Evidence of meeting #116 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Point of order, Mr. Chair.
In everyone's interest and to ensure that the committee runs smoothly, it would be best not to go in that direction. Otherwise, given that there are several points and several guests, members will want to amend things and there will be subamendments for several minutes.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I prefer to first establish whether we should treat this as two separate amendments.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
That's why I'd like to propose a friendly amendment to Mr. van Koeverden. I propose that we hold a fourth meeting and that Mr. Ghislain Picard and the Boisaco company representatives be invited for one hour each.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I didn't see the wording, but I think Mr. van Koeverden wishes to invite other witnesses, not just Mr. Ghislain Picard.
Did I understand correctly, Mr. van Koeverden?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Could you read your amendment again, please? The change from three to four I get, but do you want to include the AFNQL?
Could you read your amendment again?
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
There are only two aspects of the motion that I intend to amend.
The first is that we hold a minimum of four meetings.
The second is that, after the current line, which reads, “and any other witnesses that the committee deems necessary”, we would add, “including AFNQL's Mr. Picard, the Municipality of Sacré-Coeur and the Boisaco cooperative for an hour.”
The friendly amendment is to make it all one sentence. It does make it seem like it's just one amendment that way, but this is totally standard, and there's no reason why we should be voting on it twice.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay, here's the way I see it. Just a second...
I understand Mr. Berthold's argument. He wants to treat this as two amendments, and he has the right to propose that.
I'll treat it as one amendment and, if Mr. Berthold wants to split it, he can always propose a subamendment. That said, I'd still like to see the wording of Mr. van Koeverden's amendment, which is in two parts. Can we send it around? That would be helpful for everyone.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
Mr. Chair, it has been sent out. It was first sent to you and the clerk.
Liberal
August 19th, 2024 / 12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
We passed a CPC amendment, and when I suggested that this could just be a subamendment, it was deemed not possible. I would say the same about a subamendment for this one.
The amendment is not to split it. I say we vote on the amendment as such and move forward. I don't know why my subamendment was deemed ineligible—my recommendation—and then this subamendment is being considered to split it in half.
I was trying to expedite things to move along and have one vote for [Inaudible — Editor] version, and now we're just trying to slow it down.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We're going to ask if anyone else wants to speak to your amendment.
Monsieur Berthold, go ahead.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Mr. Chair, I would like to propose a subamendment to the effect that the committee should hold a minimum of six meetings.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay. That is therefore a subamendment to Mr. van Koeverden's amendment; you want to increase the number of proposed meetings from four to six.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
That's exactly right, Mr. Chair.
I'd now like to talk about my subamendment.
Many people want to be part of the consultations. As my colleague Mr. Martel said earlier, numerous people have contacted his office; numerous people have made public appearances in the media; numerous citizens and workers are worried about the federal government's decision to interfere in Quebec's jurisdiction, as though Quebec is not capable of protecting both caribou and jobs, as though Ottawa knows all and as though Ottawa can do a better job than Quebec.
We therefore need to hold more meetings to demonstrate that the federal government is on the wrong track and that it must trust—as we do—that the Quebec government can protect both the caribou and forestry workers, who have not yet had the opportunity to express their views. We need to give the Quebec government a voice. We need to allow a lot of people have their say. However, four meetings won't be enough. We agree that the Boisaco group should appear. We agree that First Nations groups should appear. We want as many people as possible to have their say. We can't do that in four meetings.
Moreover, allowing the Boisaco group to testify for an hour is certainly not enough. This group has written I don't know how many letters—six, seven or eight—to the federal government denouncing the draft decree and saying how harmful it could be for the industry. At the very least, we owe it to the workers and the industry to give them the opportunity to have their say, and to give them enough time to do so.
That is why I propose we hold a total of six meetings instead of four, and that these meetings be held soon, too.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Ms. Pauzé, you have the floor to speak to Mr. Berthold's subamendment.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
We think four meetings will be enough. In fact, after four meetings, a report will have to be drawn up and then studied. If we add two meetings, we'll have to postpone the tabling of that report.
There is also the committee's other work, and there are jobs at stake there, too. People's health is at stake when it comes to oil, for example. In short, we have other issues to look at.
We believe that four meetings will be enough to do this study, because we'll also have to wait for the report and study it. We don't want to postpone all this indefinitely.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Mr. Chair, it's a shame that we can't come to an agreement about two meetings.
In our opinion, it's clear that we need to hold six meetings. Many people are affected by this, as Mr. Martel mentioned earlier. Mr. Berthold also pointed that out. Thousands of people are directly affected. In addition to forestry workers, we must also consider the socio-economic consequences in the regions directly affected. That's why we need to hear from as many people as possible.
I'd like to mention that the motion we proposed earlier, which was unfortunately rejected by everyone except us, called for testimony from industry representatives, from every possible background and, above all, from the ministers responsible. It's necessary, because this is a unique situation where the federal government is interfering in an entirely provincial jurisdiction, lecturing a provincial government and, on top of that, wanting to pass decree forcing measures to be put in place.
I think having four ministers appear is not too much. How can they justify it? There's the political lieutenant for Quebec, who dreams of being premier of Quebec. Let him testify here. I can't wait to hear him. Whose side is he on? What about theMinister of Innovation, Science and Industry, who's all proud to jet set around the world, giving Canadians' money to multinationals all over the world? What does he think about the impact this has on Quebec's regions, as a Member of Parliament from Quebec? The same goes, of course, for the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.
I don't think that four meetings will be enough. Six meetings would give us the time we need to hear from everyone.
In all honesty, I understand where Ms. Pauzé is coming from. She's been a parliamentarian for nine years and has worked hard on these issues. We understand that, in addition to the meetings, there needs to be an analysis, and that takes several meetings too. We're well aware of that. However, are we going to sacrifice testimonials from people in the industry, people who are directly affected and, also, environmental specialists who could give us their point of view, for two meetings?
Come on, folks, let's all work together for the good of the people.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Mr. Chair, these additional six hours are extremely important. I'd like to answer Ms. Pauzé's question. We don't have to do this in September, according to normal parliamentary committee schedules. We can do it next week. We can hold all our meetings next week. I say that because we know it's urgent and there's a great deal of concern in the communities involved.
Consequently, this wouldn't affect the committee's other work. All we have to do is convene the committee next week and hold the six meetings in the same week. I think we'd be able to get through it so that everyone has the opportunity to be heard.
We're not tied to the committee's regular meeting schedule. We can do this now; it would allow everyone to be heard. I don't see why we should limit ourselves to four meetings when so many stakeholders are asking to be heard and there are so many people who have things to say about Mr. Guilbeault's radical decree.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Before we move on to Ms. Pauzé, I'd like to point out that it takes a certain amount of time to invite witnesses and allow them to organize themselves to testify before the Committee. To do this in one, two or three days is ambitious.