Evidence of meeting #1 for Bill C-39 in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you, Mr. Ste-Marie.
The speaking list I have—we'll deal with the amendments—is Mr. Albas, Mr. Lake, Mr. Leslie and then Ms. Desrochers and Mr. Gourde.
Go ahead, Mr. Albas.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I certainly appreciate the advice of my colleague from the Bloc Québécois. Mr. Ste-Marie is 100% correct. From this point on, we will always try to distribute things in both French and English ahead of time to make sure that the interpreters, who do an able job, have them. We appreciate his raising that.
I would simply say that most of these timelines, from my understanding, are discussions that have happened with the Liberals in terms of their desire to have a timely study. Certainly, the Conservatives believe this can be accomplished if this committee is given the proper scrutiny of ministers.
I would note for my colleague Mr. Ste-Marie that it reads, “g. Notwithstanding the above deadlines and requirements, allow for flexibility respecting the committee’s agenda should the occasion arise to justify it”. This allows you, Mr. Chair, if a cog has been thrown into the committee machinery, to ably respond to it as well.
I always appreciate this member's interventions. Mr. Ste-Marie, thank you for suggesting the week, but I believe the current timeline is justified in its current state and there's sufficient flexibility bestowed to the chair that we would not be interested in supporting this at this time. It's my hope that the government will see these three ministers and the reasonable ask to have each of the ministers who will eventually, if this bill passes in both the House and the Senate, have direct responsibility for administering these changes. The Conservatives believe this committee would be served best by having the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Jobs and Families, who will have ultimate carriage of the amendments proposed in Bill C-39.
Mr. Chair, when it comes to environmental processes, transportation projects and changes to the Canada Labour Code...that's why the Conservatives want to have them as soon as possible. It's my hope that the government will see the wisdom in that and agree to support the main motion.
I'll leave it to my friends on the other side to decide whether they want to support Mr. Ste-Marie's motion, but I don't believe the Conservatives will.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thanks.
I should point out, Mr. Ste-Marie, that the week of November 9 is a non-sitting week, so we couldn't begin clause-by-clause on that day.
I think I said this earlier, but the three ministers confirmed for the 19th are Minister Hajdu, Minister MacKinnon and Minister LeBlanc.
I have Mr. Lake next.
Conservative
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Leduc—Wetaskiwin, AB
That's a surprise. I assumed that the three ministers you were talking about were the same three ministers. It would be odd not to have the environment minister on this piece of legislation, given the clear impact in her area.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
One person's version of odd is different from another's, in my experience, but okay, go ahead.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Leduc—Wetaskiwin, AB
Okay. I assumed, when you were talking about the three ministers, that it was the three ministers responsible for the key areas of the legislation.
This was part of the questions I was going to ask. To clarify, it sounds as though you've had conversations that we aren't part of yet. How long would each of those ministers...? What's being proposed to you? I assume it's an hour each in a three-hour meeting.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Well, there would definitely be an hour's meeting. I suspect they're going to appear together, as I understand they did in the Senate earlier this week.
Anyway, finish your submissions, and we'll—
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Leduc—Wetaskiwin, AB
I was assuming, because this is an unusual process, a special committee.... Because of the scale and scope of the legislation, it would be highly unusual for something of this importance to have three ministers appear together for one hour if we're trying to give proper scrutiny to legislation that the government itself declares to be as important as it does.
Presumably, these ministers were all involved in the generation of this bill to start with, and it is pretty important for Canadians to hear from them individually in terms of their own roles, their own departments and the impacts that we would see in each of those areas. Therefore, I would make the argument that Canadians would expect their government to ensure that these ministers take the time to appear for one hour each on this legislation.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate the clarity regarding the ministers.
I have many questions. I sit on the environment committee, so I have had the opportunity, although infrequent, to have Minister Dabrusin appear before that committee.
I've reviewed the legislation, Bill C-39, which we're here to discuss, and it has some of the most consequential amendments to environmental legislation to have happened in years. Everyone in this committee is aware of the views held by environmental organizations regarding the bill. The fact that Minister Dabrusin is not one of the opening three ministers.... She, I might add, is receiving incredible new powers under division 5 to grant permits, powers that are currently held under other ministerial powers. It sounds as though—and I would seek clarification after, Mr. Chair—you are going to have three ministers appear collectively for one hour and call that ministerial accountability.
Is that correct, if I could just ask you while speaking?
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Okay, I am prepared to speak for a very long time as to why it is vital that Minister Dabrusin, who has the most to gain as a minister—the ministerial position itself does, I should say.... The fact that this minister isn't intended to appear before this committee, as outlined here—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Hold on. Let's be clear. This is why I said at the outset that we shouldn't get pigeonholed. The outcome of today, in my opinion, should be some parameters on timelines. We have these three ministers. We'll figure out how long they're going to attend, and then we can put in our witness lists.
All of you have made it—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Wait one moment.
All of you have made it very clear that you want Minister Dabrusin here. That's fine. Put her on the witness list, and we can deal with it in due course. I don't know that we need to belabour the notion that you want her here. It's very clear.
Mr. Lake, you have a point of order.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Leduc—Wetaskiwin, AB
When you say, “We have these three ministers”, what does that even mean? We're starting the process. We don't have anything yet. We haven't agreed on anything. Which three ministers are you referring to when you say, “We have these three ministers”?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Okay, Mr. Lake, I can say it one more time. We have the three ministers that I mentioned earlier, and then we can submit our witness lists. If you have other witnesses you want on the list, including other ministers—
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
It's a point of order. It's not debate, Mr. Lake. Make your point and we'll move on.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Leduc—Wetaskiwin, AB
The point of order is that we don't have anything, because we, as a committee, haven't decided on anything yet.
Liberal
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I don't want to misquote you, but I believe you said the words “ministers responsible” when talking about those three ministers. Minister Dabrusin is responsible for roughly one-third of the clauses in Bill C-39, so not to have her....
I understand that we are putting forward a programming motion to make sure that the appropriate ministerial authorities are questioned for accountability for Canadians in an expedited timeline. As my colleague said, we are trying to work collaboratively with the government. In fact, we voted at second reading in principle to send us here for a deliberate study.
The idea that we would have the chair declare that there are three so-called ministers responsible set to appear, without allowing us the opportunity to at least discuss and, most importantly, solidify that the minister responsible for one-third of Bill C-39 is going to appear here and not just have hope that in a relatively expedited timeline in which we want to work collaboratively with.... We have no guarantee that such a vital minister is going to appear. I am unwilling to accept this. I'm happy to sit here all day and explain why.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
I don't think that's necessary.
The committee is the master of its own domain. I have put it out there. We can discuss. We can invite ministers, which we will.
Scheduling ministers is always subject to the ministers' availability, etc. I have simply identified those three ministers as being willing to attend on the 19th. I don't think we need to get hung up on this today. This will work itself out.
Go ahead, Ms. Desrochers.