Environment Committee on May 4th, 2023

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

I was referencing the House.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

No, you said that we had referenced here.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

No, I said that the House had been referenced and Mr. Ehsassi did it.

Mr. Ehsassi referenced the House just a moment ago.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

I don't believe so.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Let's just be careful about that.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

When did he reference the House?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Just a few minutes ago.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

I think you asked for some script or some context, and later maybe we could see the notes on that too and find out when he referenced the House.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Fantastic.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Let's just be careful not to delve into what has been said in camera.

Let's proceed.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Chair, I think it behooves us all to be careful. I'm not going to get into what happened in the House today, because I think that's a debate that would devolve quickly. It certainly was extraordinary for those who were watching. We would be setting a precedent, I think, especially for members of the government, who need to acknowledge that it's up to the Canadian people to decide who sits on the government benches and that, at some point, they may find themselves on the opposition benches. To deny the opportunity for meaningful engagement in an important part of the parliamentary process, I think, is a troubling precedent that we should all take pause over.

I appreciate Mr. Duguid acknowledging he delayed the committee proceedings. I would also like to apologize to the committee. There was a circumstance related to that, which led to a couple of members from our side, as well, being a couple of minutes late. Therefore, I would likewise offer this committee an apology for that.

With that, I cede the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead, Mr. Bachrach.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I find this discussion is getting more productive by the minute, so I hope we can vote before 5:30 rolls around.

I want to speak briefly to the intent behind this motion because, based on my colleague's earlier words, I fear the intent has been misunderstood.

Certainly, from my experience on the transport committee, my understanding is that the purpose of the body of the report is to accurately depict what was presented by the witnesses. In this report, there are many statements from witnesses that we disagree with, or that we think might be based on faulty assumptions or faulty data. That doesn't mean the witnesses didn't present those views or what they feel are facts. As I read through the report, what I see is that any claims made or facts presented are referenced back to the witness who presented those facts.

In terms of wanting to debate the body of the report more, I think that's in order. The motion on the floor simply proposes that we adopt the remainder of the body of the report in whole. Mostly, I made that motion on account of how much time the committee has already dedicated to the report.

However, if there are areas where my colleagues feel the language in the report or the way in which the analysts have characterized the witness testimony is not accurate or true to the records, I think those kinds of amendments would be very much in order and I would welcome them. I think the committee could do that work.

This is all based on my experience in other committees, where occasionally there are words used that we feel maybe don't reflect the testimony as accurately as they could. In those cases, we go back to the testimony. The analysts look up which witness presented those facts and we—

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I don't know whether it's going to be a point of order, but—

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

No, actually, the substance of his motion is to pass this without debate. He seems to be amending his motion. If he's moving an amendment to his motion, it would be important to know that, because the substance of his motion doesn't allow for what he's arguing for right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

He's just showing that he's flexible and wants to get the report done. He's open to other suggestions, but I don't think he's dropped the intent of his motion.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

There are some rules that are not amendable or debatable, but this is not one of them. Certainly, if there are paragraphs my colleagues feel do not reflect the witness testimony, an amendment to this motion would certainly be welcome and we can debate that amendment.

I did not mean to preclude any such debate, only to move along to what I believe to be the real work, which is going to be the recommendations. Those are going to be tough conversations and, I think, interesting ones.

I'll leave it at that.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

I know that Mr. Bachrach has never before attended while I've been on this committee. There was a work plan done where we were supposed to finish debating the body here today. Nothing has happened as far as the body goes. That would have finished by the end of today if we hadn't been so distracted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

This is debate. It's not a point of order.

Mr. Bachrach.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Chair, that was my only remark.

I didn't want it to be characterized as an unwillingness to look at potential changes in the remaining paragraphs. It's simply that we feel the remaining paragraphs in the report accurately reflect the testimony heard by the committee and we're willing to proceed to the recommendations at this time

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Remember there will also be a version two. We have a chance to go over this again. If we were to adopt Mr. Bachrach's motion, it doesn't mean we couldn't have another look at the report.

Sorry, I realize the motion is actually more definitive than that. It's to adopt the report once and for all. I thought it was to just adopt this version and then we do the recommendations.

We go now to Mr. Deltell.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I want to start my comments by saying I appreciate and want to thank the member, Mr. Duguid, who said a few minutes ago that what happened was not correct. I deeply appreciate that.

As the former prime minister of Canada the right honourable Jean Chrétien used to say, when you paint yourself into a corner, your only way out is to walk on the paint. It might not be pleasant, but there's no way around it.

I want to pay all my respects to Mr. Duguid.

If you see the right honourable Mr. Chrétien this weekend, say hello to him.