Evidence of meeting #74 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 power.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay. That's the amendment.
Is that clear enough? Debate the amendment now.
Go ahead, Mr. Kmiec.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Very briefly, speaking of mandate letters, I have the mandate letters right here. This is why it should be a representative of the Government of Alberta. It's because you could then decide which elected representative should be brought.
However, I will note that in the mandate letter for Nathan Neudorf, the Minister of Affordability and Utilities—for whom a lot of the content of this was generated—it says:
Pushing back against any federal regulation requiring a net-zero power grid by 2035, and developing and implementing a comprehensive plan to achieve a carbon-neutral power grid by 2050 that is reliable, affordable, and utilizes small modular reactors, carbon capture, utilization and storage, and other emission-reduction technologies.
I will continue to note, because it's very material to this amendment and to the spirit of the motion, that it reads:
Reviewing the operations, policies, and mission of your agencies, including the Alberta Utilities Commission and the Alberta Electric System Operator, and recommending ways to improve their operations and align its mission with the government's goal of a carbon-neutral, reliable, and affordable power grid by 2050.
There are multiple extra points at the back end, and that's why I think you should make it broader. It's so the Alberta government can pick the representative they want to send, because maybe they will send somebody different from the cabinet to speak—
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I have a point to make. I'm sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Kmiec.
I'm told we cannot take out Mr. Brian Jean because there was an amendment that was voted on by the committee to add him. We can't go back on that.
The way I see it, this amendment is not receivable.
We're going to—
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
I'm sorry, Chair. I have a point of order.
I started debate on the motion. My assumption was that you had already determined that it was in order before you ruled it out of order, so how does that work?
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
That's a good question. I'll ask the clerk.
We're going to get back to you. I don't think it changes anything though. I don't think it changes the fact that it's not receivable, because it's not. However, we will get back to you.
12:25 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Chair, for some clarity, are we waiting on some advice on the ruling on inadmissibility?
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
Mr. Chair, if I could beg a favour of my colleagues, the next time we print off anything for distribution, would the clerk be able to send the full text of the motion? I have lost track of it and I think it would be helpful on one piece of paper. It's changed so many times and I—
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
It's not that complicated.
You know, if somebody can submit the whole text, and maybe put the portion they're amending in red—
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
That's just if we're printing it off again—not if we're not. There's a lot of empty space on these pages.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Mr. Kmiec, no, it's not receivable, notwithstanding the fact that I gave you the floor. It's not receivable, but if we go through the list that existed before you proposed the amendment, it so happens that you're on the list.
You could propose something leaving Brian Jean and adding other.... I don't know. It's up to you.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Chair, I'll make it simple. I'll pass my time to the next member on the speaking list.
12:25 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
I wanted to move that we strike the reference to the minister, but, as I understand it, that is not a receivable amendment.
As such, I have nothing further to propose.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
If I'm not mistaken, we're back to the wording we had at the end of our meeting on Tuesday.
I don't see any other speakers.
That said, we do have a problem because we can't ask the minister to explain why his company is dropping its targets. I don't know if someone can move that we move that part about the minister.
12:25 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Mr. Chair, procedure has never been my strong suit, but I believe that, with unanimous consent, we can go back to the vote on the amendment that mentioned the Minister of Energy and Minerals. The idea is that, by accepting Mr. Mazier's proposal, we would have consensus on this motion, and that's what's important to me.
Might there be unanimous consent to redo that vote?
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
As long as there's unanimous consent, we can do anything.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Yes. We're in the process of checking that.
Mr. Bachrach, the floor is yours.
12:25 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There are two things. I'll just—
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I'm sorry.
Just to answer the question, we can, by unanimous consent, go back on the amendment that added Mr. Brian Jean. We can if we want.
12:25 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Of course we can, but I don't believe we'll achieve unanimous consent, based on my understanding of the room. I was just going to propose a path forward.
First of all, I do think that an amendment to clean up the grammar, so that we're not implying that the minister has a company, is well in order. It could probably be done by unanimous consent, since we want them to have a nice, clear invitation that makes it clear why we want them to appear before the committee.
Secondly, because there are people at the table who would like to take this motion in different directions, one way to wipe the slate clean, potentially, is to vote on the motion, see where it goes, and, if it fails, propose a different motion—or we can vote on the motion, pass the motion and then propose a second motion.