Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Dec. 7th, 2023

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

No. We were talking about the supply chain and the ratcheting-up effect that the carbon tax has on the price of products.

Mr. Zimmer here, just in question period, was pointing out that a can of Campbell's soup was something like $11 in Nunavut. Why is that? It's because somebody has to get that can of Campbell's soup to Nunavut. What does it take to get a can of cream of mushroom to Iqaluit? It takes a boat ride or a plane ride to get it there. I imagine you could, if you wanted to, drive over the ice at certain times of the year. It's a plane ride most of the time. What does that take? It takes energy. We've put a carbon tax on the energy, so you can see, just in that can of Campbell's soup going to Iqaluit, that the carbon tax is making life more expensive for everyone.

It doesn't matter if it's food. It doesn't matter if it's hygiene products. Whatever you're getting, there is an energy component to that product. The carbon tax is added along the way. Every single piece of the supply chain is having the carbon tax added. That makes life more expensive.

We see now that the government has blinked. They've acknowledged that their carbon tax does make life more untenable for Canadians, particularly in Atlantic Canada. I would note that when the Prime Minister was announcing his pause on the home heating oil carbon tax, it was only Atlantic Canadian MPs who were standing behind him during that announcement.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

I can confirm that.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Jaime might have been one of the people standing behind him during that announcement, because this was just a purely crass political calculation. After the fact, when they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar, so to speak, they said it applied clear across the country. It wasn't just for Atlantic Canadians. It was for Canadians everywhere across the country who are on home heating oil.

That has now caused a domino effect of organizations and populations and provinces across the country saying that, if one part of the country can get the carbon tax removed on their home heating, why isn't this good for all Canadians? The first nation communities are having to come cap in hand to the federal government to raise funds to continue to get their communities to operate, only to have to pay the carbon tax to heat their buildings. They've put forward a number of initiatives now to question the federal government as to why that is.

I think it would be entirely appropriate for our committee to hear from some of these community leaders and communities as to the effects of the carbon tax on their communities and what percentage of their budget the carbon tax consumes.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you, Mr. Viersen.

Next on my list I have Mr. Battiste.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

I have a motion to adjourn debate so that we can get back to the legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We'll call the question on that.

[An hon. member]

I'd like a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

We'll move back to the bill before us.

We left off at new clause 3.1, with NDP-2 being next up.

Ms. Idlout, would you like to move NDP-2?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Do I have to read it?

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

You can just indicate that you want to move it.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

I move to add new clause 3.1, as submitted.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Ms. Idlout moves NDP-2.

With that, I just want to point out to our colleagues at the table that, if NDP-2 is moved, CPC 1.3 cannot be moved as they are identical.

Shall NDP-2 carry?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Can we discuss it?

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I just called the question.

We'll have a recorded vote.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Thank you.

Then we'll move past CPC-1.3, which is no longer in play.

Would the member like to move NDP-2.1?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Yes, I would like to move NDP-2.1.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

On this one, there is a ruling I'd like to share with the committee.

Bill C-53 seeks to advance the recognition of the right to self-determination, including the inherent right of self-government, recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, of certain Métis collectivities and the recognition of the authority of Métis governments to act on behalf of those collectivities.

The amendment seeks to clarify that “nothing in this Act is to be construed as recognizing any right or claim of any Métis collectivity that is represented by a Métis government set out in column 1 of the schedule”.

As the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

It is the opinion of the chair, since Bill C-53 seeks to recognize the right to self-determination of certain Métis collectivities, that the amendment is contrary to the principle of the bill; therefore, the amendment is inadmissible.

That's the ruling of the chair on NDP-2.1.

Mr. Viersen.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to challenge that ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We'll then go to a vote to sustain the chair.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Do you think we could get an explanation? Can they explain to us why, procedurally?

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Procedurally, I'm informed it's straight to the vote.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

We can't get an explanation as to why—

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I have explained it in what I just read. Briefly, it's beyond the scope of the bill passed at second reading. That's where we have exceeded the.... We're beyond it.

Bill C-53 seeks to recognize the right to self-determination of certain Métis collectivities. This amendment is contrary because it would not recognize any right or claim of any Métis collectivity that's represented by a Métis government set out in column 1 of the schedule. That's where it exceeds.

With that, there's no debate allowed once we get into it. That's the explanation, so we'll call the required vote with our clerk leading that.

The question is whether to sustain the chair's ruling that NDP-2.1 is inadmissible.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)

(On clause 4)

This leads us to clause 4.

First up, we have CPC-1.4. Would the member like to move this amendment?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Chair, do we not have to approve 3.1 before we move to clause 4?

We voted on the amendment, but did we vote on the approval of it? We've added a whole new clause now, essentially, so we need to vote to approve that clause, as far as I know.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I'll turn to my experts for an explanation.

[Dancella Boyi, Legislative Clerk]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

That is the usual process for the clause already contained in the bill; however, when an amendment seeks to create a new clause—for example, in this case, new clause 3.1—by adopting NDP-2, that new clause is automatically created, so you don't have to vote on it. By adopting NDP-2, that new clause is automatically created.