Evidence of meeting #102 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was forecasting.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
You realize, Chair, that they did not provide the model we asked for. Whether there's proof or not, we simply asked for a model. That's all we asked for. They didn't provide it. That was a simple fact.
You can make your decision.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We could have a whole meeting on what exists, what doesn't exist and what was provided.
There will be no further discussion of Mr. Mazier's point of privilege, unless someone has a point of order.
5:45 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
It's more a point of clarification.
In terms of process, when someone raises a question of privilege, are members not allowed to also weigh in, much like it is done in the House?
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Apparently not. I'm only encountering this for the first time, but I'm told no. I just have to rule. That's what I'm told.
Madame Pauzé.
5:45 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
My point of order is somewhat similar. We can't discuss Mr. Mazier's point of privilege. Am I right?
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I don't think so, but we can check, if you wish. We will suspend for five minutes and check that to be absolutely certain.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We will go straight to a vote, but I would like to say one thing out of a sense of fairness. I looked at the documents here. A model is a set of equations and outputs. It looks to me like the model was provided.
If you feel you need more information, and that the data here somehow raises more questions, you can table another motion at another date.
As far as I'm concerned, the model has been provided. You could say, “We'd like to see the computer codes that drive the computing of the equations.” It's a never-ending argument. If you feel it's insufficient, I would suggest that you table another motion saying you want precision on this, that and the other thing.
There is no debate.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
I have a point of order.
Earlier today in the House of Commons—
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
5:50 p.m.
An hon. member
It's not.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
If you guys don't like it...
I've been told that you're wrong.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Let's just go to the vote. We have to discuss some future business in camera, or else we can't really have a meeting on Thursday.
Mr. Ali, is your hand up?
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
Shafqat Ali Liberal Brampton Centre, ON
I have a point of clarification about the vote.
Are we voting?
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I ruled that this is not a question of privilege, that it does not relate to privilege. Obviously, there are those who disagree.
Mr. Mazier has challenged my ruling, so we're voting on whether members agree to sustain the chair, or if members agree with him.
We'll go to the vote, and we will be done with this particular item.
5:50 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I have a point of clarification. If I vote no, whose side am I supporting?
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
As I understand it, I don't think there will be a debate after this. Will there be?
5:55 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Ms. Natalie Jeanneault
If it's a no, then Mr. Mazier moves his motion.