Evidence of meeting #36 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was target.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I've ruled PV-16 out of order because it brings in the concept of carbon budgets, and nowhere—
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Mr. Chair, I'd put forward that there is supposed to be no debate. You can't debate in your own defence.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
I'm not debating. I'm just asking what the question is. That's all.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Mr. Chair was giving his answers, and that does get into the premise of debate. If we were to have a recorded roll call, that would be helpful.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
This isn't consistent, Mr. Albas, with your previous comments. You said that members, even when something is out of order, should have—
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, Mr. Albas is usually a stickler for the rules when it benefits him, but here's an opportunity for the chair to present his findings in accordance with suggestions that Mr. Albas has made—
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Again, Mr. Albas, I have the floor—not you. You're keen on quoting the rules to the rest of us, but it's unfortunate that you don't follow them when someone else has the floor.
The chair had the floor. I hope Mr. Albas respects that. That was my point, Mr. Chair. We should be respecting each other when someone has the floor.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Yes, we're going to a vote, and as Mr. Albas mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, there's no time for debate. There is no debate when we're challenging a ruling, but if somebody wants a point of clarification, which is what Mr. Saini was doing, and I was trying to give him an answer.... We'll go to the vote.
Madam Michaud, is this also a point of clarification? Because if it's a point of debate, I can't allow it.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
I would like clarification.
Are we voting on your decision or on the motion challenging it?
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
The motion challenges my decision, so I guess it's a bit of both.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
We're voting on your decision. Is that right?
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Yes, because my decision can't be debated, but you can express your opposition. That's what Mr. Albas is doing, and that's what we're voting on.
We can proceed with the vote, Madam Clerk.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Mr. Chair, I'm going to ask the clerk, just so people are clear. When someone makes a motion to challenge the chair, if they vote in favour, that means they vote for overruling the chair's decision, and when they vote against, that means they are shutting down the challenge. Is that correct?
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
4:55 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
The question will be, “Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?”
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
You'll be voting “no”, Mr. Albas.
If you want to sustain the ruling of the chair, you vote “yes”. If you don't agree with the ruling of the chair, you vote “no”.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
I apologize, Mr. Chair. I had it wrong. I regret that.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
It's good that you clarified. I'm glad that we allowed a bit of a discussion.
Go ahead. Let's have a vote on this.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 7; nays 4)
Now I'll give an opportunity to Ms. May to present amendment PV-17.
4:55 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am anticipating your ruling given the last one, but I appreciate the opportunity to present it.
Again, carbon budgets are the gold standard globally to make climate accountability legislation work. As I remember, one of our witnesses, and I'm trying to remember now who—it's very embarrassing—very accurately put it that if you were trying to balance your household budget and you wanted to get to so much money saved in your bank account, you'd be doing a better job to budget for that year to year and have specificity around what you're trying to achieve.
Again, the difference between a carbon budget and the way the bill is currently designed is that a carbon budget is a certain number of megatonnes produced by year. We're operating in a carbon budget globally. We are at very grave risk of exceeding the carbon budget that would allow us to meet the Paris objective of as far below 2°C as possible and no more than 1.5°C.
We are much more likely to succeed in meeting those targets by using the gold standard approach of carbon budgets than by using the bill the way it's currently structured. I'm putting forward PV-17 and hope that perhaps it might survive your ruling, Mr. Chair, and then survive a vote.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you, Ms. May.
I will rule the amendment inadmissible for the same reasons as my previous ruling, because it seeks to bring in a new concept. I'm not arguing the merits of carbon budgets, but if the minister had wanted to bring in carbon budgets, he would have mentioned it somewhere in the bill.
That's my ruling. I don't know if Mr. Albas wants to challenge that.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Mr. Chair, please don't take this as anything personal. I appreciate that. It shows why you're in the chair in the first place, because it's your job to carry the business and the will of the committee.
Given the fact we are in a minority Parliament, one would expect that there would be more discussions around these things. I understand your position. I don't agree, though, that the parameters of the bill have exceeded this. I believe that if we've asked Madam May to come to this committee with amendments, we shouldn't be able to dispose of them without actually having a full debate.
In lieu of that, Mr. Chair, I'm going to challenge your ruling, and we'll let you carry on with the proceedings from here.