Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on March 22nd, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

The provision is for the questioning of witnesses, not for what we're doing today.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

But with respect, it is a precedent, Mr. Chair. It is a precedent this committee decided on, and I think it would be appropriate for it to carry on to all sections that we deal with.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

It is in relation to the questioning of witnesses, and that's all it's in relation to.

I take all your points, and I agree. I'd like to start the process.

Mr. Manning, on a point of order.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

Yes, I have a point of order.

We're present here. We come in and drop major substantive amendments on the table, and we're asked to agree to them in five minutes and go forward.

I've spent the past three or four days going through all these amendments. As I understand them, if for some reason or another one of the amendments is not passed here at the table, it defeats a couple of the other amendments. How can I therefore go forward on something that may affect the 15 other amendments before us this morning through this one amendment that we have before us right now?

I think it's unfair to me, as a committee member, to have to sit here today and be asked to proceed with this under the set-up we have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Manning, that's a point of debate.

I agree with the points that have been raised. I would like to suggest that we go through the process, because there are a couple of things we can do that are above and beyond the point of contention here.

When we get to the point that the amendment will be moved, we'll stand discussion on it. If we get no further because the very next one is dependent on something that falls out of it, we'll know it when we get there. If there's some doubt, which will be legitimate, we can suspend at that point, but we can at least start the process.

When we get to that point, if there is collective unhappiness, which I think will be self-evident, and the wish of the committee is to suspend, at that point we'll suspend and everybody will have time to assess it. But we can at least get the process started, because some of the process doesn't depend on the resolution of this particular conflict.

At the time, if the committee is unhappy, at that point we will suspend, at the desire of the committee. But there are a couple of things we can do first that have no relationship to this, and at least get the process started. It has no relation to the point of conflict we have here right now.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

After listening to the concerns that have been raised by us here this morning, and members from the Bloc and the NDP, do you believe we're happy?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

No. I'm saying let's get to the point where the unhappiness will cause the process to stop. At that point, the collective unhappiness of the committee, as expressed by the committee, will force a suspension.

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Chair, thank you for recognizing me.

I'm wondering if we can take a one-minute recess to discuss this. I understand your suggestion, but this is not a normal piece of legislation. It is all interconnected. The amendments proposed by the Liberals change the bill substantially, the amendments proposed by each party change the bill substantially, and we need an opportunity to look at that.

Mr. Chair, with respect, whether you say they may or may not be connected, we have no idea whether they are, but the whole bill is interconnected in three parts. Some parties have suggested it should be one part. There is just no possible way we will know whether or not the amendments proposed by the Liberals are included or connected to the pieces of legislation, the clauses we approve or don't approve. There is no way we can tell.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Let's take a recess for a few minutes. But while you're discussing in your recess, remember what I said about getting to that point--hearing it. I suspect that the collective desire of the committee will be to suspend at that point, and we will suspend at that point. Your concerns will then be catered to in terms of going away, assessing, and so on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Order.

Before we proceed, I want to say that I've had a quick look at the amendment in question. My initial impression is that it authorizes new spending. That's fairly clear to me. It would require royal recommendation, and that would make it inadmissible. I'm willing to hear some argument on this either now or later, before making a ruling, but that is my strong impression, having had a look at the proposed amendment.

Do we want some discussion on that at this point?

Seeing heads nod, I'll go to Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I missed exactly what you said. Are you saying the environment commissioner piece is out of order?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

My initial impression is that it authorizes new spending, which requires a royal recommendation, which makes it inadmissible.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I guess my first reaction, Mr. Chair, is that this is very troubling.

We've heard the minister and various government members say many times in committee—

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Cullen, on a point of order.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I apologize to Mr. McGuinty, but I'm not sure why we're able to discuss this. Has this been moved? Have we accepted this? I appreciate your ruling and consideration of whether it's in order, but I don't even know if we're looking at this yet.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

What I was trying to do before was get to that point, so that I can in fact make the point I just made. We were just having difficulty getting there.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I do appreciate it, but just in terms of the process of this committee and being fair, we're now into a substantive debate without the motion having been moved.

This is the problem with dropping things on the table at the last minute. There's no consideration for the clerk's staff or the legal counsel to know whether something is receiving a royal recommendation, so we're making decisions essentially on the fly. We've only just seen this in the past five minutes, as have the staff.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Everybody appreciates that this is not easy. We're not actually in clause-by-clause, so we're not actually discussing the amendment. After having looked at it, I'm giving you my impression before we get to that point. What this will lead to after the discussion about whether people agree with that or not, I'm suspecting, is that we will not proceed further and that it will wind up going to the next meeting.

Is this on the point of order? If not, we'll go back to Mr. McGuinty.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

It is on the point of order.

I just think it's appropriate that the Liberals move their amendment, and we can deal with it accordingly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Then we would go back to where I was trying to get to in the first place, and that is to start through the process and get to that point. I would probably repeat what I've just said, and we could take it from there. Is that agreeable?

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

My apologies to you, Chair, but particularly after having heard your words already on this ruling, the problem with this is that a concept like this is something the New Democrats have been pushing for, as Mr. Godfrey pointed out. Because it has been done in such a hurried way, it has thrown into jeopardy the very possibility of moving this into Bill C-30. Because of it not being prepared and ready and tabled with due consideration and time, it sounds like we're going to lose this whole amendment entirely. While I'm urging the committee to get down to work, this has thrown what could be a very good idea into total jeopardy because of the Liberals delivering it so late to the table. I'm not sure we've gotten due consideration on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I take your point, Mr. Cullen. What I'm trying to do is get the process moving and get to that point. I haven't made a ruling. I'm just telling you my first impressions of that.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Oh, I see. You're about to make the ruling.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Whether that changes with discussion or not remains to be seen. There are, of course, ways you can challenge any ruling that is disagreeable. That's part of the process.

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I'll make this very short. I think it's appropriate for the Liberals to move their amendment scheme. That's the first thing we need to do, in proper order, and then we can deal with it accordingly, Mr. Chair.

And I do have a motion to deal with subsequent to that.