Evidence of meeting #58 for Natural Resources in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was witnesses.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We will have a recorded division.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The proposed amendment is defeated. Are we ready for the vote on the motion?
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
I have an amendment, Chair. I know you'll appreciate this one. This is a really good one.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Monsieur Gravelle, you asked to be recognized. Do you have a proposed amendment?
NDP
Claude Gravelle NDP Nickel Belt, ON
Yes, I do, Mr. Chair.
First of all, I want to apologize to the witnesses for having to be here for this—I don't know what to call it—meeting. I can assure you this doesn't occur often, but it does occur too often.
I'm appalled at the behaviour of the Conservative members for not dealing with this at the end of the meeting, as we've done in the past. When it came to committee business in the past, we've always dealt with it at the end of the meeting. I can refer back to the motion that I introduced calling for a study on the benefits of the ecoENERGY program. That was dealt with at the end of the meeting, as has been done in the past.
Has it been done since—
Conservative
November 27th, 2012 / 12:15 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Mr. Gravelle makes a fair point when he says some motions are dealt with at the end of a meeting, but he's inaccurate when he says they are all dealt with at the end of a meeting. He knows that.
Conservative
NDP
Claude Gravelle NDP Nickel Belt, ON
Let me rephrase that. Since I've been on this committee, all of the motions have been dealt with at the end of a meeting.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
That's actually not accurate, Mr. Gravelle. I can remember....
Go ahead, Mr. Gravelle.
NDP
Claude Gravelle NDP Nickel Belt, ON
That is very, very accurate, Mr. Chair.
I'm appalled at the behaviour. Because of this behaviour and because we have some excellent witnesses today, I'm going to be presenting a motion right after this meeting that the witnesses return to this committee next Thursday. I would like the clerk to extend the invitation to these witnesses.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Monsieur Gravelle, if you're not proposing an amendment or speaking to the main motion, we can't deal with that. We have to deal with the motion first.
NDP
Claude Gravelle NDP Nickel Belt, ON
I'm just informing you that I will be introducing a motion at the end of this meeting to bring the witnesses back next Thursday.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
If we get to it, that's fine. The way things are going, we'll see.
Are we ready to go the vote on the motion?
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
No, we can't do that, Mr. Chair. You know I have an amendment.
Conservative
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Yes. There is an amendment to the motion, and this one is to replace the Minister of Environment.... Apparently, the government doesn't wish to hear from either the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of International Trade, the Minister of Finance, or the Minister of Natural Resources. They prefer Mr. Trudeau and Mr. McGuinty, above all others, to the western economic diversification minister.
I would like to amend the motion to delete the Minister of the Environment and replace that with the western economic diversification minister, and then I'd like a great opportunity to speak to it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Is there any discussion on the proposed amendment?
Go ahead, Mr. McKay.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Thank you, Chair.
As the senior minister for western Canada and the minister charged primarily with the issue of energy, this would be a critical minister to the study, as proposed, so that there can be some coordination.
Clearly one of the discussions that's taking place is the reverse flow in the pipeline, which has a certain attractiveness and is gaining a certain political attractiveness because it appears that by 2017 or 2019 the United States will actually achieve energy self-sufficiency, in which case we may well have a bizarre situation on our hands in that we have a great deal of energy, particularly oil and gas energy, locked in the ground but with no accessible market, or an accessible market at a price point that makes it uneconomic. Therefore, I can't imagine why a western economic diversification minister wouldn't be thinking about these issues now and actually ramping up a study on reverse flow in the pipelines.
We will literally have pipelines to nowhere if, in fact, the United States achieves what is predicted, which is energy self-sufficiency. For those of us whose homes are in eastern Canada, this is an attractive issue. Whether it is gas or whether it is oil, it is quite attractive, so I and I'm sure all of our colleagues would be very interested in the views of the Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification on whether she has actually thought this through and what studies she may be initiating with respect to the reverse oil flow.
I'm sure all colleagues would agree that her views on this particular issue might actually be at least as interesting as those of Mr. McGuinty and Mr. Trudeau. I would actually prefer to have heard from the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of International Trade, and the Minister of the Environment, but if we're not going to hear from any one of them, then certainly the western economic diversification minister would be a worthy witness here and should be included in the motion.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Is there any further discussion on the amendment proposed by Mr. McKay?
We'll go the question.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
It will be a recorded division.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The proposed amendment is defeated.
Mr. McKay, just before we go to any other possible amendments, I just want to read something, and I may want to consider it for a while.
On page 533 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, 2009, by O'Brien and Bosc, it says that an amendment is out of order procedurally if it is irrelevant to the main motion—which is why I ruled your initial proposed motion out of order—but then it also says it's out of order if it raises a question substantially the same as one that's been dealt with before in the same sitting.
I suppose I'm questioning whether just changing the names of ministers is really providing motions that are substantially the same as motions made before, and if you are going to bring forth another similar proposed amendment, I'd like you to explain why this wouldn't apply and why your proposed amendment shouldn't be ruled out of order.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
I don't have the benefit of reading the section that you're reading, Chair, but my view on the matter is that once you've ruled an amendment in order, which you did with respect to the Minister of Natural Resources, then it's in order for all time, and the fact that the names and ministries may change is entirely irrelevant. Once it's in order, they're all in order, and I don't know that you can actually back off from that position.
The first part of the section you read—and I can't recall it word for word—is not related to the second part of the paragraph.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
As I said, Mr. McKay, the issue is whether it raises a question substantially the same, which has been dealt with in this session already.
Anyway, can we go to the vote on the main motion?
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
But you will agree, Chair, surely, that the minister's—