Evidence of meeting #36 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 chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:55 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay, great. That's wonderful.
Of course, we don't need a reprint of the bill because it wasn't amended. Is that correct?
November 15th, 2022 / 4:55 p.m.
The Clerk
Yes, Mr. Chair.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Good, okay. I'm finally getting the hang of this.
I see that the witnesses are leaving. Thank you for your input.
In terms of our next meeting, I sent out a notice to suggest that we continue with the review of the first draft of the fossil fuels report, the report from the study. Should I assume that it is the will of the committee that we proceed to the fossil fuels study on Friday?
4:55 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Are there any comments?
I don't see anyone with their hand up.
4:55 p.m.
The Clerk
Mr. Chair, Mr. Weiler would like to speak.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Patrick Weiler Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Sorry if I'm jumping ahead here, but there was an email sent out to the committee a few weeks ago asking committee members to send in their recommendations in advance. I want to remind folks of that, just so we can be more efficient when we start looking at the drafting of the report on Friday.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
The plan was to proceed with Bill S-5 on the 22nd. Does that meet with the will of the committee?
Go ahead, Mrs. Vignola.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Mr. Chair, I would suggest, on behalf of my colleague Monique Pauzé, that consideration of Bill S‑5 be postponed until November 29, because 48 hours to find witnesses, when Ms. Pauzé herself isn't even on Canadian soil, is very short. I will avoid repeating what was said in our email exchange.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Would anyone else like to speak to that?
Go ahead, Mr. Deltell.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I agree with my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou. Forty-eight hours is very short, and we don't think it's enough. We would have liked to take part in the discussion on this, especially since these people must be consulted on their availability before being invited to appear, and this requires technical preparation. We therefore support the request of our Bloc Québécois colleague.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
5 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Given the importance of Bill S-5, I think we will have multiple meetings on this and we should try to move forward with it. We, in the committee, all knew that this was coming. We watched it go through the House. I would look forward to getting on to it at the next meeting on Tuesday.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Does anyone else have comments? We've heard from three parties here.
5 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Mr. Chair, if I may, I'd like to come back to this.
Bill S‑5 is indeed a very important bill, if not an extremely important one. We need to take the time to get it right.
It's not a matter of delaying it indefinitely. We're asking for it to be postponed for one week so that everyone has the opportunity to submit a full list of witnesses.
In the committee that I normally sit on, it seems to me that this discussion is taking place as part of planning committee business. All the partners have to agree on the decision. In other words, it's not a unilateral decision made by whoever.
This is about getting it right and making sure that everyone has time to find witnesses. There is a list of witnesses, yes, but sometimes we have to call them back to see if they want to participate in our study and if they have something relevant to say.
It is precisely in order to do things properly and to not rush anything that we're asking for it to be postponed until November 29. That would give us a little more time to prepare the list of witnesses.
Also, I'm sure the clerks and analysts will be just as pleased to have a little more time to get in touch with the witnesses. I don't know if any of my colleagues have done this before, but it's a huge task to call people and make sure they have the right equipment if they're going to participate remotely.
We want to ensure the quality of the process and the witnesses. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that we should be concerned about the mental health of analysts and clerks, who are entitled to a quality of life at work with a little less stress.
I don't think it's too much to postpone the study for one week because it would give everyone a chance to get it right. This is an extremely important bill.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Mrs. Vignola, if I understood correctly, you are moving a motion?
5 p.m.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
I'd like to add something, Mr. Chair.
The reason we need to take the time to do the work is because the bill, our work and the testimony are important. We need to respect the people who are going to come and testify, and all the people who make this committee work. We need to extend the deadline by a few days. We can't put together a list of witnesses and ensure their attendance in 48 hours.
If people happen to think that a week's postonement is too long, I would remind them that the bill was introduced in the previous Parliament. If the process is already a year late because of the Prime Minister's personal decision to call an election, those people can wait a few more days to hear testimony. This is the right thing to do in an important, serious parliamentary process, and one in which we must be proud guardians of fairness in our work.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Mrs. Vignola, am I to understand that you are moving a motion to start on November 29?
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay. So we have the choice between November 22 and 29.
Would anyone else like to add anything before we go to the vote?
You're back, Mr. Kurek. Go ahead.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Thank you, Chair.
Forgive me, being new to a vice-chair role, but I was surprised in the meeting prior to the break when the Liberals moved to adjourn the meeting when committee business was scheduled at the end. It came as a bit of a surprise.
We have been working and are continuing to work on Bill S-5. I hope we can find the collaborative spirit that I'm told is important at this committee to ensure that we can find that path forward.
I think the 29th...especially since a week was lost because of that early adjournment a little over a week ago. I think an extra week to ensure that we have the time to do this right is entirely reasonable. There's a lot of other work as well that could be done during the meetings. I think there are two draft reports, if I'm recalling the schedule properly. I think lots of things can be done.
I would support the motion, but I would hope that we could just come to an agreement as a committee that this would be a very reasonable path forward and it fits the best interests of certainly where Conservatives are coming from, as Monsieur Deltell has said, but also the Bloc and our friend who is not here.
5:05 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
I'll continue along the same lines as my colleague. Another important project for the committee to complete is the report marking the end of its study on fossil fuel subsidies. I'll be doing some of that with you, since I'm replacing my colleague.
We need to finish this report so we can free our minds to focus fully on the study of Bill S‑5. This bill was passed unanimously in the House of Commons, so I don't think there are a lot of political or strategic obstacles.
That's the other reason I'm asking that the start of the study of Bill S‑5 be postponed until November 29. This will allow the committee to complete its report before beginning its work on Bill S‑5 with a clear mind, quality witnesses, and analysts and clerks who are not exhausted.