Evidence of meeting #15 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was vehicle.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Eric St-Pierre Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
I'd like a clarification. Did the member from the Bloc Québécois move to reduce the number of meetings from seven to four?
Liberal
Bloc
Patrick Bonin Bloc Repentigny, QC
Mr. Chair, I propose a subamendment. I think we could also invite the minister.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Angelo Iacono
The subamendment therefore proposes to limit the number of meetings to four. Did I hear that correctly?
Conservative
Ellis Ross Conservative Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We can't really be having a conversation until we're clear on what the government's approach is, on the plan. We've heard very general statements in the budget about the emissions cap being lifted or not being lifted but being contingent on other measures. We can't really go back and talk to our constituents about a “what if” initiative. I mean, it's our job to respond to government policies as long as it's here in black and white. We have nothing to go on here. We have absolutely nothing.
I agree with my colleagues in saying that it is really important that we get the minister here to describe exactly what the initiative is before we start considering studies like this. Right now, we're just going on rhetoric and politics. We need a clear, definitive plan based on being the strongest country in the G7 and being an energy superpower. The emissions cap is important to Canadians. Given our job here, I think the minister is crucial to answering a lot of these questions before we go forward in determining our work schedule.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Angelo Iacono
I want to remind the committee that the minister is scheduled to come on December 1.
Is there any further debate?
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I don't really want to ask questions, but perhaps my Liberal colleagues across the way may know and be able to respond after. This is just to build on my colleague Mr. Ross's comments regarding the timeliness and lack of information, assuming that the budget language is around strengthening.... That's leaving aside the emissions cap, but it's certainly an issue that we may want to study.
To my colleague across the way, yes, I am more than happy to talk about the industrial tax on everything in this country, but until we reach a point where it's clear what the government's plan is, I find it silly for us to try to make comments without knowing what the actual plan is. I would like to propose a different approach to this study, recognizing that I would like to have this study, which will be in February or March. Again, I would be shocked if the government didn't move forward with some sort of clarity on what a new carbon tax scheme looks like by then.
Are we on debate for an amendment right now?
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Okay.
My point is that I'd like to invite the minister and officials to come for two hours after the announcement is made to explain what the changes are. Then, if this committee so chooses, at that point in time—maybe we'll all agree that they are incredibly great changes, or maybe we'll think they are not strong enough, or whatever the situation might be—we could look at whether it's the specific language of this motion as presented or something different, but it comes forward with the same purpose, which is to study the industrial carbon tax.
I just think it behooves us to allow the government to do ITS work and fulfill ITS promises and then for us to criticize—not to just come up and pontificate and waste this committee's time when we have so many other issues. Locking it in, whether it be for even four meetings, really reduces the ability for us to be nimble. By the time we are studying this, there may be yet another environment commissioner's report on a whole suite of other issues. I just think it behooves us to remain nimble and responsive to issues as they emerge on the international stage and on the domestic stage.
Again, hopefully there's a middle ground here if we bring the minister and officials to talk specifically about what strengthening the industrial carbon tax means; we allow her to explain what the policy is and what it's going to be; we from there revisit this issue; and then we decide how many meetings make sense, based on the changes the government has put forward.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Angelo Iacono
I think we've gone out of scope here.
I would like members to follow the process. I let you speak to be courteous, but the next time I won't.
There is an amendment. There is a subamendment. I think we need to clarify and complete the subamendment, and then move it to a vote.
On the subamendment, which was Mr. Grant, and then Mr. Bonin, to bring it to four encounters from seven, can I have a vote on that?
Bloc
Patrick Bonin Bloc Repentigny, QC
Excuse me, Mr. Chair.
I want to intervene for added clarity. The subamendment proposes to hold four meetings and invite the minister.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
No, hold on. It's very difficult to vote on very vague language like that, because words matter in terms of the invitation.
I would like to see the language of that subamendment. The way I interpret that, and the way I hope it would be received, is that there would be a maximum of four meetings, including an appearance by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change at one of those four meetings. The word “and” in there can be ambiguous. If we are moving too quickly and on the fly, I feel like we don't exactly know what we are voting on.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Angelo Iacono
You've just made the puzzle a lot more difficult to deal with, because you've added an amendment to an amendment to a subamendment.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Mr. Chair, I am trying to get clarity. Perhaps the clerk could read out what the subamendment—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Angelo Iacono
I think there was clarity to start off with. There was discussion with respect to the number of meetings, and then there was discussion with respect to having the minister attend. I think now we're going to move to a vote.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.
With all due respect, it is entirely reasonable for me to ask how the subamendment will read if it is passed by a vote. I'm just asking that you or the clerk read out what the subamended motion would read as.
The Clerk of the Committee Leif-Erik Aune
The original motion did not prescribe a duration for the study. As I understood it, Mr. Grant's amendment to the motion was to prescribe that the study run for seven meetings. Then Monsieur Bonin moved a subamendment to Mr. Grant's amendment, that the study last for four meetings, and that Minister Dabrusin be invited.
For the minutes, I would spell out the minister's full title.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Angelo Iacono
Perfect. We've heard the clerk explain the subamendment. I'm bringing it now to a vote.
(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're resuming debate now on the original motion.
Mr. Leslie, please go ahead.
