Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 101 - 200 of 148278
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you. The vote has been called.
(Clause 15 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
(Clause 16 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
(On clause 17)
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Chair, I have a question that I want to ask the officials.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Go ahead, please.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
In regard to clause...and I believe we're on clause 17.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the confirmation of that. I want to make sure we're not wasting anyone's time.
I would ask the question of either Mr. Ngan or Mr. Moffet.
It says, under "Publication of target”:
The Minister may publish the national greenhouse gas emissions target for the milestone year to which an emissions reduction plan relates before that plan is tabled in each House of Parliament.
On the question, we've had a number of different amendments that have come through. Do any of those amendments change anything that is in here. or what information is presented in this clause?
Vincent Ngan
View Vincent Ngan Profile
Vincent Ngan
2021-06-07 16:47
The answer is no. The amendments specified information of the progress report and the assessment report, and this one is about an emissions reduction plan as well as a target. There is no impact, directly or indirectly, to this particular clause.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
All right. I'd like to thank Mr. Ngan for that intervention.
If you want to go to a vote...unless there's another member who has a question.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Brad Redekopp Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Chair, I do have a question.
Essentially, if I read this right, the minister can publish the target before informing Parliament. As a parliamentarian, should that be a concern of ours?
I would maybe ask that of Mr. Moffet.
Is that usual practice, that things get published and then after the fact reported to Parliament, or is it better that things are reported to Parliament first? Could you comment on that?
John Moffet
View John Moffet Profile
John Moffet
2021-06-07 16:48
I can't comment as to whether that's a good thing or not. That's for you to determine.
It's not unusual for this to happen.
View Brad Redekopp Profile
CPC (SK)
Okay, it may just be because I haven't seen much yet. I've only been here for two years, so I've not seen enough to know.
I thank you for that answer.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
The vote is called.
(Clause 17 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
(On clause 18)
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
We're now at clause 18. Unfortunately, I'm told that amendment BQ‑16 is out of order, since the committee has already ruled on amendment BQ‑15. I must admit that I don't have that amendment in front of me. However, the committee voted against the idea of including an annual progress report. If we were to pass amendment BQ‑16 now, there would be a contradiction. We won't be able to move amendment BQ‑16 or vote on it.
The issue at this point is whether to pass clause 18.
Ms. Michaud, you have the floor.
View Kristina Michaud Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just before we vote on clause 18, I want to say that I understand that amendment BQ‑16 is null and void because the committee decided to reject the idea of making the progress report an annual report, even though the government receives the data on greenhouse gas emissions in Canada each year.
It would have been possible to do so. However, I understand that the amendment is null and void. I just want to say that I agree with what Mr. Albas stated earlier. I find it deplorable that the government is voting against all the Bloc Québécois and Green Party amendments, which are there to improve Bill C‑12. The government said that it was open to the idea of working with the opposition members. We understand that this isn't the case.
I gather that the same thing will happen with amendment BQ‑17. We'll see when we get to the other clause.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Okay. We'll get to that in a moment.
Mr. Albas, go ahead.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, but there seems to be an issue with interpretation. It's lagging a bit more than usual.
Please accommodate members when that happens, if you could.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Yes, of course.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
I appreciate that, Mr. Chair.
In regard to the intervention by Madam Michaud, it's also the Conservatives. We had 19 amendments that we've brought forward—
View Lloyd Longfield Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Lloyd Longfield Profile
2021-06-07 16:51
On a point of order, was the vote not called?
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
I'm sorry, but just a second. I was talking with the legislative clerk.
Mr. Longfield.
View Lloyd Longfield Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Lloyd Longfield Profile
2021-06-07 16:52
I'm raising a point of order. You called the vote. This isn't a time for debate.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Chair, you gave me the floor.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
To be honest, I can't remember if I called the vote.
Is it a point of order? It sounds like a point of debate.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
Yes, Mr. Chair, but you recognized me, and there may have been some interpretation lag. To preserve all rights of members here, if someone puts their hand up.... I did raise my voice earlier, flagging to you that I wished to speak to it.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Just hold on a second, please, Mr. Albas.
I don't think I called the vote, to be honest with you, or if I did I wasn't clear enough.
Are you debating clause 18?
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Okay. Go ahead and debate it.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Chair, as I said earlier, I believe members deserve to be able to have an up or down. I realize that you have ruled on consequentialness, so I'm certainly not going to be putting forward a challenge at this point because you are correct. When we said no to earlier Bloc amendments, that basically made these consequential amendments not possible or else we would end up with a mishmash of a bill.
That being said, I just want to add my voice to Madam Michaud's, and she, by the way, has shown a fair bit of decorum here. It's not always, I would imagine, a fun process when you're told on the floor that something you have worked very hard for won't be allowed to be debated and perhaps that's something we need to look at.
I also have to point out, Mr. Chair, that perhaps before you call the vote for future ones, you might want to ask to see if there are any other speakers first. I'm not telling you what to do. I'm just simply suggesting that with the translation and the fact that we're virtual and it can't always be relied on, it's helpful to make sure that all members who want to be able to have their say can say it.
Now let's get back to the actual issue of clause 18.
18(1) The Minister must cause each emissions reduction plan to be tabled in each House of Parliament on any of the first 15 days on which that House is sitting after the day on which the plan is established.
Again, Mr. Chair, I will just simply say that Conservatives are opposed to this bill. We will be voting against this, but I really hope that other members do not just simply call a point of order and try to squeeze other members out, because I don't believe, in this case, Mr. Chair, there was a clear indication that you could move forward.
Maybe, again, Mr. Chair, by asking to see if any other speakers would want to go forward, then when we hit that point.... I promise you, Mr. Chair, we will end up with a better outcome rather than having points of order and then long stalls as you try to seek in the transcripts as to whether or not you called it.
It's a very difficult position, being a virtual chair, so I applaud you in your efforts to try to make sure that it's a fair process for everyone. I can understand how some MPs may be a bit frustrated, but again, we all have to adhere to the translation services and have the official languages requirements met.
Thank you.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Redekopp, can you take your hand down?
Mr. Albas, if members know they want to speak to something, it's even easier than when it's not virtual. You just have to press the little yellow—
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Chair, I had my hand up, and I even called out earlier.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
I understand. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking in general. I will leave it to members to take the initiative to put their hands up if they want to speak to something. There's plenty of time, and I let enough time go by. Then when I don't see a hand, I call the vote.
Anyway, Mr. Redekopp—
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
Again, Mr. Chair, there was no translation. The translation—
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
View Chris Bittle Profile
Lib. (ON)
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Albas does not have the floor and is just interrupting.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
We have to have a fair process.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Yes, but even without the translation, you know pretty much, generally, if you want to say something.
So—
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Chair, I have to protest. I'm not challenging you in any way, but there has to be a process that we all agree to. I'm fine with—
View Chris Bittle Profile
Lib. (ON)
Again, I have a point of order.
Mr. Chair, Mr. Albas just keeps interrupting. He's a stickler for the rules, but he doesn't—
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
We're going to go to Mr. Redekopp now.
View Brad Redekopp Profile
CPC (SK)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just to help you maybe a little bit with this point.... I'm a full believer and a strong believer that we need our two official languages. In fact, I'm learning French as we speak, although I haven't quite graduated to the point where I can listen to French. I have to listen to the English channel.
Maybe just for your reference—because you are far more advanced in French than I am—I will mention that there is always a pause. Sometimes I know you get a little excited and want to carry on with it, but sometimes it's not obvious that the speaker has quit speaking, so if somebody wants to put up their hand, they have to wait for the last of the translation and go, “Oh, that person's done. I'd better put my hand up.”
I appreciate your comment to get our hands up sooner. I appreciate that, and I will try to do that, but also bear in mind that there is a second there.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Bear in mind also that if there is pause and if there's a problem with translation, you won't hear me call the vote, so we're back to the same problem.
I do give enough time, and I will give enough time.
View Brad Redekopp Profile
CPC (SK)
I appreciate that.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Anyway, is that what you wanted to speak about or no?
View Brad Redekopp Profile
CPC (SK)
Yes, that's it.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Okay.
Mr. Dan Albas: Mr. Chair—
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Albas, do you have your hand up again?
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
I will apologize to you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Bittle is exactly right. I didn't have my hand up. Also, with regard to his point of order, I believe you didn't recognize him, so what I would simply suggest, Mr. Chair, is that the lag in this case was about five seconds, not the usual two or three seconds. I did have my hand up. I was prepared to speak to it, Mr. Chair, and unfortunately, because the translation didn't come in, that's a problem.
I think the onus—
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Going forward, I'll give enough time, but at some point, people have to be proactive.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Chair, if you don't mind my finishing my statement, and then I'm happy to hear what you have to say.
To say that the onus is on the individual member, when we simply.... When I had my hand up, and when I voiced earlier that I wanted to speak, I can't understand how it could be done any differently.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
I'm not referring to your last intervention. I'm saying that going forward the onus is on the member, if they want to speak, to put their hand up. That's all I'm saying.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
I would just hope though, Mr. Chair, that we would avoid these kinds of problems—
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Okay, can we move on?
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
—by listening to one another. However, I appreciate that this is a difficult thing to chair when you have it virtual.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
The vote is called, and no one seems to want to speak to it.
(Clause 18 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
(On clause 19)
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
We'll now move on to clause 19.
Ms. Michaud, the same logic applies to amendment BQ‑17. Given the committee's decision on amendment BQ‑15, there's a lack of consistency. Amendment BQ‑17 becomes null and void.
We'll now vote on clause 19. Would anyone like to comment on clause 19?
Ms. Michaud, you have the floor.
View Kristina Michaud Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm taking note of the fact that the same logic applies.
I want to tell you that, starting from clause 20, my colleague Ms. Pauzé will be taking over.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
That's fine. Thank you.
We'll now vote on clause 19.
(Clause 19 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
(On clause 20)
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
We'll now move on to clause 20. I'm pleased to ask Ms. May to move her amendment, PV‑25.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Before you speak, I must inform you that, if amendment PV‑25 is passed, amendments BQ‑18 and NDP‑14 will become null and void. We won't be able to vote on those amendments.
Ms. May, you have the floor.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have to say that this is the most dispiriting process of clause-by-clause that I've experienced in many years. Usually amendments are actually considered, people actually debate them and there is a good-faith process. I'm going to make a short statement and then I'm going to ask, because I cannot remove my own amendments, in the interest of time and in an effort to have this bill get to the Senate, where perhaps there will be a good-faith effort to amend it....
I condemn this government for what it has done: for telling people like me, who believed in good faith that there would be an actual appetite for change to improve the bill and who accepted it and prepared amendments, only to show up here and watch Liberals stay mute, the NDP stay mute and march through their amendments, passing them in force, and not listening and not caring about the possibility that other amendments might work.
I urge you to change your conduct. I urge you to consider Madam Pauzé's amendments.
Because I don't have the power to remove my own amendments, I will remove my amendments if you will do the job for me, Mr. Chair, in the interest of time and under protest against the process this committee has entered into—not the committee but the backroom deal that no amendments shall pass unless they're Liberal or NDP and do nothing but tweak the bill with small improvements. I don't want to stand in the way of getting this thing done, and I now ask the chair to support the Bloc amendments and remove PV-25, PV-26, PV-27, PV-28, PV-29, PV-30 and PV-31.
Shame on you.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
I'll have to check with the clerk on that, Ms. May.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
I have a point of order.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
We're going to pause for a second, Mr. Albas.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
This is interesting.
Ms. May, your amendment is deemed moved by the fact of having sent it to the clerk. If you want to withdraw amendment PV-25, you would have to ask for unanimous consent.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
Mr. Chair, it has been the case that in the past in other committees when I suggested that the amendment that is deemed moved can be deemed by the chair to have been removed, I've never heard before that it required unanimous consent. I think Mr. Albas's suggestion earlier that the various backroom people who've engineered this motion that I have to observe in every committee....
In this case, since it would be all in one go, because these are all amendments that relate to the process of the advisory committee becoming independent and expert, again, it would certainly save the committee a lot of time if you accept my word for it that you can deem these amendments removed—PV-25, PV-26, PV-27, PV-28, PV-29, PV-30 and PV-31—rather than seeking unanimous consent each time, but that's for you to determine.
I will wait for PV-32 before taking the floor again.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Okay, just a second. You'll have to excuse me. This is a bit of uncharted territory.
Ms. May, both of the legislative clerks have never heard of this notion of the chair withdrawing the motions for you. What I've been told is that you can ask for unanimous consent to remove the five amendments.
Could you repeat it? I think it's PV-25 through to PV-30...or is PV-31 in there too?
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
I will repeat again: It comes to seven amendments that I am removing in one go.
If you want to seek unanimous consent, then I would be asking for all of my amendments that relate to what is now a not independent, appointed-by-the-minister multi-stakeholder committee..... My attempts are not identical, by any means, but sufficiently similar to the Bloc Québécois' attempts, that I would prefer, in order to save time and help this committee along, that Madam Pauze's amendments be accepted.
However, my amendments are from PV-25 through PV-31 inclusive. That's seven amendments.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thanks.
My request to the committee is on whether there is unanimous consent to remove seven Green Party amendments, PV-25 to PV-31.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Chair, I have had my hand up for—
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
When you ask for unanimous consent, there is no debate, but go ahead now.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Chair, I was going to say how we proceed with this. As I said earlier, there is a process that we have done, and you may want to take this feedback to other committee chairs to make sure that if this does happen again in another case. Perhaps there could be a motion so that it can changed and ratified.
I believe we can have a very brief discussion on each one, but I think it's important for people to feel heard. There were many people who came forward who expressed their support for something like Madam May's amendments, and I think that she deserves an up or down....
We will not tie that process up, but I think it's important for this committee to be able to stand and be accountable to the Canadian public in this, because many people who came to the committee asked for much of what Ms. May said.
I may disagree with elements of it, but I believe in accountability and I believe that people need to be heard. That would be the best way for us to carry forward in this case.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Okay.
We are still on amendment PV-25.
Is this a point of order?
Is this a point of order, Ms. Pauzé?
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
Yes, Mr. Chair.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
You have the floor.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
If I remember correctly, last week, I decided not to move amendment BQ‑10 in an effort to support amendment BQ‑11. I dropped it. However, I don't recall that we needed unanimous consent.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
The reason is that you sit on the committee as a member of a recognized party in the House. The Green Party isn't recognized in the same way. That's the difference.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
We are at Ms. May's amendment.
Ms. May, do you want to speak to it, or do you just want to remain silent and let others speak to it?
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
I think I've been very clear.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
I wish to have all seven amendments withdrawn.
My previous experience in other committees is, once I suggest that, they were deemed moved and then they're deemed not moved by the same imaginary hand.
I appreciate Mr. Albas's support, but the amendments being put to a vote for Madam Pauzé.... Maybe some of them will pass. Just to disprove for those who might be watching, what we are witnessing here, which is a very anti-democratic decision in advance to fail to actually consider amendments. That's not what clause-by-clause is supposed to be like.
Mr. Chair, if you can help me here, my Green Party amendments, PV-25 to PV-31, should just be removed from the package.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
I'm trying to help. I've been told by the legislative clerks—
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
I think the legislative clerks.... I'm surprised by their ruling. I'll put it that way.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Two legislative clerks have told me this.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
I'm surprised by their ruling.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
I understand but—
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
I do not wish to speak to any of these amendments, and I urge you not to vote on them. I urge you to set them aside and move on.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Bachrach, do you want to speak to PV-25, or do you have a point of order?
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
I'm wondering if I could ask for clarification, Mr. Chair.
Along the lines of what Ms. May has mentioned, could you indicate to us if it would be in order for a member of the committee to bring forward a motion that would remove those amendments from consideration?
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
I don't think so, but let me check.
Actually, colleagues, we have the extra hour today.
Madam Clerk, did we start at 3:44?
Angela Crandall
View Angela Crandall Profile
Angela Crandall
2021-06-07 17:17
Yes, we started at 3:44.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
That would take us to 6:44, and I had meant to have a break at an hour and a half. Why don't we take a break?
Results: 101 - 200 of 148278 | Page: 2 of 1483

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

For more data options, please see Open Data