Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 17th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Go ahead, Mr. Cullen.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I was going to say that in fairness, if there's a compromise we can work on, I'm happy to take out a couple of the more animated words. But the motions have been with the committee for about seven or eight days now and we had no indication that they might be out of order. We've had witnesses on both these programs and we've had ample time to do the research.

If there's a compromise in the wind, I'm happy to take out some of the more colourful language and do it that way. For example, on the wind power, we could say that the committee recognizes the Conservatives “have frozen the popular and effective wind power production incentive program. From the result of this decision, the industry has been thrown into disarray, putting jobs and future investment at risk. The committee calls upon the government and the minister to immediately reinstate full funding for this program.”

It seems to me every motion I've dealt with in the past had somewhat of a preamble. To say that the motion would only have the last sentence doesn't give anybody any context. I would accept, perhaps, that some of the language is a bit colourful. Do you think we could do it that way?

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I'm at the will of the committee.

Go ahead, please, Mr. Harris.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Chairman, I think there might be a compromise. Mr. Cullen's a reasonable man. Maybe it is worth having a debate about this. I would like to suggest that maybe instead of using the word “reinstate”, you use the word “reconsider”, which would lead to a debate on it in the House. At the end of the debate, there would be a vote. How's that for a compromise? Perhaps we could all be more comfortable with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Tonks, go ahead, please.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I think that when Mr. Cullen drafted this motion, there were two things. One was that at the last meeting of the committee, we had the Commissioner of the Environment's report in which she stated that officials from Treasury Board and from the department should come before the committee to answer questions with respect to some of the substantive programs. You recall that we had a bit of a discussion; there were no motions passed, but it was very clear there was a consensus that officials should be here.

I think that Mr. Cullen was presuming, when the motion was drafted--and I don't mean to presume that I can infer what he had in mind.... I would have drafted this motion against the deputy who would be coming in, and I would have used the motion as a guide for questioning, and not only as a guide for myself but as a guide for members of the committee, about the EnerGuide program and about the wind power programs.

The fact is that this whole process has been truncated. The drafting--if I'm correct in the inference I've drawn--and even the process of extracting information and validating the inferences I'm drawing from the motion have been truncated by the fact that we don't have officials here.

Now, surely we can understand that there is an issue with respect to the two programs, which was raised by the Commissioner of the Environment. It would seem to me you have one of two choices: one, you refer this back to Mr. Cullen to redraft it, against the fact that at the next meeting we're going to have officials here; or two, you can redraft it right now, and we can have a consensus with respect to the two substantive programs, very simply, that we ask the appropriate officials to reinstate the programs. That can go for debate at the House, but I would suggest that it will be debate in the absence of questions that can be answered by officials. The committee will have to determine whether it wants to delay this particular proceeding.

My suggestion would be that we make an effort at redrafting it very quickly and then poll the committee to see whether they're satisfied that there's enough information to discuss it. It's always up to members of the committee to defer if there isn't enough information, or if there are inappropriate inferences and so on, and to table the motions. That can all be done, but nothing can happen unless we make a decision based on accurate assumptions.

I think my assumptions are correct, and I hope Mr. Cullen agrees that this debate would have been very focused had we had officials. We don't have the officials. Thus, Mr. Harris is saying, look, I can't extract any information; I can't accept those inferences as correct unless I have officials here.

So I think just to be practical, pragmatic, and fair in terms of process--because this is going to be a long committee--let's be clear in terms of the processes we're putting in place. In the absence of the officials, let Mr. Cullen see if he can redraft it. If we're satisfied, let's discuss it. If we're not satisfied that either the drafting or the information that we have can be brought to bear on the issue, it can be tabled or it can be deferred. There are a number of motions that can be had. If we don't do something, we're going to be at an impasse, and I don't suggest that's healthy for the committee.

So my suggestion would be to let Mr. Cullen take a crack at some redrafting here. We can decide whether it's appropriate to go on. If it isn't, then we have some motions to table it, and we have the officials in, and we have at it at the next meeting, which will be Thursday, Mr. Chair. So let's not bend ourselves too far out of shape on this one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I think those are very good points. I should say at the outset that I appreciate your efforts in trying to bring some civility to the discussion. I regret that you weren't advised that the motions were out of order prior to the meeting. I think we could have gotten over a lot of this in the meantime simply with some minor revisions, perhaps as suggested by Mr. Harris.

But we're into it now, so I'll hear the people in the order of the speakers list, and we have Monsieur Paradis next.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

I really don't have anything new to add, except to say that I am in full agreement with Mr. Harris regarding changing the wording of the motion. In my humble opinion, I think it would be possible to reach a consensus if we were to talk about reconsidering funding rather than reinstating the program. That would be more appropriate. That would enable us to have an exploratory debate that would make some sense.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Ouellet.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

I am inclined to agree with Mr. Tonks. I think it is important that we move forward with our work. If we are constantly postponing things, we will never make any decisions.

Although I am new to this committee, I have worked on committees for a number of years for the party. I think the idea of re-wording the motion a little is quite acceptable. Of course, if I had drafted it, I would have worded it differently, but each one of us could say that. However, we are here together at this table to try to reach some agreement.

However, I do not really agree with Mr. Harris when he says that we need to get more explanations and information before making such an important decision. I may be naive, Mr. Chairman, but I thought that everyone at this table was a specialist in energy matters and natural resources. It seems to me that people must have been chosen, among all the members of Parliament, because they knew what they were talking about on this issue. I am sure that Mr. Harris knows a great deal more than he is suggesting.

In addition, when we get a motion of this type several days ahead, we have an opportunity to ask questions of our assistants and researchers in our own parties in order to get a clear idea on the issues before we come to the meeting.

I do not think we should postpone things on the pretext that we do not have enough information on the subject.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We too agree that this motion is important, and it could very well go ahead at this meeting. I think clearly the issue that you brought up, that there wasn't notification back to the person who made the motion about the inappropriate language, would mitigate somewhat your decision to call it out of order. I would say we should move ahead with this, allow Mr. Cullen to redraft the motion, and get a vote on it here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. St. Amand.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Thank you again, Mr. Chair.

I guess you learn something every day. I rather thought that the motion itself was simply what the government was being asked to do. I read—and frankly still do, perhaps naively--the motion as being the last sentence, what the committee is actually asking to do, and the wording that proceeds that as preamble, contextual framework, call it what you may.

But I don't find the last sentence argumentative or inappropriate. I thought that was the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I should say that in the course of the discussion, the clerk has been whispering in my ear that it's not up to me to make that call any further. I'm just going on a recommendation from Beauchesne.

In response to that, Mr. St. Amand, I'll ask the indulgence of the committee again to hear from the clerk why it is the way it is.

[The Clerk]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Through you, Mr. Chair, you're exactly right, Mr. St. Amand. The last sentence is the motion. The problem with the motion is that it's in the same paragraph as the preamble. That's what makes it out of order. By having it in one body, it makes it as if it's a stand-alone motion. The only thing you would have to do is separate the motion from the preamble, and that would be fine. That's the only issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Cullen.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Then why don't we do that?

I'd like to come back to Mr. Harris's point and the parliamentary secretary's point. We refer to reviewing the funding for this program; the government has been doing that for many months, so I wouldn't bring a motion to committee to ask the committee to ask the government to do something it is already doing.

This motion calls for the government to reinstate full funding for the program. I'm not prepared to go with that wording, but I would be prepared to split out the motion from the preamble. If the committee finds some of the wording too colourful on the wind power production incentive program, take out from the preamble, “the Minister of Natural Resources had frozen the popular, effective wind power program. As a result of this decision the industry has been thrown into...”, and then split off the motion from the preamble. I'm quite happy to do that.

It's the same with the EnerGuide program. I didn't give my remarks on the EnerGuide program, but to talk about the need for officials--we've had officials here speaking specifically on this particular program on a couple of occasions. I spoke to Mr. Paradis about perhaps bringing the Treasury Board and Finance Canada officials here. He tells me that they're not able to do that, or won't do that; I'm not sure. Frankly, we have enough information to deal with this motion, but I'd be prepared to make that compromise--to take out a couple of colourful wordings and to split off the motion from the preamble.

On the EnerGuide program, would it be in order to take out the words, “for political reasons” and just say “the minister has terminated this effective and efficient program”, and then separate out the motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Let me just clarify where we are with regard to Beauchesne's and the rules of order here.

It might first be useful to the committee to understand the intent of the motion. Is it the intent of the mover of the motion to have this presented to the House, or is it to be a resolution of the committee?

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

It would be as a resolution of the committee. What happens beyond the committee is not my call.

I have a motion in front of the committee. That's what we're dealing with.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Fine. It's clear, then, that it would be a resolution of the committee.

Before we go any further, though, in this vein, a point that was made in the early part of the meeting has to be made again. It is that the motions, as they have been presented, have been ruled out of order. The alternative is to resubmit the motion, with notice, at the next meeting of the committee. An alternative to that is to seek unanimous consent of the committee to waive notice. Then you could make amendments now, and we could deal with it at this meeting.

I just want everyone to be clear on where we stand.

Madame DeBellefeuille is next.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm not really up to speed yet on committee procedure. If I understood what the clerk said correctly, if Mr. Cullen had left two spaces after his preamble, we could have accepted his motion, because then the preamble would have been separate.

So we are using reasons having to do with the layout of the text and typographical considerations in order to disallow a motion or rule it out of order. I think that if the people at this table wanted to act in good faith, we could agree to say that the important thing is to call for the reinstatement of the EnerGuide Program or the WPPI Program.

I would like the clerk to provide me with some information about procedure should I decide to table a motion. If a member of Parliament gives you a motion almost 7 days ahead of time, is it not up to you to find out immediately whether or not the motion is in order, so that the member can amend it or find out more about the situation?

[The Clerk]

Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.

The problem is that Mr. Cullen had submitted his notice at a meeting and the motion was distributed to committee members. Since the motion had already been submitted to the committee, there was nothing to be done until it was dealt with by the committee.

If Mr. Cullen — and this applies to any other member as well — had come to see me before submitting his notice, I could have mentioned the aspects of the motion that might give rise to problems. Since the motion had been distributed to the committee, my position was somewhat unclear. There could have been political implications. I did not know what the intentions were. Since committee members already had the motion, it was not really up to me to tell the mover of the motion that it should be changed, and then redistributed. Do you see what I mean?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Yes, I see, but if Mr. Cullen had agreed immediately to separate the preamble from the motion, could we debate it today or Thursday? Could we assume that he has tabled it today, so that we can discuss it on Thursday?

[The Clerk]

As the Chairman mentioned, we would need unanimous consent in order to change the motion today. Otherwise, it would be a new motion, and it would be necessary to comply with the requirement for 24 hours notice.

I must say that by separating the motion in the committee's minutes of proceedings, only the motion would appear. The preamble would appear only if the committee decided to report to the House. In that case, the preamble would be the report, and the motion would be the adoption of the report.