Evidence of meeting #9 for Natural Resources in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was pipeline.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
5:25 p.m.
Senior Policy Analyst, C.D. Howe Institute
By these five principles, are you talking about the specific federal commitments on this? Maybe not.
5:25 p.m.
Senior Policy Analyst, C.D. Howe Institute
I'd focus my remarks on one in particular that does stick out like a sore thumb, which is on the assessing of [Technical difficulty—Editor] greenhouse gas emissions, which is that this is both dubious legally—this might result in some uncomfortable legal positions for the federal government—but also it's not economically the best way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. If we want to focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, by far the best way to do this is through a price on greenhouse gas.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
TJ Harvey Liberal Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Right, and I don't disagree with the ideals behind a price on carbon, that's for sure. But one thing I will say is that I grew up in agriculture, and my father always said that a lot of time hardship fosters innovation and technological growth within any sector, agriculture specifically then. Do you not believe that the sector will benefit from looking at greenhouse gas emissions and how it affects the entire sector?
5:30 p.m.
Senior Policy Analyst, C.D. Howe Institute
Carbon pricing is designed to create a hardship when it comes to carbon emissions, so that's exactly to your point.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you. I think we're out of time.
Gentlemen, thank you. Unfortunately we've run out of time. There's never enough time in these committee meetings. We appreciate both of you taking the time to be with us today. We're going to move on to the next item on the agenda, so thanks very much.
We have two items. The first one is arising out of our subcommittee meeting at the last meeting, where we decided to amend how we're going to proceed. I think we need to vote on that motion very quickly.
I'll read this into the record?
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Yes.
That the Committee hear witnesses on the Oil and Gas portion of the study on May 2, 4, 9, 11, 16 and 18 so that a report can be produced before the end of June 2016; and that the Committee delays the study of the mining and nuclear energy portion of the study to the Fall of 2016.
(Motion agreed to)
Now the second item we have to deal with quickly, I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Harvey.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
TJ Harvey Liberal Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
I'd like to bring forward the following motion:
That, in relation to Orders of Reference from the House respecting Bills, (a) the Clerk of the Committee shall, upon the Committee receiving such an Order of Reference, write to each Member who is not a member of a caucus represented on the Committee to invite those Members to file with the Clerk of the Committee, in both official languages, any amendments to the Bill, which is the subject of the said Order, which they would suggest that the Committee consider; (b) suggested amendments filed, pursuant to paragraph (a), at least 48 hours prior to the start of clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill to which the amendments relate shall be deemed to be proposed during the said consideration, provided that the Committee may, by motion, vary this deadline in respect of a given Bill; and (c) during the clause-by-clause consideration of a Bill, the Chair shall allow a Member who filed suggested amendments, pursuant to paragraph (a), an opportunity to make brief representations in support of them.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Okay.
Just so the committee is aware, I received a letter from Elizabeth May, member of Parliament for Saanich—Gulf Islands, dated April 29, relating to this motion. Her letter reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Maloney,
Pursuant to my letter of April 15th, I wish to update you on the status of the motion to restrict the rights of MPs in parties with fewer than 12 members. I understand that it will be introduced in committees as early as this week. I simply ask that you take serious consideration of the implications of this motion and provide me with an opportunity to present my concerns.
In the 41st Parliament, the then Conservative government passed this motion simultaneously in all committees swiftly and often in camera. The motion was designed to extinguish members of small parties and independent's ability to fully participate in debate at report stage by forcing those members to submit their report stage amendments at committee. It was then, and remains today, an attempt to silence my voice in the House. Moreover, the committee process, as designed, was wholly unsatisfactory.
This motion—and more generally the topic of the role of members of small parties in the legislative process—is both of great personal importance to me and weighs heavily on the procedural fairness of this committee and the House. I would ask that if you consider adopting this motion as an order of this committee, that you at least provide me with an opportunity to present my case and allow committee members to hear my concerns. I would also request that you keep these matters in the open, and not move the consideration of this motion in camera.
Sincerely, Elizabeth May
Is there any discussion before we vote on the motion?
Seeing none, all in favour of the motion?
(Motion agreed to)
Thank you. That is all the business for today.
We will see you on Wednesday at the same time.
The meeting is adjourned.