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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Yes, realistic ambition is a beautiful thing.
Ms. Pauzé, you have the floor.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
For once, I agree with my Conservative colleagues. It's true that we mustn't fall into the “Ottawa knows everything” trap. That would be very dangerous. We're defending Quebec's interests. I hope that my Conservative colleagues will not fall into the “Ottawa knows everything” trap when the time comes for them to vote on Bill 21. However, let's leave that aside for a moment.
Why stick to four meetings? The purpose of this report is to influence the minister when he's drafting his decree. That said, the minister intends to finish his consultations in September. It would be good for him to hear the witnesses who will testify before the committee; they will present a different picture of the situation, in particular the people from the Boisaco company.
To influence the minister's decision, we need move quite quickly. We need to make sure the minister understands the issue, depending on the witnesses we invite. What's more, I don't want this to become an opportunity to settle scores and advance a debatable ideology and one that, more often than not, resembles populism. I experienced that at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. We won't be inviting the entire cabinet; that's not the objective. We want the companies and key stakeholders to be heard. We also want the committee to make recommendations as quickly as possible, so that the minister respects Quebec's jurisdictions and is aware of the socio-economic impact a decree will have on the various regions of Quebec.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you.
Mr. van Koeverden.
Mr. van Koeverden, was your hand up? No? Okay. We'll go straight to Mr. Deltell.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
It is rather strange to hear my Bloc Québécois colleague constantly repeating that this is interference in areas of provincial jurisdiction and that it makes no sense. The problem is that this is not mentioned in the Bloc Québécois motion. The motion does not specify that we must denounce the federal government's interference in areas of provincial jurisdiction.
Earlier, we moved a motion that read as follows: “Committee denounces federal government interference in provincial jurisdictions;”. Who voted against that motion? It was the Bloc Québécois. In its motion, the Bloc makes no mention of this brutal reality for the provinces.
If the Bloc just wants to hear from a minister, I understand that. I think that the Quebec lieutenant, who dreams of being the Premier of Quebec, will have to explain here what side he is on. Is he on the side of the centralizing government, or is he on the side of the Premier of Quebec, who must defend Quebec's interests?
This case is not theoretical; it is real. We believe that the Minister of Transport and Quebec lieutenant should appear before the committee, as well as the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. The latter actually did not appear before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources because the members of the Bloc Québécois and the Liberal Party of Canada did not want him to. That's too bad, since we could have done it then. I would add that the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry should also appear, as the study speaks directly to the impact this is having on the forest industry.
In my opinion, six meetings is very little for all these ongoing issues and for the 2,000 jobs that are directly threatened by this Liberal government.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I don't see any more hands up.
Can we vote on the subamendment—
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
Thank you.
I just want to point out that the Conservatives have arrived here suggesting that this meeting was their idea. It was not. They didn't propose six meetings until I proposed four. If it were really important for them to have six meetings, then they would have arrived with their initial motion, which they crafted seemingly overnight, because nobody on the committee had heard of it. It would have been their priority. It seems as though they want to take full credit for this meeting. That's fine, but they didn't propose six meetings until I proposed four. If they thought it required six, then they would have come prepared with that but they didn't. This meeting was not their idea. It was Madam Pauzé's, so let's just get on with it and vote and have these important meetings so we can get to the real work.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Are we good with voting on the subamendment, which is to change four meetings to six?
Okay, let's go.
(Subamendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)
Liberal
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
As I mentioned, I have another subamendment to propose. My colleague's amendment touches on a number of topics.
My second subamendment seeks to clarify the part where it is proposed that we invite AFNQL's Ghislain Picard, as well as representatives of the municipality of Sacré-Cœur and the Boisaco Group for one hour. It's not clear whether it's one hour for all of them or one hour for each witness.
Therefore, I move that the amendment be amended so that all those stakeholders would be invited to appear for two hours each.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I have the amendment in front of me. It does say for two hours each.
Would the members like to debate the amendment or proceed to a vote?
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
I want to debate it, Mr. Chair, but I won't take very long.
I have here letters that were sent by people in the forest industry and by the Government of Quebec denouncing this interference. I also have a letter that was signed by the Boisaco Group and is addressed specifically to the Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau. The letter says that:
It is important for the Prime Minister to know that, contrary to what Mr. Guilbeault and some of the other stakeholders are saying, it would be impossible to replace lost volumes with other volumes from neighbouring supply areas.
The letter also says that:
the big ideas whereby it would be essential to plan for a transition of their trades are also a form of magical thinking, especially since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, states that sustainable forest management can play a key role in climate change mitigation.
Technical and scientific explanations will have to be provided by the Boisaco Group on these two topics, and it will take more than one hour for its representatives to explain to us the effects of forest management on climate change and why it is impossible for the Boisaco Group to replace the timber volumes that would be lost and that—
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
I have a point of order.
We're talking about the subamendment to determine whether the testimony will last an hour or two, right?
Liberal
Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC
It has been suggested that it be two hours per witness rather than one hour in total.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
I just want to know what Mr. Berthold is getting at, and what the connection is between what he is saying and the proposal to invite witnesses for two hours each rather than for one hour.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
I did speak French, though. I'm trying to explain why we need to invite representatives of the Boisaco Group for two hours.
I have a lot of respect for the witnesses who are here, Mr. Drouin, unlike you.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
It is important that the witnesses we are going to hear from here have all the time they need to explain themselves, Mr. Drouin. I'm not like you. I do not have a disrespectful attitude toward the people who come to testify before the committees.
Mr. Chair, I will just bring up the last part of the letter from Steeve St-Gelais and André Gilbert, who say that:
the government has a choice. It will either slip into Mr. Guilbeault's ideological fantasies, or it will show its ability to govern in a logical, lucid and enlightened manner by putting an end to this threat of a decree.
In their letter, they also quote the poet Alphonse de Lamartine, who said, “We don't have two hearts, one for animals and one for humans; we have one heart or we don't have any.” What the Boisaco Group people are telling us is that both jobs and woodland caribou can be protected, and they want to come and explain their view on that. It is impossible for them to do that in an hour.
Ripco and Litière Royal also sent letters, and we didn't have a chance to talk about that. We will certainly add them to our list of witnesses. They also want to explain their view to us. Let me quote from the open letter that Benjamin Dufour of Granulco and Éric Fortin of Litière Royal wrote to the Prime Minister of Canada. They say that,
on the contrary, the environment minister's militant approach is always leading us to an impasse. It creates a highly conflicting polarization that must be quickly eased in order to find fair and equitable solutions.
These people have a lot to say. We can't limit them to one hour of testimony on such an important topic when 2,000 jobs and the future of the woodland caribou are at stake. These people have to tell us how they see the future of the workers and the caribou and how we can work to protect both at the same time. So it is important that we have two hours to hear from the Boisaco Group representatives.
Thank you.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Once again, I applaud the Conservatives' recent interest in having more meetings. I would just say that if it were their priority and their strong opinion that we needed to have more than whatever was arrived at during this meeting, they could have made those changes in the motion they ran off at the top of this meeting, but they didn't.
We arrived at this meeting with these proposed changes to accommodate three additional stakeholders. It's very standard to have an hour for three stakeholders. That's 15 minutes for opening statements and an hour and 45 minutes for questions. That's more than adequate, and I would like to move on to voting on this amendment.
Again, I thank the Conservatives for their recent interest in engaging with stakeholders on this subject.
