Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 486
View Judy A. Sgro Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you very much, sir.
Before I go on to our speakers, I need the committee to approve a budget in the amount of $1,750 for headsets and phone lines. Are there any objections to that?
Not seeing any objections, I call on Mrs. Gray, please, for six minutes.
View Judy A. Sgro Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you very much, Mr. Lobb. You have 20 seconds.
For the information of the committee, the bells are ringing. A vote has been called. It's a 30-minute bell.
Do I have the direction from the committee? I would need unanimous support from the committee to continue until approximately 12:45 or 12:47, something like that. Is that acceptable to the committee?
Some hon. members: Yes.
View Judy A. Sgro Profile
Lib. (ON)
For the information of the committee, the clerk has circulated a proposal to carry us until June 7, to complete the carbon-tech study, complete our studies on ISED and GAC, and COVID-19, and so on.
Mr. Savard-Tremblay had an issue with it, as Bill C-216 was scheduled to be dealt with on June 7. He has introduced a motion that we are going to deal with now.
Mr. Savard-Tremblay, would you like to speak to the issue of Bill C-216?
View Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Profile
BQ (QC)
While bills are usually passed quickly, the fact remains that our study, exciting and interesting as it is, is not a priority.
The parliamentary session will end soon, and I feel we should put considering the bill, which is very short and shouldn't take very long to consider—
View Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Profile
BQ (QC)
Because the parliamentary session is almost over, I believe it would be useful and important to consider the bill as soon as possible. It makes sense that a bill should come before a non-urgent study.
Although that non-urgent study is fascinating, much like the one we are conducting right now, the bill is very simple and very short and we will not have to dedicate many meetings to it. One or two meetings should suffice.
Therefore, I move that we consider the bill as soon as possible. Would you like me to read the motion?
I believe it was sent to you, anyway.
View Judy A. Sgro Profile
Lib. (ON)
That the committee immediately undertake consideration of Bill C-216, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management), referred to the committee by an order of reference on March 10, 2021, for disposition on a priority basis, and defer the study initiated by the Committee on Canadian exportation of green, clean and low-carbon technologies.
View Chandra Arya Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Chandra Arya Profile
2021-05-07 14:51
Madam Chair, while I understand the importance of what my colleague, Mr. Savard-Tremblay, states about Bill C-216, for me, it is very important that we continue with this study. We have already heard from the witnesses. Given the enormity of this particular study and its importance for Canada and the Canadian economy now, we should be going forward.
I think we should continue with this tempo. We should continue this study and hear from more witnesses, gather more information, and conclude this.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
View Terry Sheehan Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you very much.
I think that we should continue on our path, because we only have a couple more meetings for this particular study. We've all submitted the names of some leading people in the clean, green-tech industry who have cleared their schedules and made themselves available. We've heard the testimony to act now. We must move expeditiously, so I think that behooves us to do that.
In speaking earlier in a committee business meeting, I asked the clerk about the order of precedence, and you said that there's really no order of precedence, just what we determine is important. I'm not saying that the other one is not important, but I think that we could finish this meeting expeditiously and then move forward.
Those are my comments.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
Thank you very much.
I want to take the opportunity to express my support for the motion. It seems to me that we have about two weeks before the break week, so we might be able to move one of the sessions that we have dedicated to this study to a later date in order to be able to deal with a relatively straightforward piece of private member's business, so that it could be reported back to the House in time to perhaps be taken up in the five weeks after the constituency week in May.
It is a piece of legislation. Committees do normally prioritize legislative work. I think we can shuffle around one of the meetings in this study to be able to accommodate that, and have the bill reported back in a timely way to the House, so that it has a chance of being considered again before the House rises in June.
View Judy A. Sgro Profile
Lib. (ON)
Your hand was up. Did you want to speak to the motion again before we move on with it?
View Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Profile
BQ (QC)
I confess that I don't understand the argument that witnesses have prepared. It would be far more improper if a witness is not ready because we move a meeting ahead. We may ask witnesses to use the notes they have already prepared at a later date, but they are still ready to appear.
I don't understand that argument. We're not talking about cancelling the study here, we're talking about possibly deferring it one meeting. Honestly, if we ever reach a consensus, I would be inclined to suggest that we hold an additional meeting. The difference between considering the bill in early June and doing it as soon as possible is that, if we wait until early June, the session could end before the bill goes back to the House.
It is in everyone's interest to get it back to the House quickly. This is an important bill, and it deserves to be discussed. We have had farmers appear on several occasions, and we have talked about our reality on this. Out of respect for those who don't agree with the bill, we can debate and discuss it. That is what the committee is for.
The current topic under study will not lead to a bill. It is not urgent. We have absolutely no need to complete the study by the end of the parliamentary session. We are not there. We will complete it anyway. I don't feel that this study will particularly suffer from being deferred for one more meeting.
View Judy A. Sgro Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you very much, Mr. Savard-Tremblay.
Are there any further comments or discussions?
Seeing no hands up, Madam Clerk, I gather that we require a vote on this.
View Judy A. Sgro Profile
Lib. (ON)
Okay, that's fine.
(Motion negatived: nays 5; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Mr. Savard-Tremblay, I will also have a discussion with the clerk to see if it's possible to move it up a meeting—if it's possible. I will meet with the clerk to see if we can still find some way to accommodate your concerns.
Thank you all very much.
It's Friday, so have a wonderful weekend.
I'll see you on Monday.
The meeting is adjourned.
View Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Profile
BQ (QC)
In fact, I do not want to raise a point of order. I just want to make it clear that Mr. Breton is the spouse of the director of my constituency office. There is no conflict of interest, but I wanted to be very transparent all the same. This will not change the work I am going to do today. I am also convinced of the professionalism of Electric Mobility Canada, which talks to all parties anyway. So it was only for the sake of transparency that I wanted to make that clear.
Thank you.
Results: 1 - 15 of 486 | Page: 1 of 33

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data