Evidence of meeting #16 for Natural Resources in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cullen.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:45 p.m.
The Clerk
We received the lists drawn up by the chairman and the committee together. So far, there has been no request of this type. However, this aspect is part of the committee researcher's report. That is one part of the study that will be done.
3:45 p.m.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
It might be a good idea to hear from the mayor of Fort McMurray.
3:45 p.m.
The Clerk
I am in the hands of the committee, Mr. Chairman. If you want to invite the mayor of Fort McMurray, I will give him a call.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Is it the wish of the committee to include others on the social side? Can I get a general sense from the committee? I'm getting some nodding heads, so it seems that we are in general agreement. Very well.
One name has been suggested, the mayor of Fort McMurray, but there are several others. We have also already contacted the chiefs of two native bands in the area, at Fort Chipewyan and Fort McKay, which are very close. We could show those to the committee members, ask if there are any more suggestions, and then get them in by Thursday so that we can make sure the space is covered. We could perhaps do that on November 7 as well, and it might be wise to at least see one of these before we go to Fort McMurray.
Could I ask you then to redouble your efforts to get them to the clerk before the Thursday meeting? We can then decide on which of the probably half a dozen suggestions we will try to accommodate.
I guess that was part of the discussion on the budget.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Roy Cullen Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
I'd like to move that we adopt the budget on the hearings. On the travel budget, we can then wait until we hear something about the helicopters.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
On the operational budget, I have a motion, seconded by Mr. Harris, that the proposed operational budget in the amount of $38,800, for the period of October 16 to December 31, 2006, be adopted.
(Motion agreed to)
We have approved the committee budget, and we'll wait to hear on the second part of the travel budget. The clerk will be gone for a minute to do that
We can proceed with the orders of the day, committee business, and the notice of motion from the Honourable Mr. Cullen.
Mr. Cullen.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Roy Cullen Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman as well as my committee colleagues.
I will start by presenting my motion to reinstate the wind power production incentive.
In this committee I think we're pretty familiar with these programs, Mr. Chairman. The two that I'll speak to today were dismantled, frozen, or put into limbo by this government.
The wind power production incentive program was designed to encourage the use and development of wind power projects in Canada, something I think is very important.
In light of the fact that wind energy is developing quickly in Canada and that it will be one of the main part of our efforts to diversify our sources of energy over the next 20 years, this is not the time to freeze or cancel such an important program.
The Liberal Party and the Liberal government recognize this fact. That is why, in the 2005 budget, we made a commitment to expand the wind power production incentive by quadrupling the previous program and promising $200 million over five years.
The private sector is very receptive to this and the comments from industry regarding the program have always been very positive.
Mr. Chair, the recent report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development stated that the wind power production incentive has stimulated investment. The commissioner goes on to say that there was broad-based support for the program from provincial governments, companies, and utilities. Further, and thanks in part to this program, the Canadian wind energy industry has shown impressive growth with an annual average increase of more than 30% for the last five years. A recent report shows that wind energy firms are optimistic about future growth.
With the proper support and development, wind energy could easily meet 20% of Canada's total electricity needs, based on an initial target of 10,000 megawatts, by 2010. Experience in other countries such as Denmark and Spain is clearly demonstrating that wind energy can make substantive and significant contributions to total electricity supply.
The decision by the Minister of Natural Resources, Mr. Chairman, to freeze further funding for this program is imperilling this important industry and is imperilling many jobs and investment. For example, every one megawatt of installed wind energy capacity in Canada generates $1.5 million in investment and creates 2.5 direct and 8 indirect person-years of employment. If 5% of Canada's electricity was generated by wind energy by 2015, such development would produce $19.5 billion in investment and create 32,500 direct and 104,000 indirect person-years of employment.
Therefore, given that this program was being utilized and was effective, and given that we all recognize that wind energy is an important component in Canada's future power supply, we must, in my judgment, immediately reinstate this program. With the support of the committee, I would ask that the Minister of Natural Resources do so immediately.
Shall I present the second motion, Mr. Chairman, or would it be better to discuss the first one first?
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
I think perhaps it might be better if I interrupt you at this point, Mr. Cullen. It's my opinion that the motions as written are out of order in their present form and wouldn't be accepted by the committee at this point. I could go on to cite Beauchesne's, but it is my opinion, at this point, that the somewhat argumentative nature of the motions makes them out of order.
I would suggest to all committee members that it might be useful to seek the advice of the clerk before giving notices of motions so that they could advise you on the procedural acceptability of such motions.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Roy Cullen Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to hear more from either you or the clerk as to the rationale for not accepting them.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
It is Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, 6th edition. It states: “A motion should be neither argumentative, nor in the style of a speech, nor contain unnecessary provisions or objectionable words”. That is page 174, citation 565. The chair finds that this motion is argumentative in the style of a speech and contains unnecessary provisions or objectionable words.
That doesn't prevent you from bringing back the motion in a slightly different form, but I am ruling it out of order today.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd St. Amand Liberal Brant, ON
I would appreciate some clarification on what portion or snippet of the motion you find argumentative or objectionable. Why exactly do you wish to rule it out of order?
With respect, I don't read the motion as being unduly argumentative.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
I will refer it to the clerk, whose ruling I have just cited. Perhaps you could explain it further.
3:55 p.m.
The Clerk
Mr. Chair, it's not out of order by much. Members know that when giving a notice to the Journals Branch, for instance, preambles aren't generally accepted. I examined the motion as written and determined that the debatable part would be the final sentence of each substantive motion. In the EnerGuide motion, it would be: “that the committee, in the interest of sound public policy”. That would be the motion. In the other one it would be: “that the committee call upon the government and the Minister of Natural Resources to immediately reinstate the full funding of the EnerGuide program.” Those would be the motions.
If the committee's intention would be to report these motions, if adopted, back to the House, then I would suggest that the initial part preceding the motion part be set off from the bottom motion and included as part of a report. As a stand-alone motion, I don't think it can stand, because of Beauchesne's and the precedents that have been accepted.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Roy Cullen Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
With respect, Mr. Chair, and to the clerk, I don't know how you could argue this, or on what precedent you might be relying. I've seen many motions in many committees, and there is normally a contextual introduction. To go straight into the motion presumes that everybody is fully up to speed on what we're talking about.
I want to challenge the chair's decision. How do we go about that?
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
I'm prepared to entertain another possibility. I think the committee can unanimously do what it wants to. The committee could waive notice of a motion with less argumentative language. In respect to Mr. St. Amand, I think it's argumentative to suggest that this was done for political reasons, or as a result of a reckless decision. That's my view. Whether or not you agree, it's my opinion and that of the clerk as well.
Mr. Harris, do you want to speak to that?
4 p.m.
Conservative
Dick Harris Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Mr. Chair, thank you.
I want to maybe agree with the part Mr. Cullen said in his previous statement, to the effect that we take the assumption that most members of the committee are fully aware of and familiar with this issue.
I think I would like to apply that reasoning to the motion itself, the wording of it, where it's called a reckless decision. Quite frankly, I'm not as familiar with the wind energy system as perhaps Mr. Cullen is, and I would say that I'm probably not alone on this committee. Before I would vote on a motion like this, which makes assumptions about the program in the motion, I would like to be a little more aware and more educated about wind energy so that I could intelligently debate the motion.
At the end of the day I may agree with the member that maybe it is a reckless decision. At the end of the day I may not agree with him. But I would not be prepared to accept the wording of this motion based on, maybe, the singular knowledge of Mr. Cullen. I think that while everyone probably has an idea about wind energy and its benefits or deficits, there are some of us who know a whole lot more about it than the others.
If you look at what the motion's asking of the government, it's a fairly substantial motion. I don't think it should be arbitrarily debated without having the full resources of knowledge of the industry a little more distributed throughout the committee. I'd be happy to debate it, but I'd like to have the benefit of hearing some experts here to tell us a little bit more about the industry before we decide arbitrarily whether it's a reckless decision or not.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Robert Thibault Liberal West Nova, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This discussion, presumably, has happened extensively in Parliament, because the member voted for the budget implementation measures and the other actions that removed this funding. At that time he must have had confidence and have had a full debate and full questioning and all the benefit through his caucus and through Parliament, to know about these things prior to removing the budget.
It seems to me we're at a little bit of an impasse. But let's say this motion went through or a motion resembling this. It goes through and it's reported to the House and then you have that debate. You have that full debate in the House of Commons; it continues the process. It seems to me that we're at a little bit of an impasse, and perhaps the wording here isn't the best advisable wording for a motion or a report of a committee. But if we go through the process and the member challenges the chair and if the opposition votes against the government and the challenge wins, then that motion goes through.
The alternative would be to have unanimous consent and give the member a few minutes to rewrite the motion in a manner that might be more acceptable, then that it be presented at this very meeting of the committee. In that sense, it might be a better way to move forward.