite clearly. I think Mr. Simard says that he can hear you through the headset as well.
    I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
    We have to hear the member in the room.
    That's correct. We are just looking at that.
    Mr. Marc Serré: Okay. I just wanted to make sure of that.
    The Chair: Wait just a second, Mr. Angus. Just hold your thought. We're going to see if there's a remedy to this.
    Mr. Angus, if you are ready, please try again, and hopefully we can hear you in the room as well.
    I am more than ready to speak as loud as I need—
    Mr. Angus, hold on one second. I'm sorry.
    Mr. Angus, I would ask you to go from the top, please, just to make sure that we can hear you loud and clear.
    Absolutely, and if it—
    No, hold on a second.
    Could I respectfully suggest that we suspend until the audio issue gets fixed?
     It's important that we hear our member. I don't think that we need to continue, so I'd say that we suspend, sort it out, and call us back when it's ready.
    Thank you, Mr. Aldag.
    We will suspend until we can resolve this issue with the audio. We'll have a two-minute suspension.



     We are back in session, and the floor is yours, Mr. Angus.
    Thank you so much, Chair.
    I will begin from the top. As someone who has spent my career in opposition, I'm well used to committees having their work schedule thrown out of whack by legislation, which bumps other considerations.
    We have two pieces of legislation that have been referred to us over the last two weeks, Bill C-50 and Bill C-49. It is essential that we get to them quickly.
    In terms of Bill C-50, we had 26 meetings with 64 witnesses in the preparatory study that led up to the legislation. If you add the emissions cap study, that was 21 meetings and 53 witnesses. The emissions reduction fund was nine meetings with 16 witnesses. On energy issues, that totals over 133 witnesses, 56 meetings, over 112 hours of meeting and analysis, so I think we are all very well placed to deal with Bill C-50.
    I'm willing to bring forward our witnesses but I do believe that at the end of the day we have to move this because what we learned over many months of studying this is that the world is moving dramatically fast past us in terms of a clean energy portfolio. Half the world is now past peak fossil fuel generation for power. It is going to be peak CO2 emissions in 2023 and then start to dramatically put down. In 2022, imagine this: The investment in clean tech matched pretty much dollar for dollar oil, gas and coal, and that was for the first time. Within less than a year, clean-tech investments have almost doubled that of oil, gas and coal.
    If we don't move with a sense of urgency, we are going to be left behind. We cannot allow the sabotage to the Canadian economy, what Danielle Smith has done to the Alberta economy. The Americans are moving dramatically fast. The Chinese are moving. The Europeans are moving. We need to be competitive or we are going to lose out, so the longer we dither and delay and obfuscate, the more Canadian workers are going to lose out.
    We've been hearing from Canadian workers again and again. They want this plan in place. There is a sense of urgency that we need to get moving on.
    I would agree with my colleagues to move to Bill C-50 first, then move to Bill C-49, which is important. We see massive investments from the Biden administration on offshore Atlantic. We need to be able to compete or we're going to lose out.
    I would say that at this point we have an obligation to the Canadian people. We have an obligation to workers and people who are expecting us to deliver. We have an obligation to start setting the stage for the future Canadian economy because this global capital movement of investment is moving and either Canada is going to be at the game or we're going to be left out, and we can't afford that.
    I am ready to move on this. I'm ready to sit down and get the work done as soon as we can and get these bills passed. The New Democrats will be there. We will be bringing our witnesses. We'll be bringing our amendments and we're ready to get this job done.
    Thank you.


    Thank you, Mr. Angus, for your comments.
    We'll now go to Mr. Patzer.
    Thank you, Chair.
    I appreciate that we have this motion in front of us. It's a new motion. It would have been nice to get notice of motion in advance. I realize because this is committee business, it isn't technically required to have notice for it to be debated. That's the way I understand it, but it would have been nice to have notice of the motion.
    There was one that was debated on Wednesday.
    Before we continue, Chair, I'd just like to seek some clarity from you. On Wednesday, we were debating a similar motion, and I had the floor. Standing Order 116(2)(a)—and I'm just seeking clarity from you on this, Chair—says unless a time limit has been adopted by the committee or by the House, the chair of a standing, special or legislative committee may not bring a debate to an end while there are members present who still wish to participate. I'm just curious to know how it was that meeting—I think we ran out of resources in the room—
     Point of order.
    Mr. Patzer, we have a point of order.
    Mr. Angus, go ahead.
    It is parliamentary rules that we cannot be discussing what was said in camera unless the committee agrees to it. Mr. Patzer would be violating that by making claims about what was or what was not said and done in a meeting that was in camera. I think we need to make sure that he does not make reference to work done in camera.
    A motion is before us. We need to address that.
    Thank you, Mr. Angus.
    Mr. Patzer, make sure, because that was an in camera discussion, that you do not comment on anything that was discussed in camera.
    To your question, the meeting was adjourned, and we are now into a new meeting today in public.
    Thank you.
     I wanted to raise this off the top because of the reference to a speaking order. I'm not going to talk about what was said in camera, but I am just curious about the speaking order. This is why I raised my hand as soon as you gavelled the meeting in, because I was curious about that. At the start of the meeting, as soon as you gavelled it, I had my hand up to try to get a point of clarity on that front.
    I respect your point on the in camera portion. Obviously we can't speak about what was said in camera.
    Just out of respect for colleagues, I think it would be nice to have been given notice of this new motion in advance. That way we would have had as much time as possible to prepare for how we would want to address it.
     I think at this point I will end my remarks so we can get to Ms. Stubbs here.
    Thanks, Chair.


    Thank you, Mr. Patzer, for your remarks.
    We'll go to Ms. Stubbs.
    Thank you, Chair.
    As my colleague has pointed out, of course this is a new motion, an attempt to ram through scheduling, complete with dates and timelines. It presupposes the number of Canadians who must be heard and how long that will take on two bills. Of course, as we explained before, this is before all of those details are worked out, like witnesses, and until we hear from every Canadian who would be impacted by these various bills.
     In the case of Bill C-49, people with many different livelihoods, and those impacted provincial governments in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland do of course want this regulatory framework. That's one reason why, of course, this should come first, including coming before Bill C-50, including the fact that it was introduced, time allocated and passed at second reading, all before Bill C-50.
    Also regarding Bill C-50, I am aware that this committee did study it. I think I came into the committee on the back end of that. Given the importance, significance, and the scope and scale of Bill C-50, this is at once a plan to plan jobs and skills training, but it is actually about the fundamental economic restructuring to a top-down, central, five-year planning approach that will immediately destroy 170,000 jobs in the oil and gas sector. This will impact the livelihood of 2.7 million Canadians otherwise, and cascade through the entire economy, which is what the internal documents of the NDP-Liberal government show.
    Of course, years ago we warned on the carbon tax that the same thing would happen.
    These bills are extremely significant, and Conservatives can't possibly support this before we have had a discussion with all of the Canadians, who must be heard from on all of these bills. We can't ram through a scheduling motion right now that is full of dates.
     Point of order, Mr. Chair.
    I have a point of order from Mr. Serré.
    Just quickly, I want to make sure the committee understands and get the facts out that this is not a programming motion. It's a scheduling motion. There's a difference. I had the same scenario with Bill C-13 at official languages, and the Conservative Party argued about the differences. I would suggest you understand the difference.
    This is a programming motion—I mean a scheduling motion. I'm sorry. The last time with Bill C-13 at official languages, the internal filibustering lasted for about eight sessions on just that point. This is scheduling and moving legislation that's in the House to the committee, which is what we need to do.
    Thank you for your point of order, Mr. Serré, on what's being discussed here.
    It's back to you, Ms. Stubbs.
    Thank you.
    Thank you to my colleague for explaining that to me. You could see, even as you were explaining it, how easy it is to mess those up, so I appreciate that advice and that friendly and constructive criticism of what I've said here. I can certainly tell you one thing, though. The people of Lakeland definitely didn't send me here to worry too much about our navel-gazing, inside baseball or fancy parliamentary procedures. They just want me to be here to fight for their livelihoods and for their communities, and I think all Canadians do as well.
    Chair, as I was saying, these are the reasons our position remains the same. Regarding the order when we are discussing these bills coming to committee and the precedence they must take, it is blatantly and blindingly obvious that Bill C-49 must be first because the Atlantic premiers want it, and then Bill C-50 must be after that. We cannot agree to timelines. We cannot agree to clause-by-clause. We can't presuppose how this is all going to unfold, because Canadians must be heard.
    Of course, the most pressing and most urgent and biggest issue this committee ought to be dealing with and that, certainly, the government should have addressed by now.... Imagine the outcry if a Conservative government had rammed through a cornerstone, significant, wide-ranging, sweeping bill that was passed and was then on the books and then the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada said, “Hang on a second. The vast majority of this is largely unconstitutional.” I can't imagine. Well, I think we all can. Of course, the most urgent issue of all for the Prime Minister—but since he won't do it, I guess we have to try to deal with it here in committee—is to deal with this decision on Bill C-69 and to fix the bill and fix all the problems that Conservatives warned about, as did all the provinces and territories, indigenous leaders, private sector proponents and municipalities—all of them—when it was leaving the House of Commons.
    Then, of course, Alberta pursued a court case against Bill C-69 primarily focusing on jurisdictional division—a warning Conservatives gave on Bill C-69 would become a problem—but, importantly, Alberta was supported by seven other provinces through this charge. The Alberta court said, “Yes, Alberta, you're right. This thing is unconstitutional. Just as Conservative official opposition members said when it was in debate and just as thousands of Canadians spoke out against five years ago, this thing is unconstitutional.” The Prime Minister immediately said he would appeal it to the Supreme Court. What happened a couple of weeks ago was that the Supreme Court said, “Yes, Justin Trudeau, you're wrong, and these seven provinces are right. Get this thing fixed.”
    On Friday, the Minister of Environment said he guessed you guys were going to get around to that in the next couple of months, but what's terrifying is that what he said he would do would be to take the approach of these interim guiding principles. Well, I would remind everyone that's exactly what they did in our first term when the Liberals froze all of the existing major projects across all aspects of natural resources development. They froze all of those applications for two years, threw the economy and the sector into utter uncertainty, disarray, lack of clarity and, frankly, fear. The consequence of that was, over the years, losses of literally billions of dollars in projects that are especially important in remote, rural, indigenous and low-income communities.
    I'm getting there, Charlie.
    This is how important this issue is. This was all ignored, and the Supreme Court has now said it's a big deal. Now the environment minister is saying, “We'll get around to it in a few months, but right now, we're going to do these interim guiding principles,” but that's what happened the first time. It caused chaos for two years, an absolute collapse in oil and gas investment, collapses in all that investment in clean tech that's done in that sector, the destruction of hundreds of thousands of jobs and, of course, as you know, particular harm in Alberta, Saskatchewan, parts of B.C. and Newfoundland and Labrador.


     Of course, because of the importance of the leading private sector investor in the Canadian economy, and still to this day despite all the hostility and anti-energy, anti-development, anti-private sector policy, it still remains Canada's top export. It underpins the entire Canadian economy, including, obviously, the TSX, the importance of energy stocks there.
    People on Bay Street and people in Toronto also need to be worried about their jobs.
    A point of order, Mr. Chair.
    Ms. Stubbs, we have a point of order from Mr. Serré.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank my colleague for her lengthy intervention.
    Mr. Chair, I think we should go back to the motion itself. The Impact Assessment Act is environment. I just want to clarify that. I also want to clarify what our colleague mentioned about no limit on meetings in the motion. Maybe you've just received the motion itself, but the motion does say four meetings. There's no max. I just want to clarify the facts about what's being said.


    Thank you, Mr. Serré, for providing that information.
    I'd ask Ms. Stubbs to keep it relevant to the motion.
    Thanks, Chair. I certainly will.
    I'm sorry that it's lengthy. I'm trying to map out for all Canadians why it's important we do the first things first, and get this right, but also why it is so important to every single Canadian in every single province and region that we do this.
    My colleague, Marc, and I sat together on this very committee between 2015 and 2019 when I was in my first term. He was also in his first term. During that time, I was also the vice-chair. It happened at that time under different leaders, and I was also the shadow minister for natural resources.
    I remember well the introduction and the debates on Bill C‑69. Of course, the fact is that bill was announced in a dual way by both the former environment and natural resources ministers involved. Since the Liberals also want to...I know Charlie does, since the NDP‑Liberals want to assess Bill C‑50 through this committee, and I certainly also want to do that, but the trouble with a caution about Bill C‑69 being environment is that, of course, Bill C‑50, the just transition—
    A point of order.
    Ms. Stubbs, we have a point of order.
    —was also jointly announced by the environment, labour, and natural resources ministers.
    We have a point of order from Mr. Angus, so I would just ask you to hold on for one second.
    Mr. Angus, go ahead on the point of order.
    Thank you, Chair.
    I've been listening very closely, but we are debating Bill C‑50 and Bill C‑49. We're not debating Bill C‑69. We have a motion before us, and we have to address that motion. If Ms. Stubbs wants to bring another motion, and we finish the legislative agenda, we can actually deal with that, and see what we can do, but right now, she has diverted from the topic at hand. Either she moves on and lets another member speak or she speaks to the motion.
    Thank you for your point of order, Mr. Angus.
    I encourage members to be succinct and keep on the topic of the motion.
    Ms. Stubbs, the floor is yours.
    Thank you, Chair.
     I apologize for the length at which I'm dealing with this issue. It's just that it is crucial to the livelihoods of the people that I represent, to my relatives and my family members in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Ontario. I know each and every member of Parliament here takes that seriously for their own constituents, and also for all Canadians.
    It might seem to Charlie that this is irrelevant, but it's not. I'll explain why.
    We are talking about the order and the scheduling as Marc had pointed out to me. We are talking about the scheduling that will dictate the order by which we do our duties as members of Parliament and assess the bills that must take precedence over our already existing work.
    The reason we are saying Bill C-69 must be dealt with urgently.... It's, frankly, by the Prime Minister and the NDP‑Liberals, and it's shocking that this hasn't actually happened in a tangible way yet, but what else is new. They're now going to add more uncertainty, and a lack of clarity.
    I'm also talking about Bill C-49 and Bill C-50, because that's germane to this exact motion that has been dropped on the table here, and it is the content of the scheduling that we are discussing. Another reason that Bill C-69 is so germane to the legislation that's coming to this committee—
     Point of order.
    Ms. Stubbs, we have a point of order from Mr. Angus.
    Mr. Angus, go ahead.
    Thank you.
    The rule in Parliament is you can't do indirectly what you're not allowed to do directly.
    The issue is Ms. Stubbs is making the argument that her motion on C-69 needs to take precedence, but she's doing it by referencing the motion that's there. Right now we have a motion. The motion has to be voted on. Then Ms. Stubbs can bring her motion and we can debate that—
    Point of order, Mr. Chair.
    —to actually override—
    Mr. Angus, we have a point of order from Mr. Patzer.
    Go ahead, Mr. Patzer.


    I'm not sure if Mr. Angus is having problem with his Internet connection, but I think he should keep track of what we're actually talking about.
    Ms. Stubbs has not moved a motion. She is speaking to the government's motion that it has put forward to schedule committee meetings. She is talking about the relevance of the particular government bills that are before us and why we, as Conservatives, as opposition, want to prioritize which bill in which order—
    Mr. Patzer, we're getting into debate.
    Do you have a point of order?
    Mr. Angus should stay on point as well.
    Thank you for your point of order.
    Mr. Angus, thank you for your point of order.
    Once again, members, I will remind you to try your best to stay on topic and be succinct so other members also have an opportunity to participate in this debate. It's a very important one to discuss this motion.
    Ms. Stubbs, it's back to you. The floor is yours.
    Thank you, Chair.
    I appreciate that and certainly appreciate all of the input, the advice and the constructive criticism about all the intricacies of all the rules here in Parliament. You all know me well enough by now to know that I certainly do have to brush up on that stuff, and I thank everybody for their input.
    I will never stop fighting for the people I represent and for jobs and for affordable lives for every single Canadian in every corner of this country.
    As I was saying, I hope that I have made the case so far in response to this motion that we have received today to dictate the scheduling for this committee without the facts that we need to know in advance and why we must do it in this order.
    Let me explain why the C-69 issue must be prioritized because of how it's related to C-49. I'm not sure if all members of this committee have had a chance to read C-49. It is an issue you can imagine that is near and dear to my heart as a person whose mother came from Newfoundland and whose family is there, and whose father came from Nova Scotia. In fact, my grandmother was the first woman mayor of Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, so certainly it's near and dear to this first-generation, born and raised Albertan.
    Those provincial governments want C-49, but this is the problem, and this is why the government has been so negligent in not dealing with this. The government has been sitting on their hands since the Supreme Court said a law that the NDP and Liberals both voted for which is in place is unconstitutional.
    Sections of C-69 are embedded verbatim, identical language, no less than 33 times in C-49. Let me say that again for why it's so important that these things be ordered in the way they are.
    The Supreme Court of Canada said that the most cornerstone, most significant piece of legislation that the Liberals, the Prime Minister, the ministers at the time rightfully said was their flagship, their most cornerstone legislation underpinning resource development, which I know every member on this committee agrees.... They are people like Viviane, who represents a riding that is very dependent on natural resources development, on mining. She is a champion for those people. I know that it's important for every Canadian in every region. It's important to people in Toronto, too, for example, because of the impact of energy stocks on the TSX and the many jobs that are dependent on that.
    The issue here is that this bill is still in law. It's sitting there. It's largely unconstitutional. The government is not fixing it or responding to it in any kind of efficient way whatsoever. The Friday announcement was—
     Ms. Stubbs, we have a point of order from Mr. Angus.
    Mr. Angus, go ahead on a point of order.
    I hate to keep interrupting, but we are debating Bill C-50 and Bill C-49.
    Ms. Stubbs continually wants to debate Bill C-69. That is not the issue here.
    I've reached out to her office and said we're more than willing to bring forward a motion, but she doesn't have a motion. She can't off-end what's being debated now.
    I would suggest, Chair, that we keep it focused. We could be here all day and all night perhaps. We have to get this motion passed so we can get down to committee business.
    We're discussing Bill C-50 and Bill C-49.


    Thank you, Mr. Angus, for your point of order.
    I'd ask my colleague to keep relevant to the motions at hand, which are Bill C-50 and Bill C-49 and to what's been presented here today.
    I have a point of order.
    I'd just like to do it after Mr. Angus and before Ms. Stubbs begins. I don't want to interrupt her.
    On the bills at hand, Bill C-49 and Bill C-50, and on the motion I read out—thank you, Parliamentary Secretary Serré for the differentiation between the scheduling and programming motion. It's always good to have a refresher.
    We do operate here on committee and in the House under the Standing Orders. I think we all know that. There are a set of rules and within those rules we debate, bring forth legislation and do the work that our residents, who voted for us, sent us here to do.
    I would agree with Ms. Stubbs on that fact.
    I would actually like to ask MP Stubbs if there are amendments to be brought forward on the motion that was put forward. We can get work together to ensure we invite the witnesses that all parties wish to invite, so we can look at the legislation.
    If there are things the official opposition wishes to bring forward, we're obviously here to work collaboratively to get through the legislation that the House has sent us. It is our responsibility on this committee to look at these two pieces of legislation.
    With regard to—
    Mr. Sorbara, I just want to make sure we're not getting into debate, so just on the point of order....
    I'm just asking if Ms. Stubbs would like to bring forward amendments. We definitely would like to look at them and consider them. We would move forward from there.
    Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Sorbara.
    Ms. Stubbs, I think our colleagues are asking, through the points of order, if you're going to be tabling any amendments.
    The floor is yours. Once again, I'd just make sure we keep it on the motion at hand and keep it succinct, so other members have an opportunity to participate in this debate.
    Just keep it focused on the motion. If there's an amendment, that's great. We'd love to hear an amendment, if there is one.
    Thank you.
    The floor is yours.
     Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that.
    Of course, if the schedule hadn't been table-dropped on the same day, and we were all serious and honest about collaborating, working together, doing our job on behalf of everybody and viewing each of us as equal, with equal voices and equal roles, we wouldn't have to do this in real time in public right now, but here we are.
    It's also funny. Charlie's comment is odd, because both times, didn't he...?
    An hon. member: He did.
    Mrs. Shannon Stubbs: He suggested that I didn't have a motion about Bill C-69 in his last comment. In the comment before that, of course, he said that I did. We'll just leave that there. It gets slippery sometimes. It's slippery here.
    The relevance of Bill C-69 to Bill C-49 is that Bill C-69 is in Bill C-49 33 times. There's a reference to Bill C-69 33 times in Bill C-49.
    This is, again, why I am saying it's the five-alarm fire and absolute priority for this NDP-Liberal government, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and certainly anybody from resource-based ridings. However, everybody who knows the outsized importance of all kinds of natural resources development, which underpins the economy, which gives jobs and opportunity to indigenous communities, often where there are very few, the same thing for remote, rural and northern communities.... Often, resource development is the only option people right across the country have for jobs, for businesses and to support their families. It has been the key driver for decades in Canada, and it is the key driver to close the gaps between the wealthy and the poor in Canada. It's extremely significant.
    When we have these sections in Bill C-49 that reference Bill C-69 like this.... Among other provisions, there are the unconstitutional sections 61 to 64 of Bill C-69, as per paragraph 163 of the majority Supreme Court decision.
     By including these parts of Bill C-69, we risk massive litigation, delays, costs and uncertainty. That's something the Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador premiers and all of those people certainly don't want to see happen. This is why they want a certain, clear and predictable regulatory framework for their provinces and for the private sector. It's also why they insisted on ensuring that provincial ministers would have a say, not only federal ministers.
     Section 64 of Bill C-69 is determined by the Governor in Council's determination. Section 62 is based on section referral to the Governor in Council and section 61, as per the factors of public interest, which is section 63.
    In terms of section 61 in Bill C-49, as it relates to Bill C-69, it's this. This section therefore incorporates the unconstitutional conditions of section 64 of Bill C-69 into the licensing approval and authorization process. The entire clause 62 of Bill C-49 incorporates the designated project scheme, which was found to be unconstitutional in paragraph 204 of the Supreme Court decision.


    Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.
    In clause 169 of Bill C-49
    Ms. Stubbs, I would ask you to hold.
    We have a point of order from Mr. Serré.
    Honourable member, I have two points. One is referring again to Bill C-69 and the Supreme Court decision.
     I'm talking about Bill C-49.
     No, you mentioned the other one five times.
     Because Bill C-69 is in Bill C-49.
    The government has committed to bringing legislation in to look at that.
    I have a point of order, Chair.
     It's before the court.
    She then mentioned the premiers several times.
    I have a point of order.
    We have a point of order on the point of order. It's on the point of order.
    I have Mr. Patzer on the point the order.
    Very quickly, I think it's extremely important that all members recognize and realize that within Bill C-49, there are no fewer than 33 references to Bill C-69. Therefore, they are intertwined.
     If the government had got this right in the first place, it would have made things a lot simpler.
    Mr. Patzer—
    What she is reading is the text from Bill C-49, not Bill C-69.
     Mr. Patzer, on the point of order, let's not get into debate. I understood what you mentioned in the point of order.
    I'm going back to Mr. Serré on the point of order.
    Thanks, Mr. Chair.
    On the motion, again, we talk about Bill C-50 and Bill C-49. The member says she seems to have issues with Bill C-50 being first, and she's okay with Bill C-49.
     I would remind all members that the motion itself is concurrence. We have the opportunity to bring the minister to talk about both motions. Actually, the minister could have been here today, in the next session, to talk about both Bill C-50 and Bill C-49. This is important.
    Again, as Francesco mentioned, if there is an amendment to this motion, I encourage the member to do so. If not, we can move ahead on these two important pieces of legislation, which the committee has a responsibility to do. It's good for jobs, and it's good for Canadians.
    Thank you, Mr. Serré.
    I would ask all members once again—I know I've said this a few times and I'm going to keep saying it—to focus on the motion at hand and make sure that our conversation and debate are about the relevance of the motion. Let's make sure we focus on that.
    Ms. Stubbs, I know you're discussing a number of items related to the motion, but let's try to keep it within the confines of the motion at hand.
    The floor is yours, Ms. Stubbs.
    Okay, thank you.
    Listen, I have to admit to everybody here—I'm sure it will surprise no one who has known me for a while—that I was one of those people where my report cards always said “very conscientious and a very good performing student, but talks a little too much”.
     Please forgive me. I'm still that same passionate little...well, they used to call me a hyena because of my ridiculous laugh.
    Anyway, as my colleague, Jeremy Patzer, pointed out, and I thank him, what I was doing right before the point of order was reading from Bill C-49. I'm a bit concerned about what seems to be—I want to word this properly—a lack of awareness or understanding about how all of these things are connected and the fact that they are connected.
    Relative to this last-minute table-drop attempt to dictate the schedule for this committee, this is the case I'm trying to make in a thorough and comprehensive way, so I can't be, as is often the case, attacked for talking this slowly. I think Canadians want to see that their MPs actually know what they're talking about, so that's what I'm trying to do here.
    I was reading from Bill C-49 to show everybody here—because it is germane to this scheduling motion—that Bill C-69 absolutely is the five-alarm fire emergency to deal with first, and then Bill C-49, which is actually the NDP-Liberals' own agenda. It reflects the way that these things were brought into the House of Commons. I don't even understand why I'm having to make the argument that we follow the script that the NDP-Liberals have already set—


    On a point of order.
    Ms. Stubbs, we have a point of order from Mr. Angus.
    Each time, we get told that the Conservatives want to debate Bill C-69, then somehow they use Bill C-49 and then Bill C-50 as their platform to discuss Bill C-69. That's not what we're discussing.
    The motion is on Bill C-49 and Bill C-50, and we actually have the opportunity to bring the ministers here so they could question them. I think that would be flame to those fireworks, but this is—
    I have a point of order, Chair.
    Mr. Angus, if I could ask you to hold, we have a point of order on the point of order.
    Mr. Patzer, you have a point of order.
    I just want to make sure that Mr. Angus can hear what's being said in this room, because I know we had an issue in camera earlier. Ms. Stubbs is reading from the text of Bill C-49. It's a big bill, a long bill. There's a lot of substance in that bill.
    You should maybe have a listen to what Ms. Stubbs has to say, because she actually knows what she's talking about. She has a long career and background in natural resource policy.
    Mr. Patzer, on the point of order, please.
    I would ask members not to use points of order for debate. This is directed to all members. This is not for one member specifically. This is for all members.
     I think the point of order can sometimes go into a little bit of debate, but let's try to keep the points of order focused on the point of order and the debate focused on the debate with the individual who has the floor.
     Can I speak to that point of order as well?
    Do you have a point of order?
    I want to speak to the point of order.
    Do you want to speak to Mr. Patzer's point of order or to Mr. Angus's point of order?
    I want to speak to Mr. Angus's point of order because that's the point of order we're talking about.
    That's right, but I just want it to be clear.
    Go ahead on the point of order, Mr. Falk.
    I've sat here fairly patiently and listened to Charlie Angus interrupt the committee several times on a point of order. He always talks about relevance, that Bill C-69 is being referred to.
    The problem is that Bill C-69 is so intertwined in both Bill C-49 and Bill C-50 that it needs to be referenced in order for Ms. Stubbs to build a proper road map to try to explain to the committee why the schedule that they've proposed—
    Mr. Falk, we're getting into debate now, so I want it to stay on the point of order. I think you've made your point clear.
    My point, Mr. Chair, is that Mr. Angus shouldn't be interrupting the committee.
    All members have the right to use the point of order for a point of order.
    I will once again ask that members use their time in debate on relevance, being succinct and debate the motion at hand. That's what we're here to do as parliamentarians. We are here to debate the legislation that's been brought forward on the motion that was brought forward by Mr. Sorbara.
    Ms. Stubbs, the floor is yours for you to continue. Unless there are any more points of order—and I don't think there are—the floor is yours for you to continue.
    I see Charlie's hand up again, so maybe he's just planning on calling a point of order before he has even decided, or maybe it's old because I always forget to take my hand down.
    Mr. Charlie Angus: I have a point of order.
    Mrs. Shannon Stubbs: I don't even know how to un-mike myself half the time.
    We have a point of order. I'm sorry.
    Go ahead, Mr. Angus, on the point of order.
    I was just waiting to be in the speaking order. If I'm not going to get in the speaking order today, I'll take my hand down, but it is my right to have my hand up online if I am in the speaking order. However, if there is not going to be a speaking order, Ms. Stubbs, I don't mind. I can take my hand down. If we're going to go all day and into the evening, I'm willing to sit.
    I have acknowledged that you are on the speaking order, a bit away, after a few speakers. I will acknowledge you when your time comes. If you change your mind, you can let me know at that point. Thank you.
    Ms. Stubbs, the floor is yours.


    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I certainly apologize if I gave that impression. I didn't intend to suggest that Mr. Angus shouldn't be able to speak at this meeting. I just noticed his hand was up, and you had said that I could continue if there weren't any other points of order. I guess you can see it in front of you, Mr. Chair. I was looking behind your head, so I thought I would mention it. I don't have that angle.
    Of course, I certainly would not, on this side of the table, vote for censorship, shutting people down or not allowing people to speak. I'm just endeavouring to make my case in a comprehensive way.
    It's certainly not our job as the official opposition and the Conservative Party of Canada to fail to argue to do our due diligence to ensure that members of Parliament deal with these consequential pieces of legislation in a rush and in a hurry because others want to get their agenda through on their own timelines, which they are trying to dictate in real time to this committee. It is not our job to help that happen. It is our job to fight for members of Parliament to do their duty, to do their due diligence and to make sure that we get things right and do first things first.
    Again, I'm confused about why I'm having to make the argument to the NDP-Liberals about the order of these bills' coming in to committee, which should be Bill C-49 and then Bill C-50. Of course, the NDP-Liberals introduced and time allocated and then passed second reading. In the case of Bill C-49, it was 7.5 hours, over two days, of debate—that's it—in the House of Commons, and it was passed on October 17. The Prime Minister and the NDP-Liberals used a very similar tactic with Bill C-50, the just transition, which, at the last minute, they're calling “sustainable jobs” because they're afraid of the fact that when people realize what it is, they don't like it. Bill C-50 was introduced and then time-allocated, also with very little debate on the floor of the House of Commons. That passed on October 23.
    I'm actually making the case even for the NDP-Liberals' own legislative schedule and agenda in the way they brought these pieces of legislation forward. I find myself in the position of thinking, like, “Guys, just take yes for an answer. Let's do the order you've already outlined.”
    Again, let's go back to Bill C-69. Now, I am going to read it from Bill C-49, as there was a technical issue.
     I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
    Ms. Stubbs, we have a point of order from Mr. Serré.
    I just wanted to address my honourable colleague. When you're looking at obviously Bill C-50, Bill C-49 and the Conservative members want to bring Bill C-69 into the debate, you'll have an opportunity with this motion. This motion, as I said, would invite the minister. You'll be free to ask questions about Bill C-69 and how it intertwines with Bill C-50 and Bill C-49. Let's ask the minister those questions. Plus, as the honourable member knows, you'll be able to invite a lot of witnesses to come to the committee. She references what's happening in the House, but we have the bills. Right now one could argue that the Conservative Party is delaying the witnesses coming in to speak on Bill C-50 and Bill C-49.
    I don't quite understand what the honourable members are bringing forward because we have the opportunity to bring witnesses and talk to the minister about exactly the issues you're bringing forward.
    Isn't that what we want to do here as legislators in the committee?
    Thank you, Mr. Serré, on the point of order on relevance on the statements being made.
    I'd like to speak on that point order then, Mr. Chair.
    Again, I just want to remind colleagues that Bill C-69 is directly referenced no less than 33 times in Bill C-49, so it is relevant, and it is unavoidably part of why Bill C-49 is being discussed. Right now, the two go hand in hand. It is absolutely relevant.
    Thank you, Mr. Serré and Mr. Patzer, for your points of order.
     Once again, I will ask members to keep the relevance and be succinct with your comments.
    Ms. Stubbs, there are no other points of order. The floor is yours.


    Thank you, Chair.
    I would just note, of course, while I certainly value the input from every colleague and member of Parliament at this table, it's certainly not Conservatives who have voted for the censorship measures or the shutting down of online news that Canadians can access. Conservative have always opposed those kinds of things against the NDP-Liberals. I certainly wouldn't suggest that I would be trying to shut down or censor anyone here.
    One observation would be that I probably could get through my comments much more efficiently if people would stop interrupting, but that's their right and I respect it.
    Let's go right to the motion, since everybody's urging me to do that.
    An hon. member: Congratulations.
    Mrs. Shannon Stubbs: Thank you for congratulating me for getting to the point that you want me to get to.
    I will just finish, if I could, Chair. I know you're trying to give me every opportunity. Maybe the others around here could help a guy out once you give me this opportunity that you're so generously offering.
    I will just finish my explanation, though, about what else of Bill C-69 is in Bill C-49 to make the case that Bill C-49 has to come before Bill C-50.
    Here's another fact about Bill C-49. Perhaps if there was more debate in the House of Commons all of this would have been wrestled out. Again, it was introduced, time allocated, debate was limited and here we are. So here we are. Bill C-49 also incorporates section 64 of Bill C-69, which was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada.
    Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.
    Ms. Stubbs, could I get you to hold that thought.
    Mr. Chair, I really hate interrupting my honourable colleague, but we have to get some facts on the table. The Conservatives tabled a concurrence motion to cancel debate on Bill C-50. When she talks about us stopping the debate, there was a concurrence motion by the Conservatives to cancel the debate on Bill C-50 in the House of Commons. We have an opportunity here in committee to get the witnesses and get the minister to debate the issues.
     I don't understand why there's a delay here. Is this a filibuster? What's happening? Why is there a delay here to get this legislation looked at by witnesses and the minister?
    The point of order is noted. Thank you, Mr. Serré.
    I'm hoping that Ms. Stubbs through her remarks will get to that.
     Well, from my perspective, there does continue to be a delay in my ability to do just that because of all the interruptions. We'll see how far I get this time, Chair.
    Here's another section of Bill C-69 that is in Bill C-49. This is why Bill C-69 has to be dealt with first—I'll get to that in a second—and then Bill C-49, and now Bill C-50.
    As I was saying, Bill C-49 incorporates section 64 of Bill C-69, which, again, as we all know, was ruled unconstitutional by the SCC. It was called largely unconstitutional by the majority of the Supreme Court.
    Section 64 of Bill C-69 is fundamentally connected to the consideration of factors set forth in section 63 of Bill C-69, which, the Supreme Court made clear in paragraph 166, “represents an unconstitutional arrogation of power by Parliament”.
    I'll conclude on Bill C-49, hopefully, but this is a fact: Bill C-49 has incorporated all these proposed decision-making processes and facts into several sections in Bill C-49. Given that the decision-making power and the entirety of the “designated projects” scheme are unconstitutional, the risk, and lawyers will certainly litigate this, is that components of Bill C-49 are unconstitutional as well, as written right now. This is why the government had to actually deal with the massive mistake, disaster and mess on Bill C-69 that they were warned about, that's been unconstitutional for five years and that has caused untold destruction in communities, the economy, and jobs and businesses. That's why it has to be dealt with first.
    Then with Bill C-49, because that then flows to us being able to deal with Bill C-49, knowing and being confident that these sections from Bill C-69 have been fully corrected and fixed, it seems to me that there's no way we can really do our due diligence on Bill C-49 unless that part is fixed first. Of course, there's Bill C-50, because the topic is relevant, but it's not the same as Bill C-49, where literally verbatim sections and words from Bill C-69 that have been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court are in Bill C-49 as written. It was in Bill C-49 as written when it passed the House of Commons. That's why Conservatives opposed. It's in Bill C-49 right now, when it's going to come to us. This is why we're making this issue.
    Now, the worst part is that Bill C-49 already had all kinds of problems even before this decision. It already had these lengthy and uncertain timelines with all kinds of opportunities for political intervention. It tripled the timeline. Bill C-49 actually triples the timeline for a final decision on offshore renewable energy as compared with petroleum.
    Of course, this bill deliberately—NDP-Liberals do want to shut it down, because that's what the just transition is about—is a death knell for offshore petroleum developers due to all the uncertainty and the lack of clarity in the timelines for private sector proponents, for provinces and for workers in the sector. Those were already problems in the bill. If we'd had more debate in the House of Commons, maybe we would have wrested all this out and known about it.
    With that Supreme Court decision, which was an utter indictment of the NDP-Liberal cornerstone major legislation that impacts the entire economy and Canadians everywhere, this is now urgent. I can't get my head around how we are able to assess Bill C-49, given that it contains these various verbatim and as-written sections from Bill C-69 that have now also been declared unconstitutional.
    To the scheduling motion, this is why Conservatives, we in the official opposition, who were elected by more individual Canadians in the 2021 election and in the 2019 election....
    We might just remind everybody that we're not actually in a majority government scenario here. We are in a minority government —


    A point of order.
    —with a costly coalition and collusion between the NDP and the Liberals—
    Ms. Stubbs, please hold.
    Mrs. Shannon Stubbs: —while the NDP is also trying to pretend that it is still an opposition party.
    The Chair: Ms. Stubbs, we have a point order from Ms. Lapointe.
     I will be brief.
    On the motion that we are debating, I'm asking if MP Stubbs has an amendment to make on the motion that speaks to dealing with two bills concurrently.
    Thank you for the point of order, Ms. Lapointe.
    Ms. Lapointe asked in her point of order if you have an amendment that you're bringing forward, Ms. Stubbs. If you do, I would like to hear it, but also the floor is yours to be able to provide your debate on these important bills, the motion by Mr. Sorbara that was brought forward on Bill C-50 and Bill C-49.
    Through your debate, if you can allude to whether an amendment is coming, that would be great. The floor is yours.
    Thank you, Chair.
    I appreciate so much your giving me the opportunity to do this. I know in your riding in Calgary, you represent many oil and gas workers and their families, and oil and gas businesses, so I'm sure that's why you also believe that this is a very critical and crucial discussion for the people that you represent.
    We're both Albertans. I have been working on this file for a long time, and I worked on these policy issues long before I was elected, as you may know. I'm certainly very familiar with Calgarians, their values, their priorities, and their deep concern about all these bills, so thank you for this, despite all the interruptions which are delaying this point, for still giving me the time to address this. Thank you.
    I do have an amendment, but as you can see, I feel it's my duty, given the delay on dealing effectively with Bill C-69 I really want to make sure I'm making the comprehensive case to Canadians and to all the members here why we certainly cannot support this scheduling motion as written, and as was just brought to this committee with no notice to any of us, and seeks to dictate every single aspect of the work and the timelines of what we do in this committee.
    I hope I have already addressed why failing to deal with Bill C-69 is nuts and destructive to the country. The way that Bill C-69 is in Bill C-49 certainly will open it up to litigation and delays, which no person in Atlantic Canada or the premiers want. They want a clear, predictable regulatory environment for both offshore petroleum and offshore renewable energy. That's why they want the bill and they want the provincial ministers to have a say. They don't want this all just to be cooked up on the back door by the federal representatives. I hope I have explained why those two things are linked and why Bill C-49 has to come first.
    Of course, according to the NDP-Liberals' own schedule under which they brought the bills through the House of Commons, which was Bill C-49 first and then Bill C-50.... Of course, the arguments about other ministers or other ministries aren't really relevant on any of them since Bill C-69 was a joint initiative by the environment and natural resources ministers. Bill C-49 was the same. Of course, Bill C-50, the just transition, which will be transition to poverty, was also brought forward jointly by the environment minister, the natural resources minister and the labour minister.
    To the schedule which the NDP-Liberals have put on the table today to dictate every single aspect of the work of this committee, here are the problems.
    For Bill C-50, we have this date.... No, this one is good. If we can get the minister....
    Actually, the minister hasn't been here for a while, so I really appreciate that we do have this date for him to come. Of course, he should come for a whole bunch of other reasons so that's cool beans to me.
    Let's go down here. We have the minister again. That's fine. We should have the minister in, obviously, as soon as possible as this motion does outline. Definitely.
    Here's where we start getting into the problem. There are dates here that are tying us based on the other work that we have to do to ensure that all Canadians who will be impacted by all of these bills will be heard. They must be heard. In the House of Commons and committee, it is our job to demonstrate our diligence, to demonstrate accountability, to do the work that Canadians expect of us to pass legislation that, for example, won't be litigated until kingdom come and won't be declared to be unconstitutional five years later. We don't want to do that again. I'm sure we all agree. This is why it's so important that we do our jobs.
     One can understand that even though parties, various groups and the government have been working behind the scenes—and they have; I mean that's how things get developed—for a year or two years on Bill C-49 and Bill C-50.... For Conservatives as the official opposition, of course, our tools are to litigate that and to do our due diligence in the House of Commons and in committee.


     We in the official opposition—Conservatives—who also did gain more votes individually from individual Canadians in 2021 and in 2019, haven't been working on this in the back doors with NDP, Liberals and various other groups for one to two years.
    The only thing we can do is fight for the ability to do our jobs on behalf of the common sense of common people who have sent us here. That's our job.
    I hope that this helps explain why we can't possibly support this scheduling motion that is aiming to drive through and dictate every step of what we do next on this committee.
    Viviane, you asked me if there was an amendment, and there is.
    Let me get to it at long last, unless members are still unclear why I am making the case that Bill C-69 is so important and that Bill C-69 is in Bill C-49 and why Bill C-49 must come first and then we must do Bill C-50. Is anyone still questioning that?
    Certainly, not to further delay, but I understand, Marc, that when you have the official opposition, who hasn't been included or involved in any of this work, and they're now really trying to do their jobs as members of Parliament, as the official opposition.... In my case it's as the vice-chair of this committee, as a shadow minister for natural resources. There are my colleagues representing the Saskatchewan riding, Manitoba riding; my colleague, Earl, who's been here, I think, the longest of any of us, and he represents an Alberta riding; and Mario, who needs to do his due diligence for his constituents.
    I understand that my colleagues in the NDP-Liberals might find this inconvenient. They might be annoyed at this. I mean, this is democracy.


     Point of order.
    Mrs. Shannon Stubbs: I guess it's a hassle, but it sure is better than anything else, isn't it?
    Ms. Stubbs, we have a point of order from Mr. Angus.
     I've been listening closely, and I've been told there was an amendment.
    Is there an amendment, yes or no?
    Can we move on to someone else who has something to say?
    Mr. Angus, can I ask you to put your headset down? We couldn't hear what you said.
    Thank you.
    How is that?
    You're good.
    Go ahead, once again, on the point of order just to make sure we heard you.
    My point of order is that I've been listening carefully, and I keep getting told there's an amendment coming, but it just seems to be this long, drawn-out stall.
    We have work to get done.
    Point of order, Mr. Chair.
    People are expecting us to get this dealt with.
    Every time I try to speak, the Conservatives shut me down. I'm asking if there's an amendment, yes or no.
    Point of order.
    Mr. Angus, we have a point of order from Mr. Patzer.
    We have Mr. Patzer on a point of order on the point of order.
    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.
    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?
    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.
     I have a point of order.
    Mr. Angus, you have a point of order on his point of order. Go ahead.
    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.
    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.


    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?
    I've been here.
    Mr. Dreeshen, thank you for that point of order.
    There was no substitution made.
    Thank you.
    That's why I asked.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    My point was on Mr. Cannings and whether or not he had been officially—
    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.
     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—


     I have a point of order.
    I'm sorry, Ms. Stubbs. We have a point of order.
    This is my amendment.
    That's not an amendment. That's an attempt to bring her motion, which is already out there.
    No, I'm amending. He's talking about an old motion. I'm not talking about that motion.
    No, this is the same tactic she's been using the whole time.
    No, it isn't.
    Mr. Angus, your point of order is noted.
    I have a point of order, Chair.
    Once we hear the full motion, we can have that conversation.
    Mr. Patzer, go ahead on a point of order.
    My colleague is not moving a motion. She is introducing her amendment to the government's motion. It's not up to members to determine if it's a motion or an amendment. It is an amendment. The member said it's an amendment. Therefore, it's an amendment.
    She's trying to amend the government's motion. I would humbly ask all members to just listen to what she has to say and see what her amendment to the government's motion is.
    I have a point of order.
    We have a point of order by Mr. Aldag on Mr. Patzer's comments. It's a point of order on the point of order.
    Go ahead, Mr. Aldag.
    I fully support hearing the amendment that's being put forward. I do find it really difficult to follow when it's being put in there with all of the commentary that's being added. It's colourful and it's enlightening, but it is difficult.
    I would ask if Ms. Stubbs is going to put forward an amendment, that we be given the amendment. Perhaps speak to any contextual information or reasons, but I'd like to hear what the amendment is and then we can deal with it. I think that will help us keep moving the conversation forward.
     Ms. Stubbs, the floor is yours.
    Thank you.
    Let me say one thing on a personal note. I am a person who does not believe in special treatment for women. I do not believe in quotas. The vast majority of the people in Lakeland didn't elect me because I'm a woman. I think they elected me because they're principally Conservative and because, I hope, at some point I'm doing a good job for them and earning my keep.
    I sure do appreciate all these older guys constantly interrupting me to tell me what to do, how to say things and what to say. I hope that after eight years I have somehow gained some kind of credibility as a substantive and fair-dealing member of Parliament in the course of my work.
    I admire everybody here—


    I have a point of order.
    I admire people who are speaking, but it's odd....
    Sorry. We have a point of order, Ms. Stubbs.
    Maybe if the young woman can just finish her point and get to the amendment, which I was reading right before.
    We have a point of order, so could you just pause.
    Mr. Angus, go ahead.
    Actually, it wasn't me. I think it was Mr. Aldag.
    My apologies, Mr. Angus. I thought it was you.
    Mr. Aldag, my apologies. I didn't hear your point of order. Go ahead.
    I'd like to say if that comment is aimed at me, I take huge exception to it. All I asked for through the point of order is that we hear the amendment in its entirety so we can deal with it.
    If that's being taken as a slight.... I just think it's a way of trying to move the conversation forward. That is respectfully the request that I'd make.
    I think it's being completely misconstrued for perhaps another false social media clip that Ms. Stubbs loves to do about what happens here.
    Let's get the amendment on the table, and we can entertain it.
    I have a point of order.
    Thank you, Mr. Aldag.
    Mr. Patzer, go ahead on a point of order.
    I find it really interesting after what has been said, that would be the comment that would come. That is presupposing what my colleague is going to do regardless of....
    She was already in the middle of her motion. To presuppose that she's trying to take a dig at somebody for a social media clip is actually very low and very belittling, John. I hold you in much higher regard than that, so I'm actually quite disappointed in you for making that comment.
    I'm going to cede the floor to my colleague, so she can actually get to the amendment to the motion that she's trying to make.
    Thank you, Mr. Patzer, for the point of order.
    However, we're not going to go to Ms. Stubbs yet, because we have another point of order.
    Mr. Falk, go ahead on a point of order.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Further to that point of order from Mr. Aldag, I was listening to Mr. Aldag and I was just waiting for an apology to come out, although I realized it wasn't coming. I thought that he'd made his point and he'd done it very eloquently, until he referred to my colleague, Ms. Stubbs, using this as an opportunity to present false social media content.
    That's absolutely out of order, Mr. Aldag, through the chair.
     Let's not get into further debate on the point of order.
    His point was being well received. He had to take that little jab at the end to make a false accusation of my colleague. I think that was very inappropriate.
    Thank you for your point of order, Mr. Falk.
    We have a point of order by Mr. Angus.
    Thank you.
    This is all very interesting, but what we see is this continual obstruction. We've raised the questions: Does she have an amendment? Will she read the amendment? If she reads the amendment, we can vote on it. Otherwise, we're playing games here.
     I would like to hear the amendment, and that's what my colleague, Mr. Aldag, asked for. We need to hear the amendment. I believe there are serious issues with the amendment, but I'd like to hear it, and I've not been able to hear it.
    Thank you, Mr. Angus.
    Folks want to hear the amendment. We've heard that on a few points of order, and we're getting many more.
    Mr. Patzer, you also have a point of order, so I'm going back to you on a point of order.
    Hopefully, there will be no more, and we'll go to Ms. Stubbs, so we can hear the full amendment without interruptions.
    Go ahead, Mr. Patzer.
    Absolutely. I hope that she's able to get to the full amendment. You might want her to start from the top on the amendment, Mr. Chair.
     I'm just going to remind you, Mr. Chair, of Standing Order 117 on decorum. It's up to you to maintain that. When we have members making egregious comments, it is incumbent upon you as the chair to maintain the decorum of this committee.
    I would hope and trust that you would do that in the future and not allow this committee to devolve into chaos with members saying unbecoming things of other members.
    Thank you for your point of order, Mr. Patzer.
    I think all colleagues around the table here have, to their best abilities, conducted themselves appropriately. I just hope that we continue that way. I hope we can proceed in that manner, stay focused on what we're studying, which are the amendments on hand, and not pull away from the partisan, or political stuff that we sometimes hear.
    Point of order.
     I do want to hear the full amendment
     Mr. Angus, you have a point of order.
    This is just procedural, given that it has taken x amount of time, without hearing the amendment. We are running out of time. Will you be able to secure resources so that we could sit through question period? We could continue sitting so we could finally actually hear the amendment. I don't want us to come to one o'clock, and still not having heard the amendment.
    Can you actually check with the clerk to see if we need to sit through question period? Maybe we need to sit into the evening. I don't know how long this amendment is going to take, but I'd like to know that we have the resources so we can finally hear it.


    Thank you, Mr. Angus, for putting that forward.
    If committee members choose to sit through this meeting, and as you mentioned into question period, or through the evening, that is up to the will of committee members. If that's the will of committee members, I can ask the clerk to look at further resourcing to ensure that is available for committee members to do so. We can look into that in the meantime.
    Thank you for that, Mr. Angus.
    Scanning the room, I don't see any other points of order.
    Ms. Stubbs, you had an amendment you were partially through when you paused, so you can continue on from where you were on your amendment.
     Chair, thank you for clarifying that. I was just wondering if there was a way that we could quickly pull up transcripts or Hansards in real time, because, as you just said, I had already started reading the amendment, and it was after I started reading the amendment that my colleague, John Aldag, had his first point of order and told me to get onto the amendment. Then I responded, and then he did another point of order. You're right. I had already started reading the amendment, so I might suggest that I'm actually not the cause of the delay here. In case I have to clarify— you know this about me, Chair—I have a lot of experience in public, private and post-secondary sectors precisely on energy and resource policy. That's what I did for the vast majority of my career before I was elected.
    That's certainly why I'm informed and knowledgeable about it, but it's also why I'm passionate about it. I'm particularly passionate about it because, of course, I represent about 100,000 people across 35,000 square kilometres, 52 municipalities, four Métis settlements and five first nations, all of whom depend on resource development for their livelihoods and their futures. That's why I'm so passionate about it.
     I'll have to start from the top where I was already reading the amendment before I was interrupted twice and then accused of being the one who was delaying. I know sometimes it happens to young women and also to old women when they know things about a certain topic, and then men still want to tell them how to talk about it and what to say and how to say it. I would note that I thank my chivalrous and respectful Conservative male colleagues who are responding as they should in my defence. People on the other side should question themselves about their words versus their actions and their fake feminism.
    I'll continue the amendment I started before, if that's okay.
    John, I'm just wondering if it's okay, because you interrupted me twice before when I was already reading the amendment.
    On a point of order.
    On a point of order, go ahead, Mr. Aldag.
    Are comments not to be directed through the chair? It's inappropriate to be doing this. We've all said we're interested in hearing the amendment. It is up to the person speaking whether they want to continue to delay or try to deflect onto others.
    We've all said we're ready to hear it, but perhaps comments should be directed through the chair.
    Thank you for the point of order.
     Members, normally I give this preamble at the beginning of a meeting about how all comments should be directed through the chair. I would make sure that all comments are directed through the chair.
    Thank you for the point of order, Mr. Aldag.
    Ms. Stubbs, go ahead.
    Thank you so much, Chair.
    I know everybody has to keep working on me with these rules because I'm so hell-bent on representing the people of Lakeland and just focused on the best interests of Canadians and ensuring that their lives are affordable and that they can have a country where they are back in control of their lives and they can afford their essentials and they can capture their dreams. I'm sorry to be so passionate about this and maybe a little bit light on all of the specifics about the rules, but I certainly think the people of Lakeland want me to be fighting on the issues I am fighting on.
    To that point then, through you, Chair, could you maybe check with Mr. Aldag to see if he's okay with me starting again on reading the amendment that I was already reading when he interrupted me twice before? That was while also accusing me of delaying, which, of course, is gaslighting, right?


    I had given you the floor to read your amendment. I had offered you that courtesy to do so, and the floor is yours to proceed with the rest of the amendment you had started. I believe you paused part of the way through. I just want to make sure the clerk and the interpreters can follow the amendment you are putting forward so committee members will have the ability to examine your amendment and provide good debate around it.
    Could we go back to your reading of the amendment?
     Thank you, Chair, for giving me that opportunity.
    It's so bizarre. I know that the NDP-Liberals do favour censorship and dictating what people can say, see and these sorts of things, but it's all muddled up if you want to accuse a person of delaying and not doing a thing that they were already doing and then you interrupt them twice.
    As you have just suggested I do, I will go back to the amendment that I was already reading. I'll start again:
1. 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 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, is unconstitutional;
    Even more, this is how big a deal it is. That bill's been law and unconstitutional for half a decade. I'll continue:
for the purposes of this study, the committee: (a) hold at least 5 meetings, (b) invite the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change to appear for one hour each, (c) report its findings and recommendations to the House and, (d) pursuant to Standing Order 109, request that the government table a comprehensive response to the report; and

2. Complete its consideration of Bill C-49.
    Unfortunately, I have no option except to do it this way, since this motion for scheduling was was brought to us today. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources did reach out to me over the weekend about planning the schedule for this committee and, of course, I got back to her. I said that our concerns remain the same and our perspective of why this must happen in this order remains consistent with what we've said before and is what we're saying today. Of course it makes sense, because it's the exact order in which the NDP-Liberals have brought in their own legislation.
    Do you have a point of order, Mr. Angus?
    Yes, I don't believe that this is a proper amendment, because, again, it attempts to hijack the amendment by introducing a motion that Ms. Stubbs wanted to bring on Bill C-69 and completely circumvented—
    An hon. member: No.
    Mr. Jeremy Patzer: Point of order.
    Mr. Charlie Angus: Let me finish. I don't believe it's in order, and it also leaves off Bill C-50, which was part of the amendment, so, in order to address this you have to—
    Mr. Jeremy Patzer: Point of order.
    Mr. Angus, can you hold on a second?
    Point of order.
    I'm not even allowed—
    Mr. Jeremy Patzer: Point of order.
    Mr. Charlie Angus: [Inaudible—Editor] because Mr. [Inaudible—Editor] continues to interrupt. I want to get clarity on this.
    Mr. Jeremy Patzer: Point of order.
    Mr. Patzer, hold on one second.
    Mr. Angus, I've heard. I'm going to Mr. Patzer on a point of order while I get clarity on your point of order, if that's okay, Mr. Angus.
    Mr. Charlie Angus: Absolutely, thank you.
    The Chair: Thank you.
    Go ahead on the point of order.
    Thank you.
    There was a speaking order to the amendment and, for something as substantive as Mr. Angus is trying to do, when he has his turn on the speaking order, that point is when he can discuss what exactly it is he's trying to do.
    That point of order—correct me if I'm wrong—cannot be used to do what he is trying to do, which is ruling her amendment out of order.
    When he wants to have his turn to speak, he can put his hand up and he can join the speaking list, but you already do have a speaking list, and if we're going to get into substantive debate on this amendment, we need to follow that speaking list.


    Thank you, Mr. Patzer.
    I think he did raise a valid point, and I've asked the clerk for clarity on that. I did want to hear what his point of order was just because it was a procedural question that he asked a point of order on, but I do appreciate your advising as well on the procedure, and we'll try to get some further clarity.
    Thank you for the points of order.
    Mr. Marc Serré: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
    The Chair: Yes, go ahead on your point of order.
     I just want to be very specific. We have a motion on the floor and then we have an amendment to the motion. Can we ask the clerk if this is admissible, yes or no, before we go ahead?
    Mr. Serré, on that point of order, it's my understanding that Ms. Stubbs has added those items to these items as additional points of an amendment that is added on to this.
    Ms. Stubbs, from my understanding you've added additional points to the existing motion that's on the floor.
    What I just did was move an amendment to the programming schedule that the NDP-Liberals brought to this table today.
     What Charlie is claiming is that I am moving the same motion that I spoke to on October 25. It is materially not the same. What I am proposing right now is an amendment to the programming motion brought by the NDP-Liberals to dictate every single thing about this committee. It is not the same.
     If the clerk needs it, I can certainly provide both versions of the motion that I moved on the 25th—
    I have a point of order.
    —and the amendment that I'm moving today to the Liberals' program.
    Can I finish my sentence just for once today?
    You can, but he has a point of order. I do need to acknowledge him.
    I know what I'm doing, and I can explain it.
    I know, but one second.
    Go ahead, Mr. Angus, on the point of order.
    Throughout this, Ms. Stubbs has been mis-characterizing deliberately that this motion was brought by the NDP and it wasn't. We're trying to debate it. This was brought by the Liberals.
    Mrs. Shannon Stubbs: Your coalition partners.
    Mr. Charlie Angus: We're going to have an issue of basic respect here. If she's going to continue to throw in these kinds of comments, I think you have to call her out. The NDP did not bring this motion. We're trying to debate this motion. We're being shut down from these constant games that are being played, but it is a Liberal motion.
     Chair, you need to keep reminding her so she doesn't use this in a way that misrepresents what this is.
     Pardon the interruption.
    Thank you, Mr. Angus, for your point of order.
     Just as a reference for colleagues, it was a motion brought forward by the Liberal member, Mr. Sorbara, and that's what we've been debating from the onset of this meeting. We have been asked by members, and I think Ms. Stubbs also just asked, for advice from the clerk on this issue. We'll go to the clerk to get his comments on the question that was raised by Ms. Stubbs.


    Mr. Chair, she didn't ask for advice from the clerk. She knows what she's doing.
    Mr. Serré did ask for advice from the clerk specifically to be clear on what was stated in her amendment and how it pertains to the motion on hand.
     Ms. Stubbs, for clarity, can you advise us as to where your amendment would be inserted in the motion that's on the floor? Where are you adding the insertion as an amendment specifically to the motion on the floor so the interpreters can follow along, but also so the clerk can ensure that your amendment is tabled appropriately within the existing motion.
    If you could provide that clarity, it would be much appreciated just so we can ensure that it is presented properly.
     Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that.
    Did I get all the way through the amendment? It's hard to tell now at this point.
    I believe you did, but that question was raised on a point of order once you were done.
    Fantastic. It was at the end of the Liberals' programming motion.
    I apologize for suggesting that this was the NDP-Liberals' motion. I hope that I can be forgiven. Of course, there's a backroom coalition agreement to prop the Liberals up until 2025, even though more Canadians individually voted Conservative in the 2021 and 2019 elections.
    I apologize for making the assumption that this was from the coalition partners who are working together to drive their agenda through all aspects of Parliament.
    On a point of order, Chair, can we ask the clerk whether it's admissible? If it's admissible, can we make sure it's sent in both official languages?
    We should suspend. We have to ask the clerk to give us his advice.
    Chair, I would be okay, too, if Francesco....
     I think you brought the programming motion originally, right?
    Given the amendment, which now I've had to put in public because you guys brought your motion in public.... I'd be open to it going wherever you want it to go. I just thought at the end or potentially it could go after.... My colleague is saying right before section a).
    Since you brought the motion in, I'd be happy to collaborate more and work with you on that, as you said in the beginning when you moved the motion.
     To any colleagues who are worried about anything going on here, I don't think we have to be concerned about it at all. Of course, it's all happening in public with the full sunlight as a disinfectant. It was supposed to be sunny ways, we thought, so all Canadians can see what's happening here.
    Ms. Stubbs, if we can pause for a moment, there were two questions raised on the point of order from Mr. Serré.
    If members require it in both official languages to follow along was one question.
    The other question was on whether it is the will of the committee to continue.
    Mr. Angus previously asked for timing, and we're at about 1:03, if my eyes are correct on the clock. To the delight of members, I'm sure, we have extended time of services until 2:30. We can continue to that point.
     If it's the will of the members of the committee to continue until that time, we'll continue. If it's the will of the committee to ensure that we get it in both official languages, we can make sure that happens as well, so committee members can follow along.
     It looks like it is the will of the committee to continue.
    Some hon. members: Nay.
    The Chair: We have some members wanting to continue and some not wanting to continue. We will need clear acknowledgement from members that we want to continue.
     If I could have members wanting to continue as of now until 2:30, maybe longer—we have resources to continue—would you raise your hands.
     The majority of members want to continue. Anybody who does not want to continue, make your objections known now.


    Mr. Chair, we have a problem either way to get this done.
    Ms. Stubbs, I just want to make sure that committee members know that committee members have voted to continue. We will continue until 2:30, and if we get additional resources, we can continue beyond that time as well.
     My second question was, do members require it in both official languages? That was raised by Mr. Serré.
    Yes, we do. We require it in both official languages.
     I have a point of order on a procedural note, Mr. Chair.
    Colleagues, we are working on getting it translated, and we're hoping to have that shortly.
    We have a point of order.
    Mr. Patzer.
     Under the last chair, when we were going through reports and whatnot line by line, we had this issue of just assuming that the will of the committee was as such and then just carrying on without going to actual recorded votes. I know that you quickly just said to put our hands up for this or our hands up for that, but I'm just wondering if it would be proper to do an actual roll call vote to make sure that people understand what is actually happening.
     I think that it was quite clear to members. Everybody raised their hand that they were in favour of continuing on. I asked, to that point, if members were not in favour and had acknowledgement from the members who weren't. That was not asked for by members, so I proceeded in that manner. However, in the future, if the committee members want a roll call vote, they can ask for that at that time.
    We will continue.
    I have a point of order.
    I'm sorry. I don't want to belabour things in terms of resources.
    If it's being translated, should we suspend for five minutes? That might give you a chance to see if we can get resources for longer than until 2:30. I think it's very important that we get Bill C-50 debated and back to the House. If it takes longer, then maybe we need to see if we can obtain more resources, but I leave that you, Mr. Chair, and to our wonderful clerk.
    Colleagues, I will look into the further resourcing that Mr. Angus has proposed in order to go beyond 2:30. I will ask the clerk to do so.
    We are working on translation.
    What I propose is that we suspend for a few minutes to see what we can find out. At that time, we can come back and continue on. Folks can also take a quick washroom break if they need to. We will suspend for a few minutes, and we'll resume at 1:15.



    I call the meeting back to order.
    We are resuming debate. For all those watching at home, we have an amendment that's been moved by Ms. Stubbs.
    Ms. Stubbs, the floor is yours on the amendment you have moved.
    I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
    I apologize for doing this as we come back from a point of order, but I just want to make sure that we've actually received the motion in both official languages. That was the whole point of pausing, and I have still not received an email confirming that we have the motion in both official languages.
     I'm curious to know whether that's been circulated yet.
    The motion has not been circulated yet in both official languages. That's my understanding.
    Mr. Chair, on a point of order, can we get clarification from the honourable member on whether the amendment was for the back of the motion I presented earlier this morning or the middle?
    On the points of order, I've addressed the first one.
     On the point of order by Mr. Sorbara, clarity needs to be provided by Ms. Stubbs.
    Can you provide clarity once again for members? There is a bit of confusion on where your amendment is to go in the existing motion that we have on the floor, which was circulated and provided to all committee members. I believe it has paragraphs (a) to (i). We just need to know to make sure that we have your amendment inserted in the right spot.
     I will turn it back over to you, Ms. Stubbs, to provide that clarity so we can continue on.
    Yes. Thank you, Chair. I appreciate it.
     Of course, right before we broke, I suggested through you, or directly to my colleague, that I would be happy to work with him on it. However, since you want that crystal clarity from me, we would suggest this amendment:
1. 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 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, is unconstitutional; for the purposes of this study, the committee: (a) hold at least 5 meetings, (b) invite the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change to appear for one hour each, (c) report its findings and recommendations to the House and, (d) pursuant to Standing Order 109, request that the government table a comprehensive response to the report”
    That would go after the opening paragraph of my colleague's motion, ending with “have both been referred to committee, that the committee initiate its consideration of both C-50 and C-49 with the following schedule”. It would then say “(a)” with what I just outlined, and the next one would be:
2. Complete its consideration of Bill C-49.
    After that, it would be 3, and thereafter it could flow.
    On a point of order, Mr. Chair, through you to the clerk, can I ask about the admissibility of the amendment Ms. Stubbs just tabled?


    On that point, Chair....
     The clerk has advised that it's inserted as an addition to what exists. It is an additional item to what we had presented.
    I have a point of order for clarification.
    Is it inserted at the end of the motion?
    No. Per Ms. Stubbs, it was inserted at the beginning as a new (a) and (b) and then the following items would flow under that.
    I have a point of order, Chair.
     Mr. Patzer did have a point of order, Mr. Angus. I'm going to him quickly and then I'll go to you.
    Thank you.
     I was waiting for you to finish. I did say “on that point” a couple of minutes ago. I wanted to make sure that I had a chance to quickly speak.
    The question was on the admissibility of it. From what I understand, we're talking about how it's been inserted and then there will be debate on it with a speakers list. I think allowing members to debate the amendment to the motion would help provide certainty and clarity, possibly around Mr. Sorbara's question.
    Obviously, the Conservatives feel that this amendment is in order because the motion is about the schedule. Our amendment simply rearranges a few things here. I think as you go through the speakers list and as we speak about the amendment, we may be able to help provide a little bit of clarity and debate on the amendment to the programming motion.
    Thank you, Mr. Patzer.
    Mr. Angus, go ahead on a point of order.
    As this is a substantial rewriting and in fact an insertion of a whole other piece of legislation into the scheduling motion, I think it would upend Mr. Sorbara's motion dramatically. This is not a friendly amendment.
    Does Mr. Sorbara have the right to reject this amendment?
    Thank you for your point of order, Mr. Angus.
    Just give me a second here.
     Mr. Angus, on your point of order, the member is allowed to make an amendment although it may not be in the interest of the mover. The member is allowed to make an amendment to the motion to insert at the beginning of this motion, as I think Ms. Stubbs has said.
    Do you have a point order, Mr. Falk, or do you want to be added to the speakers list?


    I'd like to make an amendment to this.
    You can't make an amendment on a point of order. You can't make an amendment until you have the floor. You have to wait until you're on the floor according to the speaking list.
    I think I'm number two, right?
    I'm not sure where you are, but I will take a look.
    Mr. Chair, can you clarify what that speakers list looks like? I do remember all three of us putting our hand up the very second she moved her amendment.
    As time has gone on and after multiple points of order, it's taken probably 45 minutes to get to that point. I would just like some clarity on what that speaking order is because I think that would help things out.
    I endeavour to do my best to follow the speaking list. We never know when an amendment is being moved until the mover moves it and then it goes into debate.
    I have Mr. Patzer next on the speaking list.
    Those change as some members add their names and some delete them. I go to one member at a time, and I will proceed in that order.
    Ms. Stubbs, I'm going back to you because the floor was yours on the amendment. You had proposed the amendment.
    Were you continuing to present the amendment or were you now debating why you think your amendment is appropriate? Are you ceding the floor to the next speaker?
     First of all, it would be wonderful if you could clarify the speaking list as it is. Second of all, as I said multiple times, and did before I was continually interrupted.... I proposed the amendment and I moved it. What I endeavoured to do before I moved it was make the case to all of you and to Canadians for why this had to be done in this order.
    I guess it's up to the mover of the motion, or whomever, to figure out how or whether they want to adopt this amendment for all of the reasons I've outlined.
     From my perspective, I've made that argument, Chair. Thank you.
    I will go to Mr. Patzer in the speaking order.
    You're next.
     Thank you very much, Chair. I do appreciate that.
     I think this amendment is solid. We're trying to order Bill C-49 ahead of Bill C-50 with our amendment because of the at least 32 times that Bill C-69 is referenced in Bill C-49. Because the Supreme Court of Canada has provided a reference on the largely unconstitutional nature of Bill C-69 and since it is referenced in Bill C-49, that is why there is a priority by Conservatives to start with Bill C-49, but that would of course mean that we need to deal with the case of Bill C-69. The court specified that legislators had to find ways to answer to the reference—not maybe they should find ways, but they had to find ways.
    We spent a big chunk of this meeting laying out the case as to why we need to do the order in this manner now that we have our amendment on. Again, it's of the utmost importance that we do it in this fashion because part of Bill C-50 talks about the jobs. This is a jobs bill. It's a just transition. It's going to kill jobs, but let's just say that the government somehow is able to be successful and transition people to jobs. They won't be, but the issue is that we have heard in this committee—I have been on other committees as well where we heard this—over and over again from the private sector, but also from the public sector, and perhaps even more importantly from indigenous leaders, that Bill C-69 is the single largest barrier to actually getting projects done of any kind of any type of energy, or any type of project they are trying to do whether it's traditional oil and gas, whether it's renewables, whether it's various projects, and we've heard it numerous times.
    That speaks to the urgency as to why we need to address Bill C-69 and particularly as it pertains to Bill C-49, because this is obviously about jobs in Atlantic Canada and trying to deal with the energy situation there. It would absolutely be appropriate that we deal with Bill C-69 and the impact it has first and foremost.
    There's a good note from the Supreme Court of Canada ruling that Parliament can enact impact assessment legislation to minimize risks that some major projects pose to the environment. However, “this scheme plainly overstepped the mark.” That's what the Supreme Court said. Moreover, “it is open to Parliament and the provincial legislatures to exercise their respective powers over the environment harmoniously, in the spirit of co-operative federalism.” That's another quote from the Supreme Court ruling.
    The whole point about Bill C-69 was every single province, every single premier said there were issues, and the territorial leaders did too. It is important that is noted, that going all the way back to 2018-19 when this was debated, flags were raised over issues with this bill by members of Parliament. In particular, all three at this table on the Conservative side spoke to it. In fact, my colleague from Lakeland did multiple times, and the Premier of Saskatchewan, the Premier of Alberta, all the premiers spoke against the overreach of this. Particularly the Ontario premier very strongly stated on it.
     It's important that this be considered as we look at the ordering of these bills. That is why the Conservatives have put this amendment forward, because we need to respect provincial jurisdiction, which is why the Provincial Court of Alberta made a ruling on Bill C-69, which of course the federal government challenged at the Supreme Court. We then saw the Supreme Court make its ruling in the reference case.


    I would just like to note that all throughout the history of Canadian parliaments, any time the Supreme Court has made a reference ruling, Parliament—the government of the day—has decided to make the necessary changes to it.
    For the certainty of communities and people who are looking for certainty going forward, I think it's extremely important that we address this first.
    I'm going to read something from the Saskatchewan government. The first line here is, “5-2 Decision Finds That The Federal Government Overstepped Constitutional Authority And Should Be More 'Cooperative' With Provinces In The Future.”
    The opening statement lays out the case as to why and how co-operative federalism is actually supposed to work. It clearly was not done in this case. The rest of the quote contains kind of no-brainer points. It reads:
Saskatchewan welcomes the Supreme Court of Canada's...ruling against the federal government's environmental Impact Assessment Act, formerly Bill C-69.
“This decision is nothing short of a constitutional tipping point and reasserts provinces' rights and primary jurisdiction over natural resources, the environment and power generation,” Justice Minister and Attorney General, Bronwyn Eyre said. “It should also force the federal government to reassess other areas of overreach, including capping oil and gas production and electrical generation. The IAA has stalled everything from Canadian highway and mine projects to LNG facilities and pipelines. It has thwarted investment, competitiveness and productivity across the country. This major decision will correct course.”
    That last sentence, “This major decision will correct course”, is why our amendment has been moved. That's why we feel this bill needs to be done first.
    I'll finish the article:
The IAA received royal assent in 2019. In 2022, the Alberta Court of Appeal (in a 4-1 majority) held that the IAA was unconstitutional, violated the division of powers between Ottawa and the provinces, and took a “wrecking ball” to exclusive provincial jurisdiction under Section 92 and 92A of the Constitution Act, 1867. The federal government appealed the decision to the [Supreme Court of Canada].
Last March, Saskatchewan was part of the constitutional intervention, along with seven other provinces, before Canada's top court, arguing that the IAA had exceeded federal jurisdiction.
The majority recognized that the IAA is a clear example of federal overreach. Specifically, the Supreme Court majority held that the IAA's designated projects scheme, by which the federal authorities could permanently put a project on hold was an “unconstitutional, arrogation of power by Parliament” and “clearly overstepped the mark.” The majority also found that the Act “grants the decision-maker a practically untrammelled power [of] regulated projects qua projects.”
In 2023, Saskatchewan passed the Saskatchewan First Act to [deal with] matters of provincial jurisdiction.
    My own province has made it very clear where it stands on this case and on this point. We know all of the other provinces did as well when it came to the government tabling Bill C-69 back in 2018-19.
    The fact that the Supreme Court has made its ruling kind of puts us in the position we're in now, where we have a largely unconstitutional bill impacting a lot of things that the government is trying work on—multiple pieces of legislation. It's not just Bill C-49 and Bill C-50. Other issues will arise if it is not dealt with and addressed.
    Quite frankly, it is hamstringing the provinces to be able to proceed with projects. We heard about LNG. We heard about simply trying to get highways built or repaired.
    I mentioned earlier that some of the first nations leaders were concerned about this as well because they're looking at timelines. They're looking at how there will be opportunity for self-determination, economic participation for their residents and economic reconciliation.


     Many of them have earmarked and flagged natural resource projects and development and also renewables, which also gets to the point though of why we have a problem with Bill C-69. They have told us over and over again that even on the renewable side, Bill C-69 is a problem. It's not even just about this being the.... It was originally dubbed the “no more pipelines” bill. This is just a “no more energy” bill. That is what we have here in front of us.
    Mrs. Shannon Stubbs: No more building anything ever anywhere.
    Mr. Jeremy Patzer: Yes, exactly. No more building anything ever anywhere.
    I think it's important that we address the issues around Bill C-69, because we've heard from many people, many stakeholders, private, public and otherwise, that this is a problem. I think what we're going—
    Mrs. Shannon Stubbs: The guys are worried about me interrupting you. You can maybe explain how you feel about that. The guys over there are worried about how I'm speaking to you.
    Mr. Jeremy Patzer: Yes, exactly. They're looking like they maybe want to have a—
    Mrs. Shannon Stubbs: I'm pretty sure you would tell me to buzz off if you were worried about it.
    Mr. Jeremy Patzer: Well, exactly. We're colleagues. We banter back and forth about things. We are like-minded. I have the floor.
     I have a point of order.
    We have a point of order, Mr. Patzer.
    Mr. Sorbara, go head on the point of order.
    Could you remind the committee who actually has the floor to speak at this moment in time?
    I'm not too sure.
    Well, just on that point of order—
    Are you doing a point of order on a point order?
    On his point of order, yes, absolutely, because I had the floor. I was speaking. My light was on. I was the one who was speaking. My colleague was so kind as to pour me a glass of water. You know, we work collaboratively on this side, Mr. Chair.
    I have a point of order.
    Mr. Patzer, we have a point of order.
    Mr. Angus, go ahead on the point of order.
    I just want to hear the points of order, and Mr. Patzer continues to try to take the floor.
    Can we just hear the points of order and get back to business?
    Once again, colleagues, I've stated this many times this morning and into this afternoon. When one member does have the floor, let's let them finish their point of order before we proceed so that I can hear their point of order. Let's not get into debate within our points of order.
    I will ask you, colleagues, to have just one member speaking into their own mike, not multiple, because that does cause significant challenges for our interpreters, who need one person at a time to speak. They are doing a tremendous job interpreting our debate in both official languages, so out of courtesy to our interpreters, let's make sure it's one person at a time and not two individuals speaking into one mike, okay?
    I think that addresses the points of order.
    Mr. Patzer, the floor is back to you.


     Yes, I had the floor. I did not concede the floor. It's been mine since I started speaking, and I thank you for making that point.
    Just quickly, if I may, Mr. Chair, I'm going to say hello to my son. He's back home. He's sick today, so he's home from school, unfortunately, and he is watching the natural resources committee. I just want to say hello to my son.
    I hope you get better soon, buddy.
    Mrs. Shannon Stubbs: Knowing kids watch debates really points out how important it is for his future.
    Mr. Jeremy Patzer: Exactly. He's going to get a chance to learn today how important Canada's energy future is to our generation, to his generation and to the generation that is going to follow after his and how our country is going to work.
    It's an important opportunity for us to discuss the division of powers in this country as well, because Bill C-69, as the Supreme Court of Canada clearly ruled, has trampled all over that. That is why there is a priority and a precedence on our side to see that we deal with Bill C-49 first, because it directly quotes and references Bill C-69 no less than 33 times.
    It is causing some grief for members on the other side that we keep talking about Bill C-69, but, because they are so incredibly linked together, we continue to hammer home this point. We want to make sure that people understand that, in order for us to properly get the best result for Canadians, we are going to start with Bill C-49, which means that we have to deal with Bill C-69 and, as the amendment that was moved states at the very end in point 2—it's a very simple line that we have at the bottom—we complete consideration of Bill C-49.
    What that is doing is ordering Bill C-49 to be first. Deal with Bill C-69, as part of it ties in with Bill C-49, but we are going to complete deliberation on Bill C-49 and, at that point, at the end of the amendment, point number 3 would then be the a), b), c), d), e), f), g), h) and i) that was part of the original motion. It includes the original wording and lettering of the original motion, but it includes direction to have an order prioritizing Bill C-49 in advance. It's a very substantive amendment, and I really appreciate the wording that we have in it here, which we came up with to make sure that it was compliant and in order.
    It might be worth going over that one more time. At the start of the motion, point 1 is going to be that first we undertake the study on Bill C-69. It references in the opening dialogue about the need to do Bill C-49. We're already establishing that those two bills are going to be part of the motion.
    We're going to say that we first undertake the following study on Bill C-69:
1. 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 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, is unconstitutional; for the purposes of this study, the committee: (a) hold at least 5 meetings, (b) invite the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change to appear for one hour each, (c) report its findings and recommendations to the House and, (d) pursuant to Standing Order 109, request that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.”, then
2. Complete its consideration of Bill C-49.
    That's effectively—if I'm allowed to use the term—killing two birds with one stone here, because, when we deal with Bill C-49, we have to deal with Bill C-69. We have to start with BIll C-69 to make sure that Bill C-49 is compliant with that law that is now in place. It has been largely unconstitutional since its implementation, which the government was warned about back then and continues to be warned about now.
    This is why we want to prioritize the order of the bills that we have here in this amendment.
    There are a few parts to Mr. Sorbara's motion that are still going to have to be addressed and dealt with, possibly in a subamendment.


     Before we get to that, Mr. Chair, I think we need to really discuss the impacts that this will have if we don't deal with Bill C-69.
    I have read a little bit about Saskatchewan and their response to the reference case and the importance of that. I'll just remind members that at no point in history has a government ignored a reference case. They've always acted upon it and prioritized it. Let's take Saskatchewan as an example. We hear a lot about the government doing consultations and how they've been very engaging with people. Well, only about 15% of Saskatchewanians have heard of the just transition. I would suspect that if the other 85% knew what was happening and what was going on, people would have a lot of concerns.
    In particular, as we have seen and heard, the government's initial attempt at a just transition of coal workers substantively and spectacularly failed. I'll get to that in a bit. People have seen their energy prices already go up. That has already happened. At this point, the shuttering of our coal plants has not fully happened just yet, but we have seen energy prices increase as the government has implemented very strong anti-energy development legislation.
    Take the cost of the carbon tax alone, for example, on energy production in Saskatchewan. I've heard workers at the coal station talk about how the carbon tax might put them out of a job far in advance of 2030. This is because of the excessive costs that will be associated with producing power as the power plant is phased out and winds down. That escalating cost gets thrown on top, onto the Crown corporation SaskPower.
    Then you have the case of Swift Current, where I live. They buy the power from SaskPower. In a sense, you have a doubling of costs and regulation here that is causing this issue of affordability of energy for folks. We've heard the government's own regulations speak to the fact that the people who will be disproportionately impacted are seniors living on a fixed income and single mothers. That was right in the government's own regulations, and yet they are plowing ahead with this legislation that is problematic and causing massive cost overruns for people.
    In fact, we just heard on Friday that the government is going to put a pause on the carbon tax in one area of the country because of the issue of cost, but yet we've constantly been told that people receive more than they pay, so therefore it shouldn't be a problem. Well, clearly it is. This is why people are concerned with Bill C-50, Bill C-49 and Bill C-69. This is why getting to Bill C-69 first will be of the utmost importance to people.
    In Saskatchewan the working population is 598,000 people, give or take. There were over 43,000 construction jobs, 32,000 manufacturing jobs, and 25,800 agricultural jobs. In forestry, mining and gas there were 19,700 jobs, in utilities about 8,500, in wholesale and retail trade 98,000, and in transportation and warehousing about 30,000 jobs. The potential just transition job impacts are 10,432 direct jobs and 131,500 indirect jobs. A lot of that can be attributed and traced back to the ripple effect of Bill C-69.


    I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Patzer, we have a point of order from Ms. Lapointe.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Member Patzer has raised some relevant issues on the need to hear from Canadians on the additional study that they're proposing in their amendment. I would suggest that the original motion also has some compelling reasons on why we need to hear from Canadians. I'm certainly ready to vote on their amendment. I would expect that my colleagues are as well.
    I would simply like to ask the member to consider bringing this to a vote.
     Thank you for your point of order, Ms. Lapointe.
    Mr. Patzer, if you're at the point of bringing it to a vote, bring it to a vote. If you're still debating, please continue.
    Thank you, Chair.
    I thank my colleague for her respectful intervention there.
    No, I've been working toward.... I've been speaking off the motion and the amendment here. I think it would be important, Mr. Chair, that, first of all....
     I'm working on a subamendment here, looking at the original motion. When we order Bill C-49 and Bill C-69 ahead of Bill C-50, obviously it will cause some issues, I think, with the original motion as it is. I'm just kind of working toward that subamendment that I think will be needed to address a few things here.
    I just wanted to finish a thought I had about the impact on jobs in Saskatchewan. You know, 41% of our available generating capacity comes from gas, and 26% comes from coal. We're already looking at close to 70% of our energy capacity being gas and coal. Yes, we have the just transition legislation in front of the committee, but it still doesn't lay out a plan or a path to actually do something to replace that. It's just a plan to have a plan. That's essentially what that bill is.
    I think this speaks to why the priority and the precedent should be given to Bill C-49 first and foremost, so that we can deal with that issue. If we're going to change the generating capacity in Saskatchewan, we need the regulatory certainty to be dealt with, which the government is trying to ignore in Bill C-69. If we don't deal with that, how will any provinces, for that matter, whether it be Saskatchewan or Alberta or whether it be the Maritimes, as we're seeing with the Atlantic accord, deal with that?
     Bill C-69 clearly needs to be the priority for this committee. That is the point we have been trying to make all along here. I think it will be important to get to those bills first, to Bill C-49 and Bill C-69, ahead of Bill C-50.
    Mr. Angus, go ahead on a point of order.
    On a point of order, Chair, it's now clear that the Conservatives will do anything to filibuster Bill C-50.
     I had asked earlier about whether or not we have the resources until, I think you said, 2:30 p.m. Do we have resources to go beyond so that we can finally put an end to this filibuster and get back to the work that has been laid out in the motion?
    Yes. Currently, we do have further resources to go beyond 2:30 p.m., to 3 p.m. If we have any other further updates, or if it is the will of the committee to continue on beyond 3 p.m., we will try to get additional resources to make that happen.
    But it is the will of the committee, so I will keep proceeding until we get further guidance or if we have any further questions from members.
    Go ahead.


    On a point of order, I'm just trying to understand: Is that a request from the chair for us to put in a request? How do we go about requesting the additional resources? I'd like clarification on that before we continue.
    As mentioned, we do have further resources. If it is the will of the committee to continue, to keep sitting to discuss this important motion and amendment, the committee should advise me so that we can make those appropriate requests as well.
    Then I think we should make that request now so that we can get the resources in order.
     Thank you, Mr. Aldag.
    On the point of order, that is noted.
    We will go to Mr. Patzer.
    Oh, thank you.
    Mr. Chair, I was speaking about the fact that Saskatchewan relies on natural gas and coal for the majority of its baseload power right now. Interestingly enough, on their website for the Government of Saskatchewan—it actually lists this on the SaskPower portion of that website—you can go through and you can see where the province, within the previous 24 hours, got its energy from. You can see where all the kilowatt hours were produced and where they came from. Routinely, about 70% of that was drawn from natural gas and coal. The third highest would be hydro power there. We have a couple of hydro dams in Saskatchewan. Unfortunately, I don't know that we would actually be able to build and complete one single hydro dam in the amount of time that the government is trying to phase out fossil fuels.
    We've heard about timelines for approvals. That's part of the problem with Bill C-69, and now we have the largely unconstitutional part with what the Supreme Court made their ruling on. There's also the practicality of what we are going to replace the generation of gas and coal with.
    We look at how long it has taken for a few hydro projects around the country to be complete. We're talking decades. Yet the government has this plan that by 2035 there will not be any natural gas. Natural gas would be basically banned at that point in time. Coal is suppose to be gone by 2030. We're seeing some difficulty around the country in trying to get the reliability factor for wind and solar. We've seen the blocking of new technologies such as tidal power already. Now that wasn't in Saskatchewan where the tidal project was moved, of course. It's a landlocked province. I'm just speaking generally about around the country how that's going to work and how that's going to play out.
    With wind and solar, solar regularly accounts for less than one per cent of the power usage and energy consumption in Saskatchewan. Wind is regularly less than 10%. It's regularly a single-digit number. Sometimes, it goes a little bit higher. Sometimes it's a little bit lower. Specifically, people are concerned about peak usage and peak demand, right?
    Now, for those of you who don't follow the weather patterns of Saskatchewan, in the past week, it's been as cold as -15° already and -19° in some areas. I think it's important that people realize that this assertion that you can just throw a heat pump or two on and you'll be good in the middle of winter—I mean, already in October, most heat pumps wouldn't have worked in Saskatchewan. I think it's important that this be noted.
     In fact, when I was driving home on Friday after flying home from Ottawa, one of the news talk radio shows in Saskatchewan had a conversation around heat pumps. There are people who do use them up at their cabins. The people who have them speak specifically to how that is a three-season solution, mainly because it can be used as an air conditioner in the summer. You might be able to get some warmth in late May or early May at the cabin. Certainly, September into October you can get a little bit of warmth out of it.
    As I said, it's already been close to -20° in Saskatchewan. That's a common occurrence at this time of year. If you look at October, November, December, January, February, March and into April, the majority of the year, you're not even going to be able to use that as a source of heat in your home reliably.
    I think that it's important to have that on the table. We talk about the issue of a supposedly just transition and where people are going to get their energy from to heat their homes, to do their laundry, to cool their homes, and we have those severe differences in our temperatures from summer to winter.


     We can be in the plus mid-thirties or in the minus mid-thirties, and sometimes you can see that in a span of a week, depending on the time of year. It's important that people have reliable energy, reliable power.
     That's why Bill C-49, Bill C-69 and Bill C-50 all need to be discussed, but it's also why Bill C-69 needs to be dealt with first: because Canada's strategic advantage over the last number of decades has been the affordable, reliable, sustainable energy sources that we have in this country.
    There are many countries around the world that would be jealous and envious of the situation we have with our abundance in natural resources and also the diversity of ways in which we generate power and our energy. I think it would be important for us to make sure we keep that. Certainly, Bill C-69 has been a barrier to enabling that to continue, because our population continues to grow, which is always a good thing.... It's good to see our population growing, but it also means that we're going to need more energy.
    It's interesting to note that it's not going to be very long before, in a province like Quebec, which has a very robust hydro-powered grid, demand is going to outgrow capacity. I'll give credit to Quebec. They do have one of the more robust energy...where's the specific phrase I had here for it? Its grid is one of the most extensive systems in North America. To their credit, that includes the Americans. Also to their credit, they have a very extensive system, but that doesn't change the fact that if we don't have the capacity we need to continue to grow our population, it becomes a problem. That's where Bill C-69 comes into play.
    Certainly, the folks in Atlantic Canada want to see growth in their capacity to produce energy, to produce power, and that's why they want to see Bill C-69 dealt with and addressed, but because it's also tied in with Bill C-49, which is obviously the Atlantic accords, that is why we have a motion and an amendment before us here today.
    When we talk about what's happened in other provinces.... For example, with the coal transition that supposedly happened, there were thousands of people who at the end of it were put out of work. They were not transitioned to new jobs. We've seen entire towns in Alberta decimated by that. Bill C-50 is the government's attempt at doing this across the entire country, which is why Conservatives talk about the hundreds of thousands of jobs that are going to be lost, eliminated, because we do have a model to go on that the government has tried.
     We've heard in other committee studies about how, when there was a transition that was going to happen in fisheries, it just didn't work. Mr. Angus has talked about how workers have been left out in his riding when it comes to plants being shut down or mining projects being closed. I think it's important that this Bill C-69 that has been looming over our country for the last four or five years gets dealt with, gets addressed and gets prioritized.
    Mr. Chair, when it comes to a potential subamendment, I think of one thing that would help to make the original motion work.


     I'm just going to discuss this out loud here. I'm not officially moving anything. I just want to talk this out quickly. Some of the dates that are trying to be prescribed in this programming motion obviously are going to be problematic.
    In order to make sure that this motion works, getting rid of those dates or bumping them down the calendar at least a little bit, for the flexibility of the committee to be able to properly and appropriately deal with the study—I'm just thinking out loud here—removing those dates is probably going to be best.
    We want to make sure that we hear from Canadians, from employers, employees, and certainly we'll hear from the private sector unions. We're definitely going to hear from people who aren't in a union, because we have heard from many people that if we talk about what this just transition supposedly is going to do, it's going to drastically impact the work of folks who don't belong to a union.
    When we talk about the indirect jobs, that number is huge as well. We have to make sure that it considers those folks.
    That's part of why I think putting in rigid timelines in the programming motion is going to be problematic. It also is going to be a barrier to getting the proper ordering of the motion with the amendment in it that my colleague from Lakeland moved. It would be appropriate for us to look at removing that.
    With that, Mr. Chair, I'm going to move a subamendment that in section 3, as it's been ordered by my colleague from Lakeland, there be a subamendment that we would remove the reference to the dates in paragraph (a).
    Paragraph (a) would read, “That the minister and officials be invited to appear before the committee on Bill C-50”. We'll just leave that open-ended so that we have that flexibility as a committee. Then (b) would say, “That the minister and officials...”. I think we would have to remove (b) all together. Again, that's one that's prescribing. It's programming a set date for officials in there. We haven't even agreed to our witness list yet. We have to do that first before we can start putting dates in there for what point officials should appear.


    On a point of order, Mr. Chair.
    Is my colleague proposing an actual amendment?
    Is he thinking out loud again, as he said earlier?
    I'd like him to clarify his position. I love going around in circles, and I don't want to a party pooper, but everyone's patience has its limits. If he has a subamendment to propose, then let him do it and spare us his thinking out loud.


    I have a point of order as well.
    Thank you, Mr. Simard, for your point of order.
    Mr. Patzer, I believe that Mr. Simard has an important point of order, to be clear on the moving of your subamendment for the record.
    Thank you for your intervention, Mr. Simard, on a point of order.
    I'll go to Mr. Aldag on a point of order.


    This is a question of procedural admissibility.
    The subamendment seems to be speaking to other parts of the motion than just what was moved as an amendment by Ms. Stubbs. We seem to be getting into different parts of the motion beyond the amendment. Is it allowable as a subamendment, or do we need to go with the amendment and then go to a different amendment? I'm procedurally unclear here.
    Thank you for your point of order. It's a very relevant point of order.
     I'm going to chat with the clerk here momentarily and then I'll get back to you.
    Thank you, Mr. Aldag, on your point of order.
    Mr. Patzer, I would advise you that the amendment you were proposing was looking to amend the original motion. It's not on the amendment on the floor that Ms. Stubbs has brought forward.
    Your subamendment would not be in order unless you were amending Ms. Stubbs' amendment. If you have an amendment on the main motion, you'll have to wait until we deal with Ms. Stubbs' amendment that's currently on the floor.
    We'll go back to you.
     Part of my subamendment is going to get to part of Ms. Stubbs' amendment. Based on what you said, I'm making sure that I'm absolutely clear on this, because I will be amending her amendment as well.
    Can I do both at the same time? Is that correct?
    I have a point of order.
    There's an amendment, and to add a subamendment is to amend the amendment. You can't say that you'll do the amendment while you then do the main motion. That would be inadmissible. Either he has a subamendment to the amendment or it's out of order, and we return to the speaking order that you have in place.
    Thank you, Mr. Angus.
    Mr. Patzer, you cannot, at all, amend the original motion. You can only amend, in your subamendment, what is currently on the floor that Ms. Stubbs has presented. Any amendment that touches the original motion is inadmissible. Your subamendment should only deal with the component that was presented by Ms. Stubbs in her amendment. Later on, if you want to bring forward an additional amendment to the main motion, you have every right to do so at that time.
    I hope that clarifies the process and procedure.
    Did I hear another point of order? I just want to be clear. I may just be hearing things in my old age.
    Okay, the floor is yours, Mr. Patzer.
    I'm making the case that the five meetings that we have in the amendment are going to impact the dates as part of the original motion. The amendment is substantive to the rest of the motion and needs to be ferreted out. I was under the impression that with the amendment, we had a text of a new motion to work with.
    Because we have not adopted anything, we're still in debate. The amendment, only if adopted, will impact the original motion. Because we have not adopted the amendment, there's no impact to the original motion unless you choose to go to a vote so that we can decide to adopt it or not.
    You're potentially proposing a subamendment. What I've articulated is that your subamendment can only amend Ms. Stubbs' amendment. We're debating Ms. Stubbs' amendment right now, and we should focus the debate on Ms. Stubbs' amendment. If you have a subamendment to amend Ms. Stubbs' amendment, I look forward to hearing it. Other committee members, as well, are quite excited to hear your new subamendment to Ms. Stubbs' amendment.


    Okay. Thank you. I was getting to a part that would actually do that as well.
    If you would accept my—
    Mrs. Shannon Stubbs: Indulge.
    Mr. Jeremy Patzer: Yes, indulge.
    Now we're having a back-and-forth here. It's funny how that doesn't get a point of order from other folks, but it's all good. I don't mind. It's a collaborative approach. I don't mind a little friendly banter around the table. It's respectful, so I don't mind it.
    I'll indulge the committee—to use my friend across the way's term.
    I guess I have to withdraw the point I was making about the dates because I guess it's out of order as far as it would go as being a subamendment. I'm trying to make the case, though, for what will need to be fixed when we adopt my colleague's amendment.
    I'll speak to that point of it right there. As we go through this motion.... I'm hoping that my colleagues will vote to accept the amendment, but once we accept the amendment, we're going to have to deal with the issue of the dates. That's what I was trying to establish, Mr. Chair, and I've been corrected by my colleagues as to how to properly do that.
     Mr. Patzer, we have a point of order from Mr. Angus.
    Go ahead, Mr. Angus.
    Since the subamendment is out of order, we need to get to it, but if Mr. Patzer is very focused on the subamendment, he could bring the amendment to a vote. We could vote on the amendment, and then we could either dispense or deal with his subamendment. If he keeps going back on his subamendment and how he needs to have.... We need to deal with the amendment, so I would encourage him to just vote for the amendment, and then we could deal with that.
    Thank you, Mr. Angus, for your point of order.
    Mr. Patzer, continue on if you'd like to make a subamendment, and let's make it clear that it's a subamendment. If you want to move to a vote, I'm sure colleagues would look forward to having that as well. I'll cede the floor to you.
    Just to help out my colleagues here, I guess, I will put my subamendment forward. I'm going to move a subamendment to the amendment, which won't deal with the rest of the motion.
    I would like to amend the amendment. It would be after point b). This would be a new point c) of the original amendment, for the sake of ordering. “That the committee invite witnesses from Sudbury”. That would be my subamendment, that we specifically invite witnesses from Sudbury.
    That would mean point c) would become “d) report its findings and recommendations to the House”, and d) would become “e) pursuant to Standing Order 109, request that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.”
    I think it's important to make sure we get witnesses from all across the country. That's why I wanted to move that particular subamendment. It is easy for us to focus solely on people from Coronach, Rockglen, Willow Bunch and Assiniboia. I talk about those folks all the time.
    I have a point of order.
    Mr. Patzer, we have a point of order from Mr. Angus.
    Go ahead, Mr. Angus.


    I'm really trying to figure out what this subamendment is, but amongst all the talking from Mr. Patzer, I haven't been able to. Could he get it to us in writing? I don't know, but perhaps my colleagues would want it in both official languages. I can't really talk about a subamendment. I need to see what it is. It seems like he's moving a lot of pieces around. Could we just stop and have the subamendment brought forward in both official languages, and then we could carry on?
    Thank you, Mr. Angus.
    Mr. Patzer, I think you are done with the subamendment, or almost done. Once you are finished, and it's on the floor, we will endeavour to get it translated as quickly as possible, unless you have it already translated.
    I'll turn the floor back over to you to finish presenting more closing on your subamendment.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
    Of course, the problem here—
    I'm sorry. I have a point of order.
     Mr. Angus, do you have a point of order? Go ahead.
    I'm not trying to be obstructive, but if I can't tell what the subamendment is, I don't think it's fair, for Mr. Patzer's time, that he has to talk about something that we're all not clear on.
    I'd rather see what he has, and then give him the floor so we could hear whether or not what he's saying makes sense. I'm not sure what's being talked about because I don't see the subamendment, so I don't think we can proceed until we have the subamendment, in both official languages, that we could look at. Then, we could give the floor to Mr. Patzer to explain it to us, and he may win the argument.
    Mr. Patzer, there is a bit of confusion. If you are finished with your amendment, because you said you're presenting a subamendment, could you clearly and concisely read in your subamendment for the interpreters as well? If you have it in writing, you could send it through so members and the clerk have a copy of your subamendment.
     If you could be very clear on that, it would help not only members in the room but also those who are attending virtually, so we would know what we would potentially be voting on.
     Thank you.
    My common-sense subamendment to the common-sense amendment was simply, after b), including this. It would be a new (c) in the ordering of things. It's coming after “for one hour each” and then “c) including witnesses from Sudbury”. That is the subamendment right there. Then the original c) would become d) and the original d) would become e) in the common-sense amendment that my colleague put forward.
     The subamendment is simply “including witnesses from Sudbury”, but in the ordering of where it goes in the original common-sense amendment, it is between b) and c). It would be the new c), I guess. It kind of bumps things down in order.
    I apologize that I do not have it translated, of course, because we were not given notice of the motion in advance of the meeting. I know we don't have to because it's committee business and it's not required, and that's fine. Those are the Standing Orders. Those are the rules, and we play by those rules, but when we are not given the courtesy of a notice of motion in advance of the meeting, it makes it impossible for us to have pre-prepared amendments and translation done for them.
     In the spirit of collaboration, I guess I would make my case to all colleagues that if, in advance of the meeting, you could submit a notice in advance, that would certainly be handy for everybody—for interpretation, translation, everybody—to know what exactly it is that we are going to be debating here today.
    Mr. Chair, there's one thing before I continue. I should just get clarity from you.
    Are we pausing for question period and then resuming? What's happening here?
    We have resources and the will of committee members is to continue. We currently do have resources until three o'clock, and we even may get further resources as advised and asked for by our colleagues. Unless.... It's the will of the committee to continue studying this important topic and the amendments and subamendments where we're at, so we'll keep on going.


    When we did our original raising of hands, it was to continue til 2:30, and now that it is 2:30 and about to go beyond 2:30, I just wanted to make sure what the direction of the committee for today was going to be, but—
    I have a point of order.
    We have a point of order from Mr. Angus.
    Mr. Angus, go ahead.
    I had requested that this subamendment be put in writing. Are we going to be getting it in writing?
    Mr. Chair, should we suspend for five minutes so we can get translation?
    I believe the clerk has received it.
    If it's the will of the committee to suspend for a few moments to get the word “Sudbury” and other items translated, we can do so, but if it's the will of the committee to proceed, we will just keep proceeding, as we do have resources currently til 3 p.m. and, hopefully, momentarily we'll get it in our inboxes with the translation in place.
    Let's continue.
    Let's continue.
    I'm sorry, Charlie. I tried to get us to suspend so that you would have a chance to get the text of the motion, but I guess the government wants to continue.
    I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
    We have a point of order from Ms. Lapointe.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Through you, I just wanted to assure my colleague MP Patzer that I look forward to inviting many witnesses from Sudbury on Bill C-49 and Bill C-50.
    Thank you.
    Thank you, Ms. Lapointe, for your point of order.
    We'll go back to you, Mr. Patzer.
     Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    All these bills, Bill C-49, Bill C-50and Bill C-69, which is from a previous Parliament, obviously have a far-reaching impact across this country.
    If I recall correctly, after I moved my subamendment, I was speaking to the types of witnesses we would need and the importance of them. I moved the subamendment because we need to hear from witnesses from all across the country.
    Mr. Chair, I promised you earlier that I would talk about the good people from southeastern Saskatchewan—actually, south Saskatchewan, the southeast corner of my riding. Geographically it would just be the due south of Saskatchewan there in Coronach and Rockglen and Willow Bunch. It's a great part of the province, a great part of the country.
    There are going to be witnesses coming from that region for sure, but, as you know, the reason we have the subamendment is to make sure we don't forget about other parts of the country that are going to be impacted potentially by Bill C-49 and Bill C-50 but also if we do not make changes to Bill C-69. We do know this is the “don't build anything” bill, as it's now become and as we've heard numerous times in committee, whether this committee or industry or environment or any other. Even in finance we hear that regularly. I think it's important that we make sure we address Bill C-69 with witnesses from all over.
    I know some of my colleagues from Atlantic Canada are looking forward to bringing witnesses as well. They are obviously going to be bringing in multiple witnesses for multiple pieces of legislation, whether it's Bill C-49 or Bill C-69. I'm sure they will be very keenly interested in Bill C-50, because the fate of Bill C-49 is going to be tied to what happens with the just transition as well, since they are from part of the country that generates its electricity largely from coal and other means. They will also be disproportionately impacted by all the pieces of legislation we're talking about in the motion, the common-sense amendment and the subamendment.
    I spoke a little bit about the jobs that are going to be impacted in Saskatchewan. I spoke a little bit about what's happening in Alberta as well, and in Atlantic Canada. I think it's important that we get a good list of witnesses.
    Really, people are going to be concerned and talking at length, I would imagine, about the Supreme Court ruling.


    I'm sorry.
    On a point of order, go ahead, Mr. Sorbara.
    On a point of order, through you, Chair, we are, to my understanding, dealing with a very specific subamendment at this point in time in the debate about bringing Bill C-49 and Bill C-50 to this committee for study, two pieces of legislation that are very important for Canadians.
    I'm not too certain as to the member's comments. Are they with regard to this subamendment or are they with regard to something else?
    I'm not seeing the connection there, Chair.
    Thank you, Mr. Sorbara for your point of order.
    I would ask you, colleague, on your subamendment, because you're on the subamendment on Sudbury, to focus the debate and relevancy of your subamendment to the amendment, which is to the main motion.
     Thank you.
    The subamendment is obviously about hearing witnesses from all across the country because, as I was elaborating on, the folks from Saskatchewan.... I would definitely make the point that greater Sudbury is home to the largest integrated mining complex in the world. Mining, mining supply and mining services are key economic drivers for the community. These employ somewhere over 14,000 or 15,000 people in Sudbury. I know the member opposite is aware of that, as well. That's 15% of the population. When we talk about where we're going to get witnesses from....
    This is why we have a subamendment in place that will hopefully bring in folks from Sudbury. That's why we specifically want to include it. It's 15% of the people in that area. Certainly, when we talk about regional impacts in Ontario, oil and gas is 28% of the energy sources. A lot of that would be used to provide energy for the mines in Sudbury, which is why it's important we hear from folks in that area.
    We don't want the people in rural Ontario to be forgotten around the table when we're discussing what the energy transition is going to look like. I think Conservatives have done a very good job of speaking about the impacts in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Atlantic Canada. We're just getting started, Mr. Chair, on talking about the impacts this will have in Ontario, as well. I'm from Saskatchewan and we have colleagues from Alberta at the table here, again. That's why most of our time so far has been about those regions. We like to represent our ridings the best way we can. We are also going to make sure other parts of this country are not forgotten. That's why the subamendment is happening.
    I know the current government has openly admitted they are more than willing to forget about other parts of the country based on how they vote. I would think, Mr. Chair, this is offensive to you, given the fact that you are from Alberta. One of your own ministers took a shot at you by saying there's no representation around the table from the west, regarding why there's no carve-out from the carbon tax. Hopefully, you didn't take that one from your own colleague too much on the chin. A little friendly fire—
    I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
     Mr. Sorbara has a point of order.
    I want to make sure we're dealing with the subamendment.
    Could the member, through you, Mr. Chair, continue to focus on the subamendment? If the member wishes to bring it to a vote, he can bring it to a vote. We can deal with it expeditiously.
    Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Sorbara.
    I would ask, Mr. Patzer, that you focus on the relevancy of Sudbury. The subamendment we're focused on is one you brought forward. Once you're done with it, we can put it to a vote, if you like. If not, the floor is yours to keep building your debate and rationale about the importance of your subamendment.
    I know some of your colleagues also want to interject at some point.
    The floor is yours.


    How rude of me; my colleagues haven't had a chance yet. I'm sure we'll get to them soon.
    As I was saying, Mr. Chair.... I was speaking to the subamendment. I was talking about energy and power generation in the communities of Ontario, particularly Sudbury, which is why I moved that common-sense subamendment about including a specific region of Ontario that will be part of this 28% of oil and gas used for the grid in Ontario.
    Conservatives want the country to know that we care about the entire country. Just because I'm from Saskatchewan does not mean I don't care about the energy future of Ontario, Atlantic Canada, Quebec, British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba and the territories. That's why the common-sense subamendment to a very strong, common-sense amendment was put forward.
    Within that 28% of oil and gas for Ontario and rural Ontario.... Boy, that's 10,482 megawatts—a substantial amount of power generation out there, which will be impacted by what's going on with these bills. Bill C-50 will deal with that 28%, but if Bill C-69 is not addressed and dealt with first, there's no point in talking about Bill C-50 and what we're going to do with that 28%.
     I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
    Go ahead, Ms. Lapointe, on your point of order.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Through the chair to my colleague MP Patzer on the subamendment dealing with Sudbury, I'm going to tell you quite clearly that the people in my riding want us to talk about sustainable jobs. They want to talk about getting economic growth from a net-zero economy. Certainly, Sudbury's critical minerals will be a key element to that. There is no getting to net zero without critical minerals.
    What the people of Sudbury don't want—
    This is debate.
    —are all these delays.
    Mr. Jeremy Patzer: This is debate.
    Ms. Viviane Lapointe: They want us to be able to get to the important work of dealing with Bill C-49 and Bill C-50.
    Thank you.
    We have a point of order from Mr. Falk.
    On a point of order, what Ms. Lapointe is doing isn't even close to a point of order. This is debate.
    You need to give her instructions: Get on the speaking list and you'll have your opportunity. You'll have all the opportunity in the world to voice your opinion, put your rationale forward and present it to the committee.
    I will ask all members, including the one who raised the point of order, to make their point of order based on the point of order, not debate, so that we can continue to have a great debate around the table.
    Thank you, Ms. Lapointe, for your point of order.
    Thank you as well, sir, for your interjection on the point of order.
    We'll go back to—
    Mr. Ted Falk: I could continue. I have more to say.
    The Chair: No, you've made your point of order clear.
     We'll move back to Mr. Patzer.
    Thank you.
    Sometimes it's fascinating to see how certain points of order end up going and why people want to them bring up. Certainly, government talking points are not what any individuals want to see. They want to see actual results and to see things happen. They want certainty. They want to know what's going to happen to their future. They want to know what's going to happen.
    Just as an aside, Bill C-50 doesn't actually have a plan for how to address that. It's a plan to make a plan. We've seen that over and over again with this government.
    We have a point of order from Mr. Angus.
    On a point of order, I think we've all been very respectful, listening to this hour upon hour, but if we're speaking to the subamendment, then he needs to speak to the subamendment. Otherwise, he should cede the floor. That's fairness. Right now, what's happening is not fair.
    Thank you, Mr. Angus.
    Mr. Patzer, your subamendment was on the inclusion of the word “Sudbury” in section c) of the amendment. I'd ask you to keep your comments relevant to the importance of your subamendment to the amendment so that we can continue on and other members also have the opportunity to debate this important insertion of your subamendment.
    Relevancy is important, so let's keep it relevant.
    Thank you.


     Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    As you know, prior to having the point of order, I was actually speaking about where the folks of Sudbury are getting their energy, where their power generation comes from and where rural Ontario gets it from. This is why we put that specific common-sense subamendment in place. There was a point of order while I was talking about that. I was merely offering up a quick response to the point of order because I found it quite fascinating myself, to be honest. What I was getting at was the fact that there's over 10,000 megawatts of gas and oil being used for power and energy for rural Ontario and for communities like Sudbury.
     It is important, when we have a common-sense subamendment outlining the people of Sudbury, how it relates to the motion, which is its link to Bill C-69. This is because of the reference case by the Supreme Court of Canada making it largely unconstitutional. How's that going to implicate Bill C-50?
    Again, let's just pretend for a moment that Bill C-50 was somehow magically going to work. It's not going to work because it's a job-killing initiative, but let's just pretend for a moment that it would. There are going to be issues trying to get the jobs and the energy transition for these workers and for these communities like Sudbury to be able to have reliable, affordable energy going forward.
    In order for Bill C-50 to possibly be effective, Bill C-69 has to be dealt with first and foremost. When we see that gas and oil is 28% in Ontario for the high-voltage provincial grid, it is important that we speak to why Bill C-50 has a part to play and what's going to happen to the people of Sudbury—which is what my subamendment is all about.
    Providing context to amendments and subamendments is important. That's what I am trying to do. That's the point I'm trying to make and, unfortunately, I keep on getting points of order over that.
     I don't know if it's because when people hear how this is going to go and how this will be laid out...because, as I mentioned earlier, there was already an attempt at a coal transition in rural areas of Alberta. I mentioned the thousands of jobs that were lost. Workers were not transitioned into other jobs. They were certainly not given what was mentioned, which was that there would be sustainable, well-paying jobs for everybody.
     Again, it's fantasyland to think that the 177,000-plus direct jobs are all of a sudden going to get the same or jobs or greater jobs that are talked about by the minister in the just transition or the Canadian sustainable jobs act.
    We know it's not going to be a just transition. That's why the government has moved to try to change the name and the title of it. The Minister of Labour actually admitted that people don't like the phrase “just transition”. I think it's because people know what it actually means. It's just going to be a transition into unemployment for a lot of folks, or into a position where they are going to be out of work or be paid substantively less. We heard a witness the other day say that 34% less is what people will be paid when and if they are transitioned to a different job.
    I can guarantee that the people of Sudbury do not want to take a 34% haircut. That's not what people want. The bill actually does nothing to make sure that it is going to say...we've seen government internal documents even admit and say that this is not going to happen.
    We have on the record from the government that this is going to be problematic, and we're still ramming through legislation that was time-allocated after minimal debate in the House of Commons. That's what happened back in 2018-19 with Bill C-69. It's what happened with Bill C-50. It's what happened with Bill C-49.
    It's also important to talk about the energy transformation going forward for the people of Sudbury. That's why we want to have people at committee to testify to this. It's because when we see what the coldest temperature on record for Sudbury was recently, over the last couple of years, last winter, in fact, the coldest temperature was -37°C.


     There was no carve-out for the carbon tax in Sudbury. People are going to need to heat their homes with a heat pump that only works up until -7°, which is about 30 degrees short of what people are going to need to stay warm. This is why we're talking specifically about making sure we get people from a community outside of Toronto to testify at committee.
    This committee is also going to study the impact of the Supreme Court decision on the resource sector, and we want stakeholders from Sudbury to be included in that study. That's the main point of the common-sense subamendment that we have.
    I think it's important that we let the people of Ms. Lapointe's riding have a say. That's why we moved this common-sense subamendment, Mr. Chair.
    I'm waiting for an applause. I'm going to end my remarks there.
    Thank you, Mr. Patzer.
    Next on the speaking list—this is on the subamendment presented by Mr. Patzer—we have Mr. Falk on the subamendment to the amendment.
     Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to speak to the subamendment to invite constituents from the Sudbury area as witnesses to come to committee to give testimony as to what they think is important in Sudbury, whether it's the fact that they're paying carbon tax on their home heating, groceries and just about everything else they buy—fuel.
    It's interesting. Last week, the Liberals announced an exemption to the carbon tax for home heating for folks in Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada. I guess there were some Manitobans who took exception to that and asked why they aren't getting those exemptions in Manitoba.
    We have a point of order from Mr. Angus.
    Mr. Angus.
    Mr. Chair, we can't let this descend into a Conservative gong show.
    We've had an amendment. Then they went to a subamendment, and now they want to start talking about carbon tax.
     This is not the issue. Either he's speaking to the subamendment or he's not, and if not, then let's vote on the subamendment, vote on the amendment and get back to the motion at hand. That's how committees work.
    Thank you, Mr. Angus.
    Mr. Falk, I would ask you to focus your intervention on the subamendment on Sudbury. Be succinct in your remarks, but make sure it relates back to the subamendment proposed by Mr. Patzer.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair, for that reminder.
    Thank you to the member for Timmins—James Bay for his concern that my remarks would be addressing the issue of inviting witnesses from Sudbury—Ms. Stubbs' amendment to the motion that was brought forward earlier today—because I was getting there. If Mr. Angus had been a bit more forbearing for a few moments, he would have soon discovered why I was making the comments I was making. But I'll get back to that.
    Evidently, Manitobans feel they should have been exempted from paying carbon tax for home heating as well.
    Minister Gudie Hutchings' response to their concern was if they'd vote for more Liberals from the Prairies, they'd get an exemption too. Wow. The folks in Sudbury didn't get an exemption to their home heating, and I'm thinking, do they not have a Liberal enough member of Parliament to get them that exemption?
    Obviously in Manitoba, Terry Duguid, Minister Dan Vandal, Kevin Lamoureux and Ben Carr were not Liberal enough to get Manitobans exemptions. I think it's important to hear from constituents of Sudbury at this committee to ask why they weren't good enough to get an exemption on the carbon tax for their home heating.
    That's as succinct as I'll get for you, sir.


     I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
    We need to ensure that this debate is an accurate one, and the exemption on home heating oil is country-wide.
    I think that was debate, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you for the point of order.
    Actually, Ms. Lapointe, I have you on the speaking list next, as I believe you raised your hand earlier. I just want to make sure that you want the opportunity, because Mr. Falk has concluded, so the opportunity is yours now. The floor is yours, Ms. Lapointe.
    I'll just remind you that we're on the subamendment to include Sudbury in the amendment.
    Mr. Angus, I see that your hand is up as well, so I've put you on the speaking list after Ms. Lapointe.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Once again, I just want to acknowledge the subamendment that's been made by MP Patzer. I do want to talk about how important the work of this committee is and how important it is that we get to the motion that was tabled this morning by MP Sorbara about our dealing with Bill C-49 and Bill C-50. These bills are very important for us all across Canada, as well as specifically for Sudbury, as the subamendment has been tabled.
     As I stated and will reiterate, the people of Sudbury certainly want to talk about creating good, sustainable jobs for workers. We also want to talk about economic growth within a net-zero economy. This is extremely important. Critical minerals will be a very important aspect to our reaching net zero, and Sudbury will be a key player in that. We look forward to our role in that. This committee did a study around the Inflation Reduction Act and how Sudbury can position itself in Canada, as well, around being not only competitive but also collaborative with that. It will be very important. Critical minerals present a generational opportunity for wealth for Sudbury and in turn Ontario and Canada.
    It is vitally important that this committee get on with the work of Bill C-49 and Bill C-50. I look forward to doing that. I look forward to inviting some really good expert witnesses from Sudbury and northern Ontario, as well, to weigh in on this important discussion that Canadians and people from Sudbury want us to have.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you, Ms. Lapointe, for your intervention on the subamendment and for your advocacy for Sudbury.
    We'll now go to Mr. Angus.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Certainly, the issue of critical minerals is essential to the Canadian economy. We know that the EV battery investments that have been put in are set to create two million cars coming off the line. That is going to dramatically change the economic landscape and the energy landscape, yet the Pierre Poilievre Conservatives get up day after day in the House to ridicule EV technology. They say that these vehicles catch fire, that they freeze. They're really doing everything they can to undermine.... The member for Sarnia—Lambton is always saying how it would have been better to give $10 million to every resident in her riding rather than make these investments. I'm very concerned about this ongoing sabotage against a clean-energy economy.
    With regard to Ms. Lapointe's concerns, however, I would certainly support having witnesses come from the base metal regions to talk about their clean-energy investments and the importance of the critical minerals strategy. However, I think that should come in a separate motion. I think that should be a study on its own. I think what we're seeing here is an attempt to hijack the motion that was brought forward to get Bill C-50 done.
    We've had over 112 hours of testimony. We've had multiple witnesses. The Conservatives have interrupted time and time again. Any time that we had representatives of workers and workers from western Canada who wanted to speak about getting this legislation passed—


    I have a point of order.
    Mr. Angus, we have a point of order. I'm going to go to the point of order of Ms. Stubbs and then I'm going to come back to you, but I might have to interject after the point of order.
    Thank you, Chair.
    Because Mr. Angus made several points this morning in the same vein, I would just make a point of order according to his own standards about what is relevant to the debate. It seems that he has spent all morning interjecting on others and now he might be doing the same thing and—
    We are getting into debate now, Ms. Stubbs. That's not relevant to the point of order you raised.
     Mr. Angus, I will have to put you on hold, because we have resources only until three o'clock, so we will have to suspend until 3:30 just so we can get a transition of resources and interpreters.
    I'm done. I was just ready to call the question.
    What I will do, Mr. Angus, is give you the floor back when—
    No. I've finished.
     I call the question
    Okay. I will call the question. I'll take this to a vote.
    All in favour of the subamendment, please raise your hands.
    Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.
    We're in a vote.
    No, but it's about the vote and the—
    We're in a vote, so all in favour of the subamendment, raise your hands, please.
    On a point of order, and I hate to do this, because I know you called the vote, but I think you said we had resources until three o'clock. We're past three. I suggest we suspend. Could we vote when we come back? Unless we have resources to do it.... I'm ready to raise my hand.
    I'm sorry. We're in the middle of a vote.
    We'll vote and conclude—
    John, that does seem reasonable.
    Thank you. We'll be done very quickly.
     All in favour, raise your hands.
    An hon. member: On the subamendment?
    The Chair: Yes.
    (Subamendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
    The Chair: The subamendment is defeated.
    Defeated from having members from the community of Sudbury come...? Okay.
    The subamendment is defeated.
    Thank you.
    We will suspend until 3:30.



     Hello and welcome, new committee members who have joined us this afternoon. It's great to see you here at the natural resources committee.
    We will go back to the amendment.
    I will cede the floor to Monsieur Simard, who is next on our speaking list.
    I'm sorry, Chair, but I just have a point of order before we start. May I be recognized for that?
    Of course you may. Go ahead on a point of order.
    Thank you, Chair.
    It is a great pleasure to be here at the natural resources committee.
    It's great to see my friend, Ms. Chagger, here as well. That's the main reason I came.
    Could I get my name added to the speakers list? I just want to clarify the process for that.
    Thank you very much, Chair. Congratulations on your role as well.


    Thank you.
    Monsieur Simard, the floor is yours.


    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I like Ms. Stubbs a lot, but I'm going to be forced to say something she won't like. We've already discussed Bill C‑69. The amendment she's proposing is subject to the same objections that I had in that case. First, Bill C‑69 was introduced in another parliament, and it also concerned the environment. Consequently, I don't see why the Standing Committee on Natural Resources should study it before considering bills C‑49 and C‑50.
    Furthermore, but in the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court, deadlines were established for the government to comply with that decision. So let's let the government try to comply with the Supreme Court's judgment and set aside Bill C‑69.
    We've thoroughly discussed Ms. Stubbs' motion to amend. I think we've exhausted the matter, and I therefore request a vote.


    Thank you, Monsieur Simard, for your comments.
    If it's the will of the committee to go to a vote....
    We do have a speaking order.
    I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
    I just want to finish and then you can go to your point of order.
    Monsieur Simard did ask for a vote. If it's the will of the committee to go to a vote, then we can go to a vote, but we do have a speaking order as well. I will ask committee members. He has proposed that question. If you believe that it has been covered, then we can go to a vote. If we want to proceed and need to debate this further, then that's your choice.
    That is part of the point of order, Chair.
    All right, I'll go to your point of order now.
    I'm just seeking clarity.
    There is a standing order that says unless a time limit has been adopted by the committee or the House—and we've obviously extended well beyond our usual sitting time, so there's clearly not a time limit. Standing Order 116(2)(a) says that “the Chair...may not bring a debate to an end while there are members present who still wish to participate.”
    As you've referenced, there is a speakers list. There are many members who still would like to participate. I do think it's not appropriate at this time to be calling for a vote.
    Thank you for your point of order.
    We will proceed down the speaking list. We'll go to Mr. Falk.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.
    I was here four hours ago and I've come back. I see there are Jeremy, Ted and Garnett. They've all asked to be acknowledged. I just want to understand who the members across the way are. I'm just asking a question.
    I have a point of order.
    I'm subbing for Maninder, who's not here.
     Can we just get who's voting? Who's a member? That's all.
    Thank you for your point of order, Mr. Serré. It's a very good question.
    We believe there are additional members. Ms. Stubbs, Mr. Patzer, Mr. Falk and Mr. Genuis are here as members who are eligible right now to vote on behalf of the Conservatives, and we have Ms. Gazan here filling in for Mr. Angus.
     I hope that's clear.
    Mr. Marc Serré: Thank you.


    Mr. Chair, on that point of order, I do believe that if any member wants to sit at the table as an elected member of Parliament, they're able.... To your point, there's only a certain list that can vote, but if others want to be part of the debate, they are allowed to be part of the debate.
    Thank you for your point of order. I can't accept your point of order because—
    Mr. Garnett Genuis: I have a point of order, then.
    The Chair: There you go. I have Mr. Genuis on a point of order.
    I'd like to confirm that Mr. Viersen is on the speaking list.
    Mr. Genuis, thank you for your point of order—
    I thought of it myself.
    He is not on the speaking list as he is not a member of this committee subbing for somebody right now.
    We will go back to the speaking order. We have Mr. Falk up next.
    Mr. Falk, the floor is yours.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    It's a pleasure for me to talk to this amendment brought by my colleague, Ms. Stubbs.
    Just to bring people up to speed again, I'm going to read what the amendment actually is so that viewers watching this by television understand what it is that we're talking about. The amendment is that prior to engaging in the Liberal study motion that was brought forward, we:
1. 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 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, is unconstitutional; for the purposes of this study, the committee: (a) hold at least 5 meetings, (b) invite the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change to appear for one hour each, (c) report its findings and recommendations to the House and, (d) pursuant to Standing Order 109, request that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.”, then
2. Complete its consideration of Bill C-49.
    The rest of the motion that was brought forward would follow that.
     Really, putting things in the right order is what this motion is doing. We've heard from the Supreme Court in their reference opinion that Bill C-69 has many parts of it that are not charter-compliant and are not constitutionally sustainable.
    Bill C-49 and Bill C-50 all have references to Bill C-69 in there and, because of that—sometimes the language is verbatim—need to be studied in the light of Bill C-69, which should at least be charter-compliant and constitutionally sustainable. At the moment, it's not.
    That's why I think it's incumbent on this committee to take a look at Bill C-69 and look at the reference opinion that the Supreme Court has provided. Then, in the light of that report, we're better able to deal.... Once we've done a fulsome study on Bill C-69 and the Supreme Court's opinion, we're better able, once that legislation has been modified and has become compliant, to look at Bill C-49 and Bill C-50.
    What I would like to do is make a subamendment to the amendment at this time. I'd like the subamendment to be that the witness list for the study of Bill C-69, as proposed in the amendment, include representatives of the resource companies from Timmins—James Bay. I can repeat that: that the study include witnesses, that a representative of the resource companies operating in Timmins—James Bay....


     I have a point of order, Chair.
     I hate to interrupt my wise and learned colleague from Provencher. I'm very grateful for your indulgence, Chair.
    I'm wondering if you will maintain the speaking list that was used previously for the subamendment or if we should seek to be re-added to the list for a separate speaking list for consideration of the subamendment. I know there are some variations in the practice used by chairs across the committees.
    What we've done today when there's a new motion on the floor is to have a new speaking list, which we've already begun to establish once the motion has been moved.
    Then there's a new speaking list for the subamendment from—
     I would like to be added to that speaking list.
    I've acknowledged that.
    Excellent. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm very grateful.
    Mr. Falk, it's back to you, unless you're done.
    I'm going to give a very brief rationale for that subamendment. This is, in essence, the rationale.
     I think it's an important subamendment. It is that the James Bay Treaty No. 9 territory currently supports 11 operating mines and has a workforce of 7,832 direct employees or contractors. The James Bay Treaty No. 9 territory has identified 13 critical minerals that are of specific interest to the governments of Ontario, Canada, U.S.A., EU, Australia, U.K., Japan and Korea.
    Even the member for Timmins—James Bay, who is a member of this committee, brought up the fact that he hasn't seen a single person in the riding receive a heat pump, and he made that comment as recently as September 27 of this year. We need to hear from people from the area of Timmins—James Bay.
     On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'm a bit puzzled here. I know I missed a few hours of the Conservative filibustering here on Bill C-50 and Bill C-49.
    Where in this motion are heat pumps? Clearly, there are issues here where we're looking at inviting the minister to come to speak on both Bill C-50 and Bill C-49
    On a point of order, Chair, I think this might be debate. This is not a point of order.
    We have a point of order to the point of order.
    Mr. Patzer, go ahead on the point of order.
    This is not germane to the conversation. He's debating the member. Perhaps he should stick to the point of order at hand, or maybe you should rule the point of order as out of order. I will let you decide, Mr. Chair. That's your prerogative and not mine. He should stick to the debate at hand. This is not a debate.
    Thank you.
    I want to remind all committee members not to debate during your points of order, which we've seen many members do throughout the day today. It's not from everybody. There were lots from earlier today. Moving forward, I'm sure we'll make our points of order and will get back to the person who has the floor.
    Mr. Falk, the floor is yours, sir.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate your ruling on that.
    The whole issue here is that we need to hear directly from people who have been impacted by Bill C-69, and the people who have been directly impacted are people in the natural resource sector, like oil and gas, like mining, and these people need a voice at the table. They don't feel that they're being represented. There are lots of not only workers there but also companies that support all those jobs. We need to hear from them on how they feel about Bill C-69.
    Once we can determine that and can get Bill C-69 to the point where it is actually constitutionally sustainable and compliant, then we're much better positioned once that bill is corrected. We don't want the Supreme Court to have to look at Bill C-49 and Bill C-50 and correct those again because of all the references made to Bill C-69, which would probably make it also not compliant.
    Why would we want them to do all that duplicate...? They have important cases to hear. They don't need to hear about the failures of the Liberal-NDP government having presented legislation, which wasn't compliant, to Parliament. They knew it wasn't compliant. The Conservatives argued long and hard, when that legislation was before us in 2018, that this was not charter-compliant and that this did not meet the litmus test that was required for it to be constitutionally sustainable. We weren't listened to. We were mocked, and we were criticized. Now you see what we have today, and that's the Supreme Court making a reference opinion on that piece of legislation and asking for that to be corrected.
    It's incumbent on this committee—we're the natural resources committee—to study that piece of legislation. Let's help the government get it right.
    Thank you.


    Thank you, Mr. Falk.
    We will now go to Monsieur Simard.
    My apologies, it's Mr. Patzer first.
     I think you gave our friend from the Bloc a heart attack there.
    On a point of order, before Mr. Patzer gets rolling, could you read out the list that presently exists for the subamendment?
    We have currently Mr. Patzer, then Mr. Simard and then you.
    Thank you very much.
    Mr. Angus is after that.
    I'd like to remind members that Mr. Viersen is not a substituting member of the committee, so I cannot acknowledge him. He can sit at the table—
    An hon. member: He's going to be subbing for me once—
    The Chair: We will, once that substitution happens.
    Right now we will go to you, Mr. Patzer.
    Thank you.
    I'd like to comment on that point of order briefly.
    If Mr. Viersen wants to join this debate, even not as one of the four voting Conservative members on this committee, he can do that. He's fully within his right to do that.
    If one of the independent members or a member from the Green Party were to walk in and sit down at this table, they'd be able to join in this debate. This is a debate on a motion. It's not a substantive part of committee policy. Right now we're debating a motion, and they'd be able to join into the debate.
    Point of order.
    We have a point of order from Mr. Aldag.
    Could we get clarification on whether that's factually correct?
    My understanding is that's not the case. I'd like to have a ruling from the chair as to whether what Mr. Patzer is alleging is indeed the case.
    If you are a sitting member of the committee, you can speak, but if you are not....
    Now that Mr. Viersen has substituted for Mr. Falk, he would be able to raise his hand and add his name to a list if he so chose. Now that he has, we will add him to the list.
    On that point again, as I understand it, when it comes to allocations of time slots in regular committee, it's parties with official status that get time allocations for committee.
    When we are debating a motion such as we are here, I was under the impression.... I appreciate what you have said, but I want to clarify that since we're not in the traditional framework in which, for example, Conservatives have a six-minute slot and the Bloc has a six-minute slot, it is the case then that only the four at the table.... I want to get some clarity around that.
    I understood that any member of the House of Commons actually had the ability to be recognized at a committee table outside of that.
    It's my understanding, Mr. Patzer, that a member can cede the floor to another member on the committee if they wish to, but in this case, Mr Falk was here and Mr. Viersen was not substituting for him, so he was not able to participate or gain the floor. That's the ruling.
    After getting information from the clerk, I'll stick to that ruling.
    The floor is yours. You can continue on with your debate on the subamendment that was proposed.
     I would like to challenge the chair on that point then, Mr. Chair.
    We have a challenge by Mr. Patzer. He is challenging my ruling on the allowance of other members in committee.
    We need to vote.


     The question is this: Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?
     If you support my ruling as the chair, vote yes. If you don't, vote no.
    An hon. member: I'd like a recorded vote.
    The Chair: It will be a recorded vote.
    Mr. Marc Serré: As per normal committee rules, yes.
    (Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 7; nays 4)
    The Chair: Thank you. The ruling of the chair is sustained.
    We have a point of order by Mr. Genuis.
    Mr. Chair, on a point of order, when a roll call vote is made, the expectation is that members cast their votes yea or nay, not that they provide rationale for their vote and the process of voting. If every member provided rationale as part of the vote, it would slow the process down considerably. I think the rules are fairly clear on that.
    Mr. Serré tried to take advantage of the rules, I think, and I hope you would rule that he should not be providing rationale for his vote in the context of a roll call vote.
    On the point of order, I would remind members that when it is time to vote to just vote, and also vote with your microphones on—not have your microphone off and vote—so that our interpreters can register your vote in both official languages.
    Very good. Thank you.
    We will go now back to Mr. Patzer.
    Mr. Patzer, on the subamendment to the amendment.
    Sorry, Mr. Chair, but let me just ask a question.
    On the point you just made, did I accidentally vote with my microphone off or were you talking to someone in particular?
    It was another member, Ms. Stubbs, but thank you for that clarification.
     Mr. Patzer, the floor is yours.
     Thank you for that, Mr. Chair.
    On the subamendment we have at hand here, as we laid out the case before, the case will be laid out again as to why we want to hear from witnesses all across the country. Certainly, we want to hear from folks who work at the mines in and around Timmins and James Bay. I think Mr. Falk highlighted very well the importance it has for the greater region and greater area—in particular, for resource development for economic reconciliation—and opportunities for all of Canada to be able to participate in the economy.
    We have lots of proposals for witnesses. We just want to make sure that the area in the riding of Timmins—James Bay won't be left out and forgotten, as we found out not a single person there has received a heat pump or a carbon tax carve-out either. I think it's important to make that note as well. I think it would be good to hear from people from Timmins—James Bay. The government hasn't done much in the way of helping those folks out.
     We look at how just transitions have previously gone and been attempted. We heard previously that workers have been left out in that region of the country, so we want to hear from them about what might happen when another just transition is forced upon resource workers in this country. It's not just the smaller scale of the first attempt that spectacularly failed and how that was done up; now we have a national scope and scale for a so-called “just transition”.
    Conservatives put forward another common-sense subamendment to another common-sense amendment. As we know, after eight years of this government, the penchant to do things that are largely unconstitutional, as we saw with Bill C-69, is problematic. It would be good to hear from the folks in and around Timmins—James Bay about what their thoughts are on that.
     If we don't deal with the issue of Bill C-69, how's that going to play out for the folks in that area? They're obviously looking for more involvement in the development of natural resources in that area. We've heard the extensive list of critical minerals available for the energy transition—not just here in Canada, but around the world—that people want for components. Therefore, trying to get the best opportunity for people to be able to speak to what we're dealing with here at committee with this bill and getting their perspective will be of the utmost importance.
    I would recognize Timmins—James Bay as another area of the country.... I was talking about the stats earlier. In Ontario, with a pretty significant amount of gas and oil that is still used for power and energy production, and without a doubt with the amount of mining that goes on in Timmins—James Bay, certainly a lot of it would be used there as well to make sure that they can power their operations and keep the work environments in a manner that is suitable for the workers.
    I think it's important that we deal with witnesses from all across the country. That's why we have another common-sense subamendment here that we're looking forward to dealing with.
     I want to thank Mr. Falk—I know he has left—for moving this amendment. I look forward to seeing what the good people of Timmins—James Bay have to say.


    Thank you, Mr. Patzer.
    We will now proceed to Monsieur Simard, who is next.


    Thank you.
    We can spend the whole day naming everyone's ridings and saying we want to add them, but I don't think that'll change much. We can also shout the words "common sense" at each other 15 times, but I don't necessarily think that's "rational".
     I see that my Conservative colleagues want to be heard. The best way to do that maybe to conduct the clause‑by-clause consideration of Bill C‑50. If they don't agree, they need only vote against it. I personally voted against Bill C‑50 in the House and did the same with Bill C‑49. I'm nevertheless prepared to hear the witnesses who will be here to express their views on the bill, just as I'm prepared to hear the minister and officials tell us about bills C‑50 and C‑49.
    I don't know what my Conservative colleagues are trying to do with this mountain of oddball amendments they're proposing to us this morning, but I know that people are watching us now. Some of them are starting to think my colleagues' conduct is a bit much. The Conservative Party leadership tells the House that people are requesting medical assistance in dying because they have nothing to eat. Some people in my riding who hear that find it appalling.
     There are some MPs here today who, instead of seriously discussing a bill, are proposing oddball amendments and citing the ridings of certain members in an attempt to find an excerpt that suggests those members don't want to listen to the people. I don't think that's a serious gambit. If we're being serious today, this afternoon, we will promptly vote on the subamendment and Ms. Stubbs' amendment. Then we'll decide on the motion before us so we can begin the work we have to do on bills C‑50 and C‑49.
    I'm telling you that even though I voted against those bills in the House. I'm prepared to hear witnesses because the mandate given to me by the people in the riding of Jonquière is to act as a legislator, not as a buffoon. I therefore request a vote on my colleague's subamendment.
    Perhaps then we can move on to something else.



     I have a quick point of order, Chair.
    Thank you, Mr. Simard, for your comments.
    Mr. Patzer, go ahead.
    Thank you.
    I have a point of clarity on an earlier ruling that was made.
    Standing Order 119 does state that only members may vote or move a motion, but it also says this:
Any member of the House who is not a member of a standing, special or legislative committee, may, unless the House or the committee concerned otherwise orders, take part in the public proceedings of the committee, but may not vote or move any motion, nor be part of any quorum.
    It actually does say that they may take part in the debate, but they can't vote, move a motion or be part of the quorum. If they want to just have their voice heard, according to Standing Order 119, they are able to do so.
    I'll just leave that with you, Chair.
    Mrs. Shannon Stubbs: It's important. That's an important common-sense [Inaudible—Editor].
    Mr. Jeremy Patzer: Yes. It's a point of privilege for members, to be honest, and it's a common-sense one at that.
    Thank you for your point of order. We'll look into what you've referenced in more detail. I'll report back once I have further information on what you've referenced—
    Chair, to that point of order, it just seems extremely germane—like, this very second—to the confidence and credibility and clarity of what we're doing at this committee. I'm not quite certain how we can possibly proceed if we have a potential discrepancy here on a basic rule.
    We made a decision earlier—
    Mrs. Shannon Stubbs: But it's the rules that govern this committee that are important in terms of what we're doing right now.
    The Chair: Well, we made a ruling earlier from the information and my understanding of it. Mr. Patzer has provided some information on the standing order—
    He read the standing order. It's not “some information” on it. He read it.
    We will get further clarity. If there is more clarity provided, we will come back and provide that to you.
    It really seems to me that for confidence in these proceedings, we'd better get this clarity right now. Then we can proceed.
    That's not a point of order. If there's another point of order...but that's what I have provided right now.
    Perhaps there will be another point of order.
    I'm asking the clerk to look into the matter. As soon as I get some information back, I will advise the committee accordingly.
     I have a point of privilege, Mr. Chair.
    We don't have points of privilege, Mr. Viersen.
    I have a point of order, then, Mr. Chair.
    Yes, Mr. Viersen.
    I would just like to thank my colleague for pointing out that this is the first time that I have ever been denied being added to the speaking order while not being subbed in. I totally thought that I would be on the speaking list.
    You are in debate.
    You actually are on the speaking list, Mr. Viersen.
    Now I am because I'm subbed in.
     I tried to get on the speaking list before I was subbed in. I know that for folks back home, Bill C-69 is something they're very passionate about. Hence, I'm here to speak to it. The fact that I was unable to get on there does seem to be limiting to my privileges as a member of Parliament.
    This is a point of debate.
    Yes, we are getting into debate.
    You are on the speaking list. You will have your opportunity on the subamendment.
    I have a point of order, Mr. Chair, on this point of order.
    What we are talking about is the ability of members of Parliament here to do their democratic duty on behalf of their constituents and all Canadians. My colleague read the standing order. He did not give some information about it. He read the standing order. The Standing Orders are the rules that govern the House of Commons and the committee. They are the foundation of the democratic exercise here of elected representatives representing the common sense of the common people who sent us here to do these jobs.
    It seems to me that we need to get clarity on this right now. Otherwise, the entire in-real-time proceedings of this committee and our ability to do our jobs on behalf of the people who sent us here may be compromised. I would suggest that, for confidence in these proceedings and every minute after that, we get this clarity first and then proceed.


    Thank you, Ms. Stubbs.
    Mr. Jeremy Patzer: I have a point of order.
    The Chair: Hold on. We had a point of order from Mr. Angus. We're going to him first on the point of order.
    Mr. Angus.
     I'm waiting to speak on this latest boutique subamendment. If they don't like the ruling, they have the right to challenge the chair. Otherwise, what they are doing is obstruction.
    Challenge the chair or let's carry on.
    Thank you, Mr. Angus.
    A ruling was made earlier. The chair was challenged, and the ruling was upheld, so we are going to proceed to—
    I had a point of order, Mr. Chair.
    Go ahead on the point of order.
    Part of why I brought up that standing order was that I am also concerned about the precedent we are setting by ignoring certain standing orders and basically effectively stripping the rights and privileges of members of Parliament—of all members, whether they are part of a party with official status or not. I am concerned about their being able to have their rights stripped from them in this situation.
    I do think that we need to be mindful of the precedent that is being set here because, as my colleague from Peace River—Westlock mentioned, he was actually denied the opportunity to speak. According to the Standing Orders, he had every right to have his name on that list.
    Now, he was not able to move a motion, which he was not attempting to do. He was not asking to be a voting member of this committee, which was clearly established because Mr. Falk was still here. He was merely attempting to get on the speaking list. The standing order itself does specifically state that they may “take part in the public proceedings of the committee,” and that is what Mr. Viersen was attempting to do.
    I think it is very important that we make very clear what is going on right now.
    Then challenge the chair.
    Thank you for your intervention.
    As mentioned, our colleague is on the list. He will get an opportunity to speak. Actually, he'll be up pretty quickly if we can move to our next speaker. Then he'll have an opportunity to provide his interventions as he wishes.
    The chair made a ruling earlier—
    I have a point of privilege.
    —and I'll uphold that ruling. The chair was challenged. The ruling was upheld, I would say, by committee members. I think there are a number of committee members who supported that ruling, so we will proceed back to the subamendment. If I get further clarity on any changes to that, we will provide them.
    Mr. Arnold Viersen: Mr. Chair.
    The Chair: Yes.
    Is it a point of order?
    Mr. Chair, it's a point of privilege. I'm going to put this—
    There's no point of privilege. If you have a point of order, you can—
    A point of privilege is....
    Mr. Chair, there are two interventions you can make. One is a point of order and one is point of privilege. A point of order is when it has to do with the operations of the meeting. A point of privilege has to do with either your participation in the meeting or somebody else's ability to participate in the meeting. That's what that is.
    You might raise a point of privilege if there was too much noise in here. You might say, “Mr. Chair, there's too much noise in here. Can you get the meeting calmed down? I can't hear what's going on.” That would be a point of privilege.
    In this case, the point of privilege is that I was not placed on the speaking list. Therefore, my privileges as a member of Parliament were being denied. I would ask you to rule on that point of privilege as well, as to whether my privileges were denied by your action of not putting me on the speaking list.
    I look forward to your ruling on that.
    Mr. Chair, can I—
    You need to have a point of order. If you have a point of order—
    I'd like to speak on the point that was raised.
    Do you have a point of order?
    Mr. Garnett Genuis: I believe—
    The Chair: We're not debating. It's not up for debate. It's up to that—
    Mr. Garnett Genuis: Mr. Chair, you are bound by the rules, as we all are. The member—
    The Chair: Do you have a point of order, Mr. Genuis?
    It's on the same point of order my colleague just raised.
    Do you have a point of order?
    It's on the same point that was just raised.
    The Chair: Do you have a point of order?
    Mr. Garnett Genuis: It's on the same point that was just raised, so yes, of course.
    Okay, just say you have a point of order and I'll give you the—
    It's not a new point. It's on the point that was just raised.
    I want to quote from chapter 3 of Bosc and Gagnon on the issue of privilege in committee proceedings, because I think there is, respectfully, some confusion—not from my colleague, of course. There is some confusion elsewhere about how privilege is supposed to be dealt with at committee. I'll read the passage. It is of some length, but I think it will help members.
    It states:
Since the House has not given its committees the power to punish any misconduct, breach of privilege, or contempt directly, committees cannot decide such matters; they can only report them to the House. Only the House can decide if an offence has been committed. Speakers have consistently ruled that, except in the most extreme [cases], they will hear questions of privilege arising from committee proceedings only upon presentation of a report from the committee which deals directly with the matter and not as a question of privilege raised by an individual Member. As Speaker Milliken indicated in response to a question of privilege raised in 2003 concerning the disclosure of a confidential draft committee report: “In the absence of a report from the committee on such an issue, it is virtually impossible for the Chair to make any judgment as to the prima facie occurrence of a breach of privilege with regard to such charges”.
Most matters which have been reported by committees have concerned the behaviour of Members, witnesses or the public, or the disregard of a committee order. Committees have reported to the House on the refusal of witnesses to appear
     I'll skip down to this next section:
Should a Member wish to raise a question of privilege in committee, or should some event occur in committee which appears to be a breach of privilege or contempt, the Chair of the committee will recognize the Member and hear the question of privilege, or, in the case of some incident, suggest that the committee deal with the matter. The Chair, however, has no authority to rule that a breach of privilege or contempt has occurred. The role of the Chair in such instances is to determine whether the matter raised does in fact touch on privilege and is not a point of order.



    I have a point of order.


    We have a point of order, Mr. Genuis. I am going to Monsieur—
    Mr. Garnett Genuis: I am on a point of order.
    The Chair: We have a point of order by Mr. Simard.
    Mr. Garnett Genuis: This is a point of order.
    The Chair: Yes, and he's allowed to have a point of order on your point of order.


    Mr. Chair, you made a decision, your decision was challenged, and we voted on it. Now we're going back over a decision that's been adopted.
    Our rules are clear to everyone. Some members may speak when we have guests or witnesses. We may yield our speaking time to a colleague when we hear from witnesses. However, when we debate a motion, only MPs who are members of the committee may speak. That's the way it is everywhere. You said so. Madam Clerk said so too. Now we're having an entirely futile debate—I have no idea where it's headed—that's going back over a decision that you made.
    Consequently, I'd like the clerk to tell me if what I'm saying is true. Can someone—


    I have a point of order.


    Are committee members the only ones who can speak to a motion? Can all MPs speak to a motion? That means that, if there are 15 Bloc Québécois MPs, each one of them may speak to a motion. I don't think it works that way. So we're going to get some clarification and then perhaps move on to something else.


    Thank you.
    I have a point of order.
    The Chair: First, I want to address Mr. Simard's point of order.
    Mr. Garnett Genuis: I was in the middle of my point of order when you interrupted me so he could give his point of order. Then you let him finish, even though I [Inaudible—Editor].
    Mr. Genuis, he is allowed to make a point of order, so you can wait until you're acknowledged.
    Am I allowed to make a point of order?
     I have a point of order.
    If you can wait, the floor will go back to you in a second.
     Chair, should we suspend or are we suspended? What's happening?
    Once again, on what Mr. Simard raised, a ruling was made earlier by the chair. The standing order referenced by our colleague earlier is open for interpretation. I interpreted it the way I did. I made the ruling here in committee, and it was sustained—
    I have a point of order.
    —by the committee members.
    The member who is sitting now does have the ability to participate, as he will momentarily, I hope.


    Point of order.
    Now I'll proceed.
    Is this a point of order to Mr. Genuis's point of order?
    No. It relates to what you just said.
    I'm in the middle of a point of order.
     I've made my ruling. The chair's ruling was sustained by committee. We'll proceed.
    On the point of order, it's a completely different matter because you made a ruling, and that ruling was sustained. That ruling violated the privileges of members. Then my colleague tried to raise a question of privilege, and members across the way claimed—
    Challenge the chair or sit down.
    Mr. Timmins—James Bay, I will continue. I am already seated though.
    Mr. Genuis, are you challenging the chair on your point of order?
    I wasn't aware the chair had made a ruling on the second matter. The second matter is on questions of privilege.
    As I was reading, members have a right to raise questions of privilege at committee. Members across the way don't seem to understand that, but privilege exists at committee. It's not just a matter of the House; it is a matter of committee. Members can raise questions of privilege at committee.
    You made a ruling. It was sustained by the committee, but it was a ruling that violated the privilege of members when it comes to the right to speak in committee.
    A chair does not have the ability to ignore the privileges of members of Parliament, as you have tried to do, and in this context, we have now sought to raise a question of privilege, which I would think—


    I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.


    You're getting into debate now.
    No, I'm not, Chair, but go ahead.
    If you'll allow me as the chair, the member wished to raise a question of privilege during the committee meeting, which he did. I allowed the member to explain the situation, which the member did. Then the chair determined whether that question related to parliamentary privilege.
    At that time, I interpreted the question at hand, and the committee voted on it. According to the privilege the member has, he is going to participate at our committee today. He is up, and that decision was made earlier.
    We will now proceed—
    Point of order.
    —to the next member on our committee.
    I have a point of order.
    Mr. Chair, one point for clarity would be that when I challenged you, it was just on an open comment in regard to the rights and privileges of members. In this second go-around here, we are discussing a direct quote from the actual Standing Orders, so it is substantively different.
    I read into the record the standing order that governs it. If we accept the vote that happened there, you are effectively rewriting this standing order without our actually talking about that particular standing order in that moment—
    Challenge the chair.
    —so I'm just letting you—
    Mr. Patzer, a decision was made.
    You can challenge the chair. You have that right. You have the right to challenge the chair if you would like to do so again.
    We're trying to help you help yourself here. You put yourself in a position—
    I have enough people to help me, and I've been advised by the clerk—
    Chair, we just want there to be confidence in you at this committee.
    Well, you know what?
    That's really important to your Albertan constituents too, for sure.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Patzer had the floor on a point of order, and that's the ruling.
    The committee upheld and sustained the ruling of the chair. With that, I see that the committee members have confidence in what we are doing today and the important work on C-50 and C-49, the motion that was brought forward, the amendments and now the subamendment.
    I would like to get back to the subamendment and to the individuals who were speaking so that we can continue to debate the subamendment.
    Chair, just so that we can all have confidence, can you review the speaking list again?
    I can't acknowledge you unless there's a point of order.
     On a point of order, could you review the speaking list again for us so we can all be clear? It has evolved throughout the day.
    We are on the subamendment to the amendment.
    And the speaking list is...?
    Mr. Genuis is up next on the speaking list.
    Mrs. Shannon Stubbs: Who is after that?
    No, Mr. Chair, I was.
    You said Mr. Simard and then Mr. Angus.
    No, we have Mr. Genuis and then Mr. Angus.
    My apologies. It's Mr. Genuis, then—
    You said Mr. Simard, then Mr. Angus.
    An hon. member: I have a point of order.
    An hon. member: I guess you can challenge the chair, Charlie.
    I'm going to ask all members....
    We have Mr. Genuis and then Mr. Angus.


    Thank you, Chair.
    I want to start by moving that the privilege of the member for Peace River—Westlock had been breached when the chair and the committee refused to allow him to speak on Bill C-69. That is a privilege motion, which is now properly before the committee.
    I will now speak on that question of privilege, and it will be up to the committee ultimately to determine whether to forward a report on that matter of privilege to the House. That is a privilege motion and I will now speak to it.
    We were undertaking a debate on an important matter, which is Bill C-69, an amendment in relation to a programming motion on Bill C-49 and Bill C-50. There was an amendment—


    I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.


    —and my colleague from Peace River—Westlock was trying to speak, as he is permitted to—
    Hold on a second, Mr. Genuis.
    Thank you.


    As far as I know, we can't raise points of privilege in committee.
    Can the clerk tell us whether it's possible to do so? If it isn't, Mr. Genuis' entire argument serves absolutely no purpose.


    We have a point of order by Mr. Simard and a question for the clerk. I'm just going to—
    Chair, I have a point of order, please.
    Yes. Go ahead on the point of order.
    Is it not the clerk's understanding—clerk, can you opine on this—that a member on this committee cannot move a privilege motion? Privilege motions are directly put forth in the House.
    On that point of order, in fact, you can't raise a privilege motion in the House. That—
    I'd ask the member not to debate with the mike on. We will ask the clerk to get—
    Mrs. Shannon Stubbs: After eight years, the NDP-Liberals don't know this. Wow.
    The Chair: Colleagues, I'm going to suspend for a few moments to have an opportunity to speak with the clerk.
    Thank you.



     We are back.
    I will go to Mr. Genuis, who had the floor.
    Thank you, Chair.
    I've moved a motion of privilege that I understand we're debating. Is that what you were consulting on? Is that what we're doing right now?
    Yes. You have the floor, Mr. Genuis, where you left off.
    Thank you.
    We're debating the privilege motion that I put forward.
     Privilege is important. Privilege is what protects the rights of members of Parliament to do their jobs and represent their constituents. Privilege is steeped in history and tradition in this place. Given the way privilege is colloquially used these days, it's important to underline that the assertions of privilege in the parliamentary context are very different from discussions of privilege that happen in the wider culture.
     Typically when people are talking about privilege in a culture context today, they're referencing somebody claiming a particular personal advantage, something that is proper to them that they want for themselves, for their own use or benefit. Therefore, when privileged people have certain privileges, it's understandably not met with a lot of applause most of the time.
    In a parliamentary context, the assertion of privilege actually has the opposite character, in that privilege is not the ability of a person to do what they want for their own benefit. Rather, it is the assertion of the responsibility of an individual to magnify the—


    I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
    I'm going to let Mr. Genuis continue defining the word "privilege", if that suits him, but first I'd like someone to answer the question I raised.
    What I personally understand about procedure is that we may not raise a point of privilege in committee. Chapter 3 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice concerns privileges and immunities. It clearly states that, in standing, special, legislative and joint committees, "[s]ince the House has not given its committees the power to punish any misconduct, breach of privilege, or contempt directly, committees cannot decide such matters."
    I would like the clerk or the chair to tell me clearly, yes or no, whether we can raise a point of privilege in committee. There must be a way to do it, but I don't think that explaining the Greek root of the word "privilege" will help us get there.
    Can we do it or not? Once that question has been answered, Mr. Genuis can continue his diatribe.


    Mr. Chair, I can speak to the point of order. That might be helpful while it's being looked at.
    We will hold the question, if the clerk could....
    Mr. Garnett Genuis: Sure. I'm happy to answer questions.
    The Chair: We'll ask you to pause.
    That's fine. It's no problem. I'm sure the answer will be found regardless.
     Oh, Garnett, you're a Conservative Albertan, so none of the NDP-Liberals want to hear from you.


    Mrs. Shannon Stubbs: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I just want to thank you for taking the time to do this. It is why earlier I suggested that maybe we should suspend to get some clarity so we could all do our jobs on behalf of the people we represent. That certainly is what the elitist-sounding word “privilege” means to all of us as members of Parliament—to be able to represent the common people who sent us here and to fight for them.


    Thank you, Monsieur Simard, for your point of order.
    I will ask the clerk to provide an opportunity for comment.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    The committee itself does not have the power to rule on a question of privilege. Only the Speaker of the House has that power. Somebody can raise the question in committee. The chair then decides whether it touches on privilege, whether it relates to privilege, at which point the committee can agree to a report to the House, where it will then be taken up.
    That's exactly correct. Thank you.
    I raised the issue of privilege, which the committee does not have jurisdiction to rule on. I have raised this question of privilege because I believe the privileges of a member have been violated and, therefore—
    Point of order.
    Mr. Angus, go ahead on a point of order.
    Mr. Genuis's privileges were not affected, so for him to raise an issue of privilege on something that does not affect him is completely moot. What we're seeing is just obstruction. They are using every tool in the rule book—
    Point of order.
    I'm not finished.
    Point of order.
    I will ask Mr. Angus to finish his point of order, and then we're going to—
    There's a point of order, and is there a point of order on the point of order?
    Yes. It's on what Mr. Angus is saying right now.
    Mr. Angus, just pause for one second. We will go to the point of order from Mr. Patzer.
    I think Mr. Angus needs to make sure he has his facts correct, because what Mr. Angus is saying is actually not true. That is not what the point of privilege is.
    Mr. Patzer, we're getting into a debate. I acknowledge your point of order.
    Mr. Angus, go ahead on the point of order, please.
    Point of order.
    Chair, this is the problem we've been having all day.
    Yes, Marc, it is the problem we've been having all day while we've been doing this work on behalf of our constituents, which is our duty.
    This is debate.
    Charlie has been flip-flopping the entire meeting. Unfortunately, what's happening with your decisions is that they are coming into question, so there's real concern about clarity and confidence in this committee's ability to do its job, which is our duty on behalf of the people who elected us.
    We're in debate now.
    Mr. Angus, go ahead on the point of order.
    Please, can we can focus on the point of order.
    I was trying to focus on the point of order, but I see that the pattern all day has been interruptions and intimidation.
    Mr. Genuis came to this committee for the first time. His privilege was not at issue here, so when he had the floor he could not take it as an issue of privilege. He was usurping that role. He could have spoken to the motion. Instead, he tried to interfere with something that was not on his turf.
    Chair, point of order.
    I'm sorry, Charlie. I will wait.
    I'm concerned about whether or not your headphone is working properly and that you can hear, because now multiple times you've made a claim that's not true. I will wait until you're done.
    It's not his—I'm finishing my point of order.
    I'm sorry, Chair, but on that—
    Point of order.
    I will ask all members to let the member who is speaking speak, please.
    Mr. Angus, go ahead on the point of order.
    I think it's pretty straightforward. Mr. Genuis took the floor when he was supposed to be speaking to the subamendment, which is the latest of their boutique amendments. Then he tried to claim that he was defending the rights of Mr. Viersen, who sits there. He could not take to the House a privilege that had nothing to do with him, and he couldn't use his position while he was speaking to another amendment to raise a point of privilege on behalf of a member who was speaking.
    This is ridiculous. What we're witnessing is a gong show.
    Point of order.
    Mr. Angus, thank you.
    We have a point of order by Mr. Patzer.
    The whole point here is that any member can raise a point of privilege on this particular issue. Mr. Genuis has every right to raise the point of privilege on behalf of another member. That's fully within the scope here.
    His point of order is not correct.


     Thank you.
    We will go back to Mr. Genuis.
    With great respect for Mr. Angus, the motion I moved in relation to the privilege issue was that the privileges of the member for Peace River—Westlock had been breached. There cannot have been much doubt from the beginning about whose privileges I was speaking about.
     The privileges of all members are surely a matter of concern for this committee, and I don't think we would—
    I have a point of order.
    We have a point of order from Mr. Angus.
    I doubt it's a point of order, Chair.
    Chair, I asked you to rule on whether or not Mr. Genuis's taking the floor and moving a point of privilege on behalf of another member was actually relevant, or whether this was more of an obstruction.
     I was looking for a ruling on whether or not it should be Mr. Viersen raising his issue of privilege, because Mr. Viersen seems to be the person who feels he was slighted, even—
    Thank you for your point of order.
    You asked for a ruling, so I'm going to get advice from the clerk on what you've asked.
    This is death by delay, just like everything else the NDP-Liberals do.
    Colleagues, I am going to suspend for a few moments until the clerk can get the information back to us.



    I call the meeting back to order.
    I have a quick point of order, Chair, if you don't mind.
    We have a point of order on Mr. Angus's point of order.
    No. It's a separate point of order, Mr. Chair. I'm just—
    Can we rule on it first, if it's separate point of order? Unless it's on Mr. Angus's point of order.... The clerk has advice for the committee based on the question asked.
    For sure.
    Okay. I'll ask the clerk to provide advice based on Mr. Angus's point of order.
    Mr. Chair, perhaps I could....
     I'm sorry, Clerk. Thank you.
    Maybe you could remind everyone what Mr. Angus's question was. There have been so many stops and starts.
     I think that will be answered.
    Go ahead, Madam Clerk.
     According to the book, if an incident arises within the committee's proceedings that may constitute a breach of privilege, anybody can raise it if it's considered to be an incident of the committee's.
    We have Mr. Patzer on a point of order.
    Chair, because there was lots going on here at the start, when my colleague moved his motion, I believe I had raised my hand for the speaking list.
    I'm just curious whether you can confirm who the next two or three speakers are on the speaking list for this motion.
    After Mr. Genuis, it's you, Mr. Patzer.
     Thank you, Chair.
    If there are no further points of order for the time being from Mr. Angus, I'll continue with my remarks. I'm grateful for that opportunity.
    Chair, before I was interrupted I was talking about the way in which the term “privilege” is colloquially used and contrasting that with what privilege means in the particular context of a parliamentary process.
    The privileges of parliamentarians, by contrast with the way the term “privilege” is typically used now, are not the assertions of individual entitlements. Rather, they are in many respects the assertion of the opposite; that is of the particular tools associated with obligations for members of Parliament, who are conduits for magnifying the interests, priorities and concerns of the people in their constituency.
    We protect the rights of members of Parliament. We protect the privileges of members of Parliament, not because they are special, but because the people they represent are special and deserve to have their voices heard in the House. That is why we talk about privilege, because our ability as members of Parliament to do our job is the essential vehicle through which constituents, the people who live in our communities across the country, are able to have their priorities, concerns, etc., reflected.
    We have responsibilities as members of Parliament to be representatives of the common good of our constituents, and we have tools that allow us to fulfill those responsibilities. If members fail to take seriously their responsibilities, then they will likely not continue in their roles; but if members are denied the tools that allow them to fulfill their responsibilities, perhaps because of the actions of other members of Parliament, perhaps because of other administrative or incidental factors, then the voices of the people they are supposed to be representing are absent from this place.
    I would extol members, in their consideration of this question of the privileges for the member of Peace River—Westlock, to think of this not particularly as a matter in a colloquial sense of the privileges of the member for Peace River—Westlock, but rather to think of it as the just rights of the people of Peace River—Westlock, and their right to be heard in Parliament through their duly elected member. When the member for Peace River—Westlock is obstructed in his ability to fulfill his responsibilities as a member, then in fact the people of Peace River—Westlock have been obstructed in their ability to be heard.
    This is foundational to every concept of representative democracy that we speak of here, not in our own right, but we speak here because we have been sent here by the people we have a sacred trust to serve as their representative. Of course, as their representatives we exercise our own considered judgment. We are not merely delegates of hostile interests, to paraphrase Burke. We owe our constituents both our industry and our judgment, and so we don't cease to be independently thinking, operating, considering individuals.
    We frame our considerations of these matters with reference to the common good of our constituents, and we always consider, evaluate and work with an eye to the interests, well-being and common good of the people within our constituencies, which isn't quite the same as their interests, but that's maybe another conversation for another day.


     I'm being particular in my choice of the phrase “common good”.
    This is the basis of our system of representative democracy. It's the responsibilities we have as members of Parliament and the fact that we need tools to use them. Therefore, when members of Parliament assert, “This is my privilege”, “My privilege has been violated” or “I want my privileges protected”, this is not the same as a private person making those assertions. Rather, it is a sense of responsibility from constituents that leads people to raise these issues.
    As such, it is not only the right of members who feel their privileges have been violated to raise these matters of privilege, but they have a responsibility to do so. If my colleague from Peace River—Westlock or other members who have at times felt their privileges have been violated would passively allow chairs, committees or incidental events to disrupt them in their ability to do their jobs, then they would be in fact denying their responsibility to their constituents.
    We not only have a right to assert the doctrines of privilege when violations of privilege emerge, but we actually have, I believe, a responsibility to assert those doctrines of privilege. It is through that assertion that we protect our ability to serve our constituents.
    Also, I think we are seeking to preserve the structure of our representative democracy for our future constituents and for future citizens in our areas and other areas because we see here the power of precedent. If processes unfold that violate the privileges of members and they become commonplace, are allowed to take place and are ignored, then those violations of privilege themselves become precedent that will perhaps facilitate other instances where privileges are violated. This is the process by which there can be a gradual erosion of the strength of our representative democracy and a move to something less than the authentic fulfillment of what that system is supposed to be.
    Privilege, as I have said today, is not—


    I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
    Can I just confirm that I am now on the speakers list? If I'm not, could I be placed there?
    Would you like to be added to the speakers list?
    Yes, please.
    Thank you.
    Go ahead, Mr. Genuis.
    Mr. Chair, I wouldn't want to be accused, like I was earlier—or someone was—about not speaking into their mike, but of course the question of—