Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 301 - 400 of 150000
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
One moment, Mr. Genuis. We have a point of order from Mr. Waugh.
Go ahead.
View Kevin Waugh Profile
CPC (SK)
We've been going on for hours. The meeting was scheduled to end in the next 30 seconds, at 8:45. We're coming back again tomorrow morning from 11 until one, I believe. It may be extended, but we are coming back.
I think that in fairness to the interpreters, the clerks and everybody, Mr. Chair, plus—
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
It's your birthday.
View Kevin Waugh Profile
CPC (SK)
Exactly. Here I am. It's a milestone birthday and I'm spending it with you. Now, I love everyone on the heritage committee, but I would like to go home and celebrate.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
Perhaps we should sing, Mr. Chair.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
Before we launch into that, it was probably the most celebratory point of order I've heard in ages. I want to wish you, sir, if I may be so bold as to say it's from all of us here at the committee, a big happy birthday.
Going back to your point about the timing, as I've said before, and I'll say again, it's always with implied consent that we end at the scheduled time.
Now I know it was 8:45 eastern time, but what happened was that there was a delay in allowing some members to get back to this particular virtual meeting because of the votes that were taking place.
However, that time is not far away. The way that this works is this: Even though there's implied consent that we end, if people are speaking, I am not one to stifle debate; the debate will continue.
That being said, I've been notified that services will allow us to go beyond 8:45. We can exceed it and go to 9:30 or 9:45, if you wish. I'm just saying that for the sake of absolute transparency. I'm not saying you have to go to that time. If you feel that this has gone on too long, there is a remedy for that, and I don't think I need to explain what that remedy is.
Mr. Waugh, God love you. It's your birthday, and I appreciate that. However, in the meantime, I do have to run the committee.
I think that deals with the points of order that were raised. I'm going to go back to Mr. Genuis, unless somebody else wants to weigh in on that point of order as well.
I know there are hands up, but I am assuming that's only for the debate.
Mr. Champoux and Mr. Rayes, I'll get to you during the debate.
In the meantime, Mr. Genuis, you still have the floor.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
View Alain Rayes Profile
CPC (QC)
I raised my hand to speak about the point of order, Mr. Chair.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
I apologize, Mr. Rayes. I didn't realize that you were rising on a point of order.
Go ahead, sir.
View Alain Rayes Profile
CPC (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I don't know the procedure and I'm not sure that I understood the reason for Mr. Waugh's point of order. However, I feel completely worn out from my day. I'm also thinking of the interpreters, who have been here since 4:30 p.m., when we received the first notice for the meeting. I'm also thinking of the staff who are here with us. I'm wondering about the procedure for seeking to adjourn the meeting.
I should point out that a gag order has been imposed. We have five hours of debate. Since we have a two‑hour meeting scheduled for tomorrow, we'll have used up the five hours by the end of tomorrow's session anyway.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
I don't want to launch into that debate all over again, sir, but I will say that the remedy I spoke of earlier, of course, would be an adjournment. However, we are in the middle of the point of order, and I can't allow a motion to be put forward on a point of order.
Therefore, I go back to Mr. Genuis.
You have the floor.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
All right.
Mr. Chair, I don't want to be too prescriptive, because I'm not a regular member of this committee, but in deference to my colleagues, I'll move a motion to adjourn and see where the chips land.
Aimée Belmore
View Aimée Belmore Profile
Aimée Belmore
2021-06-09 20:49
Is that a motion to adjourn the meeting, sir?
Aimée Belmore
View Aimée Belmore Profile
Aimée Belmore
2021-06-09 20:49
Just to confirm, voting yes would adjourn the meeting and voting no would continue the meeting.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0)
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
I'm sorry, Mr. Rayes. I see that your hand is up, but we are officially adjourned.
Did you want to say happy birthday? That's the only thing I can allow, because I want to be nice.
View Alain Rayes Profile
CPC (QC)
I want to wish him a happy birthday. Since we didn't have dinner, I'll be waiting for him with my muffins to celebrate his birthday. There will be muffins for anyone who wants them.
View Martin Champoux Profile
BQ (QC)
View Martin Champoux Profile
2021-06-09 20:50
Happy birthday, Kevin.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
Happy birthday, Kevin.
View Scott Simms Profile
Lib. (NL)
All right, everyone. The meeting is adjourned.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
I call the meeting to order.
Mr. Lewis, I welcome you. After an afternoon with us, I think you'll want to transfer permanently to this committee. Obviously there is not always consensus, but it's a very friendly committee and we're fortunate for that.
Before we get started, a point was brought last week that perhaps the chair could withdraw, at the request of a Green Party member, a Green Party amendment. I looked into the matter a little more. My previous understanding was that once a Green Party amendment has been sent to the clerk it's deemed moved and therefore belongs to the committee, and the chair cannot simply withdraw it but it has to be withdrawn by unanimous consent.
My inquiries led to the following example from April 22 at the indigenous and northern affairs committee, where Ms. Atwin said, “I will withdraw it,” meaning the amendment, “since it has the same context as others”. The chair said, “Okay. PV-7 is not brought forward.” The clerk said to the chair, “Mr. Chair, if I may, PV-7 is deemed to have been moved, so it would require unanimous consent to withdraw it. That's my understanding.” Then the chair said, “Do we have unanimous consent to withdraw? I see that we do. Thanks, Ms. Atwin.”
I just want to close the loop on that, and—
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
Well....
Sorry.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
I appreciate the chair looking into it again. I've had different experiences with different committees, but I'm not questioning what has been determined.
I'd like to again put it forward. I'm not sure where we were exactly, but I think I still had about seven or eight amendments relating to the expert advisory body independence of the committee where I was prepared to try to say that my amendments were no longer deemed put forward in favour of the Bloc Québécois' amendments.
I see Mr. Albas' hand is up too.
Maybe we could try for unanimous consent again, but I don't know what Mr. Albas would think about that.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
When we get to it, you can try.
Mr. Albas.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
Based on this, I'm glad that MP May got a chance to respond. She and I have communicated back and forth. I have a better understanding of what she was trying to do.
Obviously she best speaks for herself, but I seem to get the indication that she feels the process from the very beginning on this particular clause-by-clause—and Mr. Chair, please don't take offence—has been steamrolled or compressed and it has been very clear that members haven't been accepting of MP May's amendments, nor the Bloc's, nor the Conservatives'. Thus, it's becoming very apparent to me that she was just saying she doesn't want to be participating in a process in which she doesn't have faith that she is even going to receive a fair hearing.
Whether that's fair or not, I'll let members themselves decide, but I will make the motion that PV-26, PV-27, PV-28, PV-29, PV-30, PV-31 and PV-33 be removed from consideration by unanimous consent.
I just hope that the MP for Saanich—Gulf Islands takes from this that I appreciated her communications with me. I have great respect for her and her contributions to this process, as bad as it has been.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Albas, let me pause for a second.
It's unusual. Usually it's the sponsor who does this, but if there is unanimous consent, we can—
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
To clean it up, Mr. Chair, I'm perfectly happy to move it again, as I attempted to do last time. I would just say that I appreciate Mr. Albas' speaking for me. The process has been unpleasant and I don't think there was good faith, but my reason for withdrawing these amendments is that I think it will speed things along, and I'm confident the Bloc Québécois amendments really make.... If there's still a good case to do this, I would hope the Bloc amendments pass. I do have a few more amendments, but I want to speed this along and assist in getting Bill C-12 out of committee.
Those are my reasons.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Could you just read again which ones they are?
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
They are amendments PV-26, PV-27, PV-28, PV-29, PV-30, PV-31 and PV-33.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
You're asking that these amendments be withdrawn.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
They were deemed moved. I'm asking for them to be deemed to have been withdrawn.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
I'm not sure if a non-member can make a motion at committee. That's why I made it, but I—
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
No, that's okay. That's understandable, but she can withdraw them because they're her amendments.
Do we have unanimous consent for Ms. May to withdraw these—
View Brad Redekopp Profile
CPC (SK)
There's just one quick thing, Mr. Chair.
Ms. May did mention PV-26, and I believe that we already dealt with it in the last meeting. I don't know if that should be included or not, from a technical perspective.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
I think you may be right.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
In that case, start with where we are, which I think would be PV-27.
Thanks, Brad.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Okay, so it's PV-27 to PV-33.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
Yes, but PV-32 was excluded because it deals with a different issue.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Okay, got it.
Do I have unanimous consent to withdraw PV-27, PV-28, PV-29, PV-30, PV-31 and PV-33?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: I appear to.
(Amendments withdrawn)
The Chair: Congratulations, Ms. May. Your wish has been granted.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
I'm just trying to help you guys along.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
We appreciate that.
Madam Clerk, you're keeping track of the time and how many minutes we will have met when we break for the vote.
(On clause 21)
The Chair: Okay. We were at CPC-17, and if I recall correctly, Madam Pauzé was up and Mr. Albas also had his hand up. If that's not the case—
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Okay, that's correct.
Ms. Pauzé, you may go ahead. We are on amendment CPC‑17.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to start by setting the committee straight on something. Yesterday, in question period, I asked Mr. Wilkinson, the minister, about the lack of targets, and this is what he had to say:
It saddens me that the Bloc Québécois tried so hard to prevent the committee from moving forward. If we want Bill C-12 to pass to contribute to the fight against climate change, we hope the Bloc Québécois will support us on that.
If there is one thing I cannot be accused of, it is preventing the committee from moving forward. I was flabbergasted to hear such a thing. I usually wait a long time before I get to speak, and I respect the order of speakers.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Yes, that's true.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
I think the Bloc Québécois has done its job. Neither Ms. Michaud nor I has ever abused our parliamentary privileges. In fact, I would say we have helped facilitate the bill and move it forward.
That is why I was so stunned. As a member of this committee, I work diligently and purposefully, with respect for procedure and the work of other members. Forgive me, but it feels good to get that out.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
I understand. Your comments are duly noted and are now part of the record.
Did you want to speak to amendment CPC‑17?
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
Yes, Mr. Chair.
When Mr. Albas put forward amendment CPC‑17, the interpreter did a lovely job of rendering his comments, saying that the process had been truncated. I want to say I agree with Mr. Albas. Ms. May alluded to the same.
At one point, I attended the press conference on the green new deal, along with former NDP member Pierre Nantel and members from just about every party represented in the House. As I see it, the NDP betrayed the ideals it espoused back then by allowing a bill with no teeth and no guts to pass. A much stronger piece of legislation is needed to address the climate emergency we face.
In my riding of Repentigny, people are not allowed to water their lawns. I am not talking about a ban between certain times of the day. It is banned any time of the day because it's a drinking water issue. That is what you do in a climate emergency. I just wanted to add to what Mr. Albas said about the process being truncated. Nevertheless, there are still some good amendments that would help remedy the problem.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
All right.
Seeing no more hands up, I now call the vote.
I want to point out, however, that, if amendment CPC‑17 is adopted—
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Chair, I just assumed you would go to me right afterwards.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
You're absolutely right, I apologize. I didn't see the hand, but you are next.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll just remind everyone, because there may be people tuning in today who haven't had the opportunity to hear some of the Conservative amendments, this one, Mr. Chair, has to do directly with Bill C-12 in regard to the advisory body.
The government has set up one minister to basically appoint all 15 members. We've already seen the minister, before even passing Bill C-12, come forward with a list of names. It's almost like he doesn't need to bear witness to what Parliament says. I am hoping that after Matt Jeneroux's great opening salvo on the reason why we need to change the approach taken by the government here, this particular amendment would be welcomed by all parties.
Again, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce really liked this concept, as did the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. If we really want to see more independence of the board, where it can act and have a diversity of skill and insight, then by giving, for example, six to the Minister of the Environment, three positions on the recommendation of the Minister of Industry, three on the recommendation on the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and three on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, and having each minister I've named present who they believe should be on the board, you will end up with a stronger board and more of a sense of independence because it's not all at the behest of one minister. As I've said many times, Mr. Chair, it's an “all hands on deck” approach.
Again, we didn't have any indigenous witnesses. This would make sure that, through the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, that would happen, and there would be serious involvement in this particular body.
I just ask all honourable members to support this. This would be a beneficial change. I think it would be welcomed by many.
We'll let it go to a vote, Mr. Chair.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7, yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
We go now to BQ-21, which I unfortunately have to rule inadmissible. I will tell you—
Émilie Thivierge
View Émilie Thivierge Profile
Émilie Thivierge
2021-06-09 17:03
Mr. Chair?
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Yes, what is it?
Émilie Thivierge
View Émilie Thivierge Profile
Émilie Thivierge
2021-06-09 17:03
Perhaps you should let Ms. Pauzé move her amendment.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Yes, of course.
Go ahead, Ms. Pauzé.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
The amendment is admissible, but “independent expert committee” has to change to reflect what was adopted. Is that correct?
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Move your amendment, and then, I will explain the rationale.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
I need to change what comes after “The House of Commons appoints the members of the” to “Net-Zero Advisory Body”.
Instead of the Governor in Council appointing the members of the [Technical difficulty—Editor] body, we are proposing that they be appointed on the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. We are a committee of elected representatives, and it should be our role to evaluate candidates and determine who the best people for the job are in accordance with the prescribed criteria.
It is possible to strike a balance. The amendment is consistent with many democratic processes as well as political representation. This way, the House would be giving the committee greater legitimacy and independence than if members were simply appointed by the government. The important thing here is ensuring impartiality. That's what this is about.
Mr. Albas talked a lot about the Governor in Council. Almost all of his party's amendments address the role of the Governor in Council. At our last meeting, Mr. Albas talked about the importance of a plurality of opinions and expertise. I don't always agree with him on the role the Governor in Council should have, but his preference for a collegial approach is fine by me, even if we don't see the issue the same way.
My amendment proposes that the members of the advisory body be selected on the basis of a process that is not solely controlled by the government. The amendment may address Mr. Albas's concerns. Entrusting a standing committee of the House of Commons with recommending the members of the body responsible for addressing climate change issues is the best way to ensure that the body's makeup is fair and representative. The various political parties are represented here, on the committee. We are all democratically elected, and the environment committee should submit its recommendations to the House of Commons for the collective endorsement of all members.
In conclusion, this amendment is consistent with the principles of transparency and democracy. It sets out a transparent process, one that recognizes the value of all members of the House, ensures all of Canada's regions are fairly represented and leaves room for the expertise sought by each party. This exercise in democracy is crucial given the important role the advisory body will have.
I'll give you an example. The chair of the United Kingdom's Climate Change Committee was selected this way. The various legislatures within the country selected the chair in a collegial manner. The decision was consensus-based, despite the different political parties and regions involved. I would like to see members support this transparent and democratic process, including the members of the Conservative Party, who argued extensively in favour of democratic governance on Friday.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
We are going to suspend in three minutes for voting.
Unfortunately, the amendment is inadmissible, and I'll explain why.
Subclause 21(1) of Bill C-12 provides that the members of the advisory body will be appointed by the Governor in Council, based on the recommendation of the minister, and that the Governor in Council will fix the members’ remuneration. Amendment BQ-21 attempts to give the responsibility of appointing the members of the advisory body to the House of Commons, based on the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.
As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772:
Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.
Because the amendment seeks to alter the terms and conditions of the royal recommendation, it is, in my view, inadmissible.
That's my ruling, and I think it makes sense based on House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition.
We only have about a minute. We're going to be going now to—
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Chair, I want to appeal your ruling.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
We will proceed with the vote, and no debate is allowed, Ms. Pauzé.
If I'm not mistaken, Ms. Thivierge, the ruling cannot be challenged and the committee must proceed to a vote immediately. Is that correct?
Émilie Thivierge
View Émilie Thivierge Profile
Émilie Thivierge
2021-06-09 17:09
Yes, the committee should proceed with the vote.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
May I not appeal the chair's ruling?
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Yes, you may, but the committee cannot discuss it. You may appeal my ruling, and then, the committee must vote on your wish to overturn my ruling. We will now proceed with a recorded vote.
Shall the chair's ruling be sustained?
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
The decision survives.
Why don't we break, and as soon as the Speaker reads the result of the vote, let's hop back on. I don't think we need to do a sound check or anything, so we'll pick up right where we left off.
When we come back we'll look at CPC-18.
I'll see everyone as soon as the Speaker announces the result of the vote. Thank you.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Okay, I see that no—
Ms. Pauzé, do you have your hand up?
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
Yes, I do, Mr. Chair.
I cannot let what happened before the meeting was suspended stand without saying something.
I want to make three things clear.
First, during the last vote, Ms. Saks was not able to vote. She even raised her hand when we were in the process of voting.
Was her vote recorded properly?
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Are you referring to the vote on your amendment?
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
I'm referring to the vote on your ruling.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
You mean the ruling regarding the admissibility of [Technical difficulty—Editor].
Are you saying that her vote was not counted or that it should have been counted?
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
She raised her hand while we were voting. Did she vote? Was her hand up? Was her vote recorded?
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
It was a recorded vote, was it not?
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
Precisely.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Clerk, was Ms. Saks's vote recorded?
Émilie Thivierge
View Émilie Thivierge Profile
Émilie Thivierge
2021-06-09 17:41
Yes, I recorded it.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
All right, then.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
Okay.
Second, I do not understand why the Bloc Québécois's amendment was ruled inadmissible. The law clerks looked at it before it was included in the package.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
I can't speak to that, because my opinion is based on the advice of the legislative clerks.
Regardless, a decision has been made. I ruled the amendment inadmissible.
You appealed the ruling, it was put to a vote, and my ruling was sustained.
What is the third point you wanted to raise, Ms. Pauzé?
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
My third point has to do with what you said about the amendment relating to money.
Subclause 21(1) of Bill C-12 reads as follows:The Governor in Council appoints the members of the advisory body on the recommendation of the Minister and fixes their remuneration.
All the Bloc Québécois's amendment would change is the wording “on the recommendation of the Minister”, replacing it with the wording “on the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development”. Then, it goes back—
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
That is the crux of the problem. The fact that you are changing—
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
Yes, but it does not require any more money.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
The money is not at issue; the principle is. It relates to the government's prerogative to legislate on remuneration. As a committee, we cannot take it upon ourselves to exercise that prerogative; nor can the House of Commons. Therein lies the rub.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
My understanding was that the Governor in Council was more or less the same as the government. In our view, the Governor in Council is not the one who should make recommendations.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Your amendment takes away from the Governor in Council—
View Lloyd Longfield Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Lloyd Longfield Profile
2021-06-09 17:43
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. Haven't we already voted on this ruling? Can we proceed with the meeting?
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Yes, we have.
Unfortunately, Ms. Pauzé, that is the answer.
We must move on because the committee has dealt with the matter.
Where are we?
View Lloyd Longfield Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Lloyd Longfield Profile
2021-06-09 17:43
We're on CPC-18.
View Yvan Baker Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Chair—
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
We're at CPC-18.
Mr. Albas, do you want to propose that?
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
I'm sorry. Whatever you said, Mr. Chair, was totally inaudible on the English channel.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Do you mean what I said to Madam Pauzé?
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
No, just that last little section.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Would you like to propose CPC-18?
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
I'd like to make a quick statement on that, Mr. Chair.
I have to say, we've had, as I said, many criticisms of the process, from having rushed hearings to not having enough witnesses to not receiving briefs in a translated form so that we could make the time—
Results: 301 - 400 of 150000 | Page: 4 of 1500

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

For more data options, please see Open Data