44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 4, 2023 11:00AM
- Dec/4/23 4:39:12 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. Minister of Natural Resources has the floor.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 4:39:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is about two things. It is about ensuring that we actually have a plan to build an economy that can be strong and prosperous in a low-carbon future, and it is about ensuring that we have workers who are available and equipped to succeed, to actually ensure that we are able to build the economy of the future.
I would say to the hon. member that he just needs to look around him at all of the different projects that are ongoing, whether it is the various electric vehicle manufacturing facilities in Ontario, the battery manufacturing facilities in Quebec, the offshore wind development in Atlantic Canada, the potash mines and the nuclear development in Saskatchewan, the Dow chemical facility and the Air Products facility, the carbon capture and sequestration work that will be going on in the oil sands, or the battery facility and the renewable diesel facility in British Columbia.
It is amazing how fast this is moving, but it is moving because of deliberate public policy to encourage and incent the development of an economy that will be strong in a world that must, from a scientific perspective, be a lower-carbon future. That is something we are looking to engage Canadians in. We are engaging labour. We are engaging industry. We are engaging indigenous people. Perhaps most importantly, we are engaging young people in a conversation that is so relevant to their future.
240 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 4:40:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my understanding is that we are not actually debating the bill at this point; we are debating closure on a motion that is going to move particularly quickly on the bill.
I do not debate the fact that there are various tactics being used by various parties in this place to slow down the business of the House. That being said, this is a bill whose action plan for sustainable jobs would still be two years out, should it get passed. Yet the motion that is being put forward with closure would give only two hours for debate at clause-by-clause consideration.
Can the minister tell us why the response from the government, every time it has delay tactics from the other side, is to go to the exact extreme to limit debate and improvements from other parties on bills as important as this one?
148 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 4:41:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would correct a couple of things my hon. colleague said.
There is actually an interim action plan that has already been released for the period 2023-25. What the bill would do is put into law the requirement that we actually have the action plans going forward, every five years. That is for the purpose of transparency and accountability. It is a very important mechanism, just like was done in the Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act a couple of years ago.
The reason we are moving forward is that this is urgent. The world is moving. Countries around the world are moving. To build an economy that is going to create jobs and economic prosperity in a low-carbon future, they are working with labour and industry to ensure that is done.
We have just gone through five weeks when nothing occurred at the natural resources committee, because the Conservatives refused to allow anything to happen. That is a shame. It is a waste of taxpayers' money. It is something that should not happen in the Parliament of Canada.
182 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 4:42:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in his answers, the minister spoke a lot about a low-carbon economy. That is good. That is something everyone wants to advance. I have a lot of respect for the minister.
The problem is that the solutions he is proposing are stuck in the oil and gas sector. When he talks about hydrogen, he is talking about blue hydrogen, which relies on carbon capture strategies. No one agrees with that. He is talking about carbon capture for the oil and gas sector, but we know full well that that is not economically viable. Unless big oil companies, the greedy corporations who rake in billions every year, are paid by Canadian taxpayers, then that oil will not be profitable.
Does my colleague agree that the best solution is simply to get out of oil and gas?
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 4:43:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is very important that we reduce greenhouse gas emissions everywhere, in all sectors of the economy. We need a plan to accelerate economic development in all the provinces and territories. It is very important.
One hydrogen company in Quebec used the tax credit set up by the government. It is a tool that speeds up—
59 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 4:43:52 p.m.
- Watch
It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.
The question is on the motion.
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 4:44:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 5:27:27 p.m.
- Watch
I declare the motion carried.
5 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, what a thing to witness this coalition collude to cover-up and take a top-down action to force through a top-down bill. The Conservatives will not stop the fight for the people we represent and for the best interests of all Canadians.
To review, the Liberals rammed through first the Atlantic offshore bill, Bill C-49, which includes 33 references to the five-year-old unconstitutional law, Bill C-69, that the Liberals have not fixed yet. By the way, Bill C-49 would triple the timeline for offshore renewables in the Atlantic provinces. Then was the just transition bill, Bill C-50. This was after fewer than nine hours and eight hours of total debate from all MPs on each.
On October 30, the NDP-Liberals tried to dictate every aspect of how the committee would deal with those bills. They reversed their own order to hold back Bill C-49 and spent a month preoccupied with censorship and exclusion of Conservatives like the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan and the member for Peace River—Westlock.
The extraordinary motion being debated and the debate shutdown today mean the committee will be limited to less than two hours of scrutiny on Bill C-50. We will hear from no witnesses, no impacted workers or businesses, no experts, no provincial or regional representatives, no economists, no indigenous communities, no ministers and no officials, and MPs will only have one partial day each to review and debate this bill at the next two stages.
I never thought I would spend so much of the last eight years having to count on senators to really do the full scrutiny that the NPD-Liberals' bills require after the fact because the coalition circumvents elected MPs on the front end so many times. One would think after the Supreme Court absolutely skewered them all on Bill C-69, which both the NDPs and the Liberals supported, that we would see a change of behaviour and attitude, but no, not these guys. They are reckless and ever undaunted in their top-down authority.
The NDP-Liberals will say that the government has been working on it for years, that it has engaged unions all the time and ask what the hold up is. We heard that from the member for Timmins—James Bay earlier, even though what he did not admit was that at the time the committee was studying the concept of the just transition and the NDP-Liberals moved forward with announcing their legislation before it reported anyway. They will say that we should just get this done so Bill C-50 can give the reskilling, upskilling and job training workers need and want when they all lose their jobs because of government mandates.
I have a couple of points to make. First, it sure is clear the NDP-Liberals have been working together on something for a while since they were all together to announce the bill. Second, everybody needs to know there is not actually a single skills or job program anywhere in this bill at all. Third, cooking up something behind closed doors then being outraged and cracking down on the official opposition when we suggest we should all actually do our jobs, speak to represent our constituents, and most importantly, let Canadians speak so we can actually hear from them on the actual bill, and then analyze it comprehensively and propose changes and improvements, is a top-down central planning approach that sounds an awful lot like the way we have characterized Bill C-50, the just transition itself that has caused some outrage in the last few days.
Bill C-50, the just transition, aims to centrally plan the top-down restructuring of the fundamentals and the foundations of Canada's economy. It aims to redistribute wealth. It is a globally conceived, planned and imposed agenda. It is, in fact, a major focus of a globalist gathering going on right now, the same kind of gathering where it started years ago.
I confess, I do not really get all the consternation about stating that fact since the definition of globalism is “the operation or planning of economic informed policy on a global basis.” That is of course what is happening with the just transition and the many international bodies that bring together politicians, policy advocates and wealthy elites from around the world to plan economic and foreign policy globally. That is while they all contribute significantly to increasing global emissions to get there and back, while they dream up more schemes to tell the folks back home that they cannot drive; live in a house, on any land or farm; or, for those who can afford it, fly. We will all have to eat insects while they all do the exact opposite, even while they bring home agendas that will make essentials and daily life so expensive for all the rest of us that we will have no choice.
Globalism is literally the function of numerous organizations all explicitly heavily focused on imposing the just transition for years. Today, it is linked to the concept of the global citizen and of postnational states with no independent identities, just like the current Prime Minister said of Canada when he was elected.
That is what is happening at COP28 right now. It is in the UN 2030 plan. It is the top priority of lots of many well-known and respected gatherings, such as the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation organization and others. It is bizarre that the NDP-Liberals deny and attack all this now, when globalism is obviously implicit in its ideology. I thought they were proud of that. They have all been outraged about this, but the truth hurts. Anger is often a cover for hurt, so maybe that is what all their rage is about.
Maybe their issue is that I call it Soviet-style central planning, except for this: Bill C-50 really would create a government-appointed committee to advise the minister. The minister would then appoint another committee to plan the economy. This bill would not mandate that any of that would happen through openness and transparency. Neither of the committees would report either to Parliament or directly to Canadians along the way. I guess the coalition members want to say that it is a win that the reports would be tabled in the House of Commons, but that would not guarantee any kind of debate or accountability. The members are proving their true colours through how they are handling the bill now, especially since it is clear that they want to impose it all with little challenge and almost no scrutiny from beginning to end.
Oh right, it is there in the summary, in black and white for all the world to see. When would those plans from the government committees for Canada's economy be imposed? It would be every five years. That is literally the time frame for central planning that Soviets preferred. However, the NDP-Liberals are somehow shocked and outraged, even though the lead NDP-Liberal minister is a guy who is a self-declared “proud socialist”, as came out of his own mouth in this very chamber. Right now, he is at a conference about the progress of the global just transition.
There are no costs outlined in this bill either, even though it would obviously cost taxpayers, just as the NDP-Liberals' mega sole-source contracts for their buddies; infrastructure banks and housing funds that cost billions of tax dollars and build neither infrastructure nor houses, only bureaucracy; and hundreds of thousands of dollars on consultants to tell the government to use fewer consultants. There would be a cost to create and maintain the just transition partnership council, on pages six to 10, that would advise the minister and then the secretariat that the minister would have to create. However, this bill does not tell Canadians about any of the cost that taxpayers would have to pay for all that, up front and after.
It is quite something to see the inclusion of the words “accountability” and “transparency” in the long title of Bill C-50, since it is all actually about government-appointed committees meeting behind closed doors and a minister who would cook up central plan after central plan. It would mandate neither transparency nor accountability at all, whether directly to Canadians or through their MPs, and it would not include an actual outline for one or any kind of skills- or job-training program.
That is how this whole thing was baked in the first place. Their rushed, top-down schedule today is to ram it through with as little analysis from MPs and input from Canadians as possible. It is a little silly for all the NDP-Liberals to be mad now that the official opposition actually wants MPs to do our jobs to debate, consult, amend and improve legislation, especially with such a wide-ranging and significant one such as Bill C-50 and the economic transition it would impose.
What about the tens of thousands of Canadians whose jobs were devastated by the NDP-Liberals' fast-tracked coal transition? The environment commissioner said this was a total failure. It left 3,400 Canadian workers in about a dozen communities completely behind. However, the government members say to just trust them to engineer an economic transition for 2.7 million Canadians and the entire country.
What about the nearly 40,000 people in Newfoundland and Labrador who were all put out of work completely when they were promised that the government would help them transition from cod? It was the largest industrial shutdown in Canadian history at the time. It was a disaster for all of them: their loved ones, their communities and their province. I hope they see Bill C-50 as the end of oil and gas in Canada bill that it is, because the impact of the oil and gas sector in Newfoundland and Labrador is a quarter of the province's total GDP. It is higher than that in Alberta. It is 40% of Newfoundland and Labrador's exports, and 6,000 people in Newfoundland and Labrador in the oil and gas service and supply sector have lost their jobs already, just in the last three years, because of the uncertainty and the NDP-Liberals' anti-energy policies.
The government's intent now, through Bill C-50, is like nothing Canada has ever seen before. Canadians could be forgiven for knowing that this would not go well.
A truly bizarre point about all this that should be noted, though, is as follows: Despite the collusion between the NDP and Liberals on the bill for about two years, other opposition MPs such as Conservatives do not actually get to see the bills until the government tables them. Despite what I hear really were some round tables and consultation meetings, there is not actually any tangible delivery of what the bill's own proponents say that it does for skills and job training.
It is not in here anywhere, which is one of the many reasons Conservatives say that the natural resources committee must actually do its job and, most importantly, must hear from all the Canadians it would impact. Both union and non-union workers, as well as union leaders, should be outraged about it.
What really did happen with all the time, effort and money that was apparently sunk into developing it behind closed doors between 2021 and 2023? Since the bill sets up committees to plan to set up committees to plan from on high, why the heck did all this require a law in the first place?
Government, unions and businesses consult, develop plans and report. Okay, what is holding this up from going ahead? Why is Bill C-50 even required for that work to happen if they all want it to? How is this actually all the Liberal-NDP government has come up with?
How is any Canadian supposed to trust these guys to deliver on anything, when it took all this time and all these meetings and tax dollars, but there is not even an actual plan or program? They would not even get a recommendation for two years. It is sort of like the ITCs that the NDP-Liberals keep talking and bragging about, as if they are doing anything in our economy right now. Actually, they do not even exist at all in Canada yet.
Of course, Conservatives and more and more Canadians know that Bill C-50 really is all about the just transition and ending oil and gas in Canada as fast as they possibly can. The NDP-Liberals have shown this repeatedly after eight years. A government, of course, that did not want to kill the sector and all the livelihoods it sustains really would not do anything differently from what these guys have done and continue to do.
Everyone can read it. In the 11 pages and 21 clauses of Bill C-50, there is not one single instance of a skills- or job-training program. That is the truth.
Now, because of the NDP-Liberals, neither union nor non-union workers will be able to speak or be heard by MPs at any remaining stage of the top-down agenda for this bill. In fact, nobody will: no workers, contractors, business owners, investors or indigenous owners, partners, workers or contractors. Therefore, I will talk about some of those workers now. I have a few points.
First, the reality is that the biggest growth of well-paying union jobs in Canada right now is actually created by the big multinational oil and gas companies expanding and ramping up new oil, gas and petrochemical projects in Alberta. These are the same companies that made Alberta, by far and away, Canada’s leader in clean tech, renewable and alternative energy for at least 30 years.
For the record, today, Alberta is again Canada’s leader in renewable energy. In fact, the investment commitments for renewables and future fuel development in Alberta have doubled to nearly $50 billion of private sector money planned and ready to invest, since the premier paused to set the conditions, to guarantee consultation, certainty and confidence for all Albertans, while the regulator keeps taking applications. However, the NDP-Liberals will not admit that to us either.
Second, where we are at is that the major oil and gas companies are leading the creation of new union jobs in Canada. However, this is actually the very sector that the just transition agenda would shut down first. The main thing every union worker needs is a job. That is what is at risk.
Third, the anti-energy coalition also refuses to admit the fact that, in Canada, traditional oil and gas, oil sands and pipeline companies have been, far and away, the top investors in the private sector for decades and, today, in clean tech, environmental innovation and renewables among all the private sectors in Canada, excluding governments and utilities. Likewise, oil and gas is still, right now, the top private sector investor and top export in Canada’s economy. The truth is that nothing is poised to match or beat it any time soon. Nothing comes close. The stakes of the anti-energy agenda imposed by the costly coalition for Canada are exceptionally grave.
Here are some facts about the businesses and workers that would be hurt the most by the just transition agenda, Bill C-50. In Canada’s oil and gas sector, 93% of companies only have up to 99 employees. They are small businesses, and 63% of those businesses are considered micro-businesses, with fewer than five employees.
That is the truth about workers and businesses in Canada’s oil and gas sector, especially the homegrown, Canadian-based ones. They are not union businesses, although their jobs are also sustainable; they are also higher paying, with reliable long-term benefits, than jobs in most sectors.
Large employers, with over 500 people on payroll, account for just over 1%, not 2%, of the total oil and gas extraction businesses in Canada; that is it. Those businesses are mostly union workplaces and support more union jobs than the rest of the sector. However, they are also among the first businesses that Bill C-50’s agenda would kill and that, after eight years, the NDP-Liberals have been incrementally damaging. Again, there would be no oil and gas sector, no businesses and no jobs, union or otherwise. That is the truth. It also means higher costs and less reliable power, especially where most Canadians have no affordable options, as in rural, remote, northern, prairie, Atlantic and indigenous communities, with fewer businesses and jobs. There would be less money for government programs, since the oil and gas sector currently pays the most to all three levels of government, and less private sector money for clean tech and innovation.
Which workers do the NDP-Liberals already know that their unfair, unjust transition in Bill C-50 would hurt the most? If colleagues can believe this, it would be visible minority and indigenous Canadians. Both ethnically diverse and indigenous Canadians are more highly represented in the energy sector than they are in any other sector in Canada’s economy, but the internal government-leaked memo that I am assuming colleagues have seen says they are expected to face higher job disruptions than any other workers. They would also have more trouble finding new opportunities. They would end up in lower-paying, more precarious jobs, as would be the case for all workers who lose their livelihoods to this radical, anti-energy global agenda.
Canadians will know instantly, of course, from these numbers that the top targets to be crushed by Bill C-50 are the 93% and 63% of Canadian businesses, the small- and micro-businesses, their workers and all their contractors. Bill C-50 does not contemplate them at all. There is no consideration about all the non-union workers who will lose their jobs in the just transition agenda. These are the homegrown, Canadian-based and owned businesses with Canadian workers who have been doing their part for environmental stewardship, innovation, clean tech, actual emissions reductions and indigenous partnerships to the highest standards in Canada and, therefore, in the entire world, just like the big guys here.
Since the NDP-Liberals refused to allow this, my office spoke with one of those union workers last week, a worker from Saskatchewan. He said, “I am not happy with the fact that I will be displaced out of a job from a federal mandate.” No matter what the NDP-Liberals try to call this or say about it now, he had it right. That is exactly what would happen to that union worker.
There is nothing, not a single thing, about all the non-union workers, who would obviously lose their jobs first, nor is there any space for union workers who do not want the transition accelerated by the anti-energy, anti-private sector NDP-Liberals. There is nothing about the communities and the people who would be damaged the most, nothing about what sector actually can and will replace the jobs and economic contributions of the oil and gas sector. Of course, right now, there is no such sector. There is nothing about all those hundreds of thousands of oil and gas union workers whose employers would also be put out of work quickly, as is the actual aim of Bill C-50. It is no wonder that the NDP-Liberals want to silence Canadians, so they can do this quickly and behind closed doors. They too must know that common-sense Canadians can see right through them, and they are running out of time.
I have a last point about the chair of the natural resources committee, the member for Calgary Skyview. When I congratulated him on his recent appointment, I told him the Liberals have done him no favours by putting him there to help impose their agenda. The people of Calgary Skyview will render their decision in the next election, as is their right, like it is for all Canadians.
I warned a former natural resources minister from Alberta that his constituents would see his betrayal. I said this in our last emergency committee meeting about the TMX, which has still not been built, in the summer heading into the 2019 election. Colleagues will notice that this member was not sent back here. I suspect that the people of Calgary Skyview will feel the same in this instance. In hindsight, I suspect this will not be worth it for the member for Calgary Skyview, but we all make choices and face the consequences.
I move:
That the motion be amended by:
(a) replacing paragraph (a) with the following:
“(a) during the consideration of the bill by the Standing Committee on Natural Resources;
(i) the Minister of Natural Resources and its officials be ordered to appear as witnesses for no less than two hours;
(ii) members of the committee submit their lists of suggested witnesses concerning the bill, to the clerk, and that the Chair and clerk create witness panels which reflect the representation of the parties on the committee, and, once complete, that the Chair begin scheduling those meetings;
(iii) a press release be issued for the study of the bill inviting written submissions from the public and establishing a deadline for those submissions,”; and
(b) deleting paragraphs (b) and (c).
Every member of the chamber has an ability to prove that they actually support democracy by supporting our amendment.
3653 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 5:48:23 p.m.
- Watch
The amendment is in order.
Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs.
23 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 5:49:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member opposite ended her speech by speaking about consequences for actions and local voters' having the final say. In that vein, I am curious about how the member opposite thinks voters in her riding feel about her voting against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. She spoke about Canadians needing jobs, about supporting small businesses and about the importance of the energy sector. I would argue that means also ensuring that the world does not have to rely on Russian oil. All of that in the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement would help support Ukrainians' fight and win for democracy.
Does the member think the voters in her riding are going to hold her accountable for her actions?
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 5:51:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, after eight years of the Liberal government, out of four major oil pipeline proposals, zero have gone forward. One is ballooning and ballooning because the government chose to buy it instead of giving it certainty, and it is still not built. There have been 18 proposals for LNG projects in this country, and not a single one has been built. Only one is being constructed, and it was approved by the former government. To be clear, Conservatives believe that what Ukraine needs is energy and weapons, which is what we proposed. It is because of the NDP-Liberals that we cannot get energy out the door to reduce dependency on Russian gas.
I appreciate that the member asked me the question, because I am married to a Ukrainian, grew up in the cradle of the Ukrainian settlement in Lakeland, and represent a very Ukrainian community. I wonder what the member's government think about the fact that it really did not give a rip about any of the Ukrainian workers and families it put out of work with no cost analysis when it shut down the best-performing immigration centre in the entire country.
196 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 5:52:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have a question that has been bugging me for some time now. I often see my colleague at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. I have heard a number of speeches. I cannot help but wonder if, in some way, she recognizes that, from a climate perspective, we currently have a major problem, namely global warming.
I would like to know whether she recognizes we have a problem known as global warming and whether she also recognizes that the fossil fuel sector, as a major emitter of greenhouse gas emissions, is responsible for global warming. If she recognizes that, it seems to me that the only solution is to reduce our dependence on the oil and gas sector.
I would like my colleague to comment on that. Does she recognize climate change? Does she recognize that the oil and gas sector is contributing to climate change? Does she recognize that we need to phase out oil and gas?
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 5:53:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I enjoy working with the member on committee and listening to him here in the House of Commons.
I think there are some related issues. First of all, Conservatives want to green-light green projects, and we are going to do that by reducing timelines, reducing costs and reducing taxes to set the conditions for the private sector to be able to propose major projects, create jobs and fund their big projects. We also, at the same time, want to expand and accelerate traditional oil and gas in Canada, and exports, particularly to provide energy security, which is our moral obligation, I think, to free democracies around the world.
What the Liberals are proposing is not a gradual shutdown of oil and gas in Canada; it is an ever-escalating agenda that they impose through a constant changing of the goal posts and constant new, unachievable targets.
However, the other thing about the oil and gas sector is that it is far and away the leading private sector investor in clean tech, innovation, actual emissions reduction, habitat stewardship, wildlife preservation and reclamation. It is the sector that puts in the most private sector dollars that go into innovation in Canada right now. It is also the major sector that contributes the highest level of all for government revenue for anything it may be doing on that end and on programs and services that all Canadians depend on.
239 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 5:54:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, certainly over the last six weeks, we watched a toxic gong show from the Conservatives, who did not allow witnesses to come forward. The minister was going to come, but they did not want him. Instead, it was like watching European soccer players rolling around on the pitch. I mean no offence to European soccer players; at least they get a goal in once in a while.
I would ask the member about the way she has misrepresented all of these issues. Last year, there were 133 witnesses and 120 hours of hearings on clean energy. At no point did any of those witnesses allege some kind of conspiracy, yet the member is going public and using very loaded language about a globalist agenda. I would like to know whether the language for a “globalist agenda” came from her or whether it came from her leader's office? That needs to be explained—
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 5:55:48 p.m.
- Watch
I will let the hon. member finish in a second. There is a point of order from the hon. official opposition House leader.
23 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 5:55:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to call the hon. member on relevance. He is going down some rabbit holes and verging on unparliamentary language. I would just ask him to keep to the merit of the actual legislation without the loaded language that—
44 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 5:56:08 p.m.
- Watch
I believe that is a point of debate.
I would ask the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay to wrap it up.
23 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 5:56:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to know about the language for “globalist agenda”. Did she make that up? There is not a single witness who used such outrageous language.
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
