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

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Unless it is amended.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, I'm looking forward to your ruling. As has been expressed, I too am very concerned about what's happened this morning. We are all here to move forward on Canada's Clean Air Act, and yet what we see now is nine or ten pages of legal text provided to the committee on one amendment.

What has been the result of that? We're now an hour into this meeting, and we've been stalled. I don't know if it was deliberate or not, but the results have put this committee into a quagmire and made it very difficult to move forward, both on the issue of Bill C-30 and also on dealing with the commissioner and the appropriate ways of dealing with the office of the Commissioner for the Environment. I'm very disappointed. I think it's important that you do provide a ruling on this, and I look forward to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

We have three more who have asked to speak.

Mr. Jean.

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

Not only do we have 3,000 words in one of their many amendments to look at prior to dealing with it, but it changes a substantial portion of what I consider to be one of the greatest offices in Canada, and that is, they're asking for an amendment to the Auditor General Act. I don't have a copy of the act in front of me. I understand that section 51.1 and section 15.1 of the Auditor General Act are repealed.

They're putting this forward, Mr. Chair, and I think it's beyond the point of ridiculous at this stage: 3,000 words of text that we have three minutes to review, plus amendments to other acts. Quite frankly, the Auditor General Act is one of the most important cornerstones of independence that we have in this Parliament. I just think it's ridiculous at this stage.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Monsieur Bigras.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As for the substance and the spirit of the motion, I adhere to the principles outlined. However, I wonder if it is truly within the confines of Bill C-30 that the changes proposed by the Liberal Party should be made. I consider the wish expressed to be interesting, but given that it would have an impact on amendments 32 and 33, it is my belief that this would place us in a precarious situation.

I therefore find the Liberal Party's actions today less than generous, despite the fact that they flow from valid principles. I am afraid that in using Bill C-30 to this end, we might be missing a golden opportunity to grant greater powers to the commissioner for the environment. The way in which this process is unfolding makes me uncomfortable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Monsieur Paradis.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is a substantive amendment. Earlier, I said that it could appear to be simple in the minds of those bringing it forward, but that is not necessarily the case for those who are receiving it. There is a system such that it ties in with other amendments that have been mentioned. I am not at all comfortable with the idea of working in this way, in other words of receiving amendments as such without prior notice. I fear that our work will be botched. I am therefore awaiting your ruling, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you. I think the discussion has died down.

My ruling now on this is that it would require royal recommendation because it does establish a new office under the Parliament of Canada Act and thus requires new spending; thus it requires a royal recommendation. I would therefore rule that it's inadmissible.

Mr. McGuinty, on a point of order.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to make a comment about that if I could. It's very unfortunate. In fact, it's a bit troubling to find out, after hearing the minister and various government members say many times in committee, in the House, and on television that we want to work together to put a much stronger Bill C-30 together, that what I hear implied in the ruling is that this bill doesn't spend any money and can't spend any money.

I'm not sure I know what we're going to be doing here with all these substantive amendments we've tabled if this is an impotent bill. I hope there's a way around this procedurally. I'm not an expert on parliamentary procedure, but my staff have handed me a relevant passage from the compendium. It states that

The Royal Recommendation can be provided after a bill has been introduced in the House, as long as it is done before the bill is read a third time and passed.

I think it would be useful for us going forward, for the suite of amendments we put forward, and for all parties who put substantive and serious amendments forward. I think it would be important for us to know, perhaps through Mr. Warawa, the parliamentary secretary who represents the government on this committee.... Before we go any further, I think Canadians need to know two things. First, is the government going to bring a royal recommendation later on in the House so we can pass spending amendments here, or is this process effectively a sham when it comes to money? Second, are we going to be a side show while the Prime Minister runs around announcing billions of dollars worth of programs that pre-empt the work of this committee?

I think Canadians who are watching deserve to know. We'd like to know. We've put forward some very serious substantive amendments, because this is a bad bill, and we're doing everything we can to rescue a bill.

So we put these forward, and now we find out that there is no royal recommendation attached and we can't talk about spending money. How can we possibly put forward a so-called Clean Air Act that doesn't call on the government to spend money? I'd like an answer to that before we go any further. How can Canadians trust this process if it was set up to fail in the first place?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

That ruling was on this amendment.

Mr. Cullen.

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

Again the process that the Liberals have chosen has put into jeopardy some of the very ideas many of us have promoted. I'm going to seek that we stand this particular change to the bill to give us time to consider it and give the government time to consider the necessary and legal attachment of a royal recommendation to such a position.

But keep in mind that this idea has been thrown into jeopardy by the movers, by the process of dropping it on the table the day of, when we've had weeks...when the Liberals themselves asked for extra time to contemplate and consider it over the break. Against the wishes of the New Democrats and every major environmental organization in this country, extra time was given.

Now on the day of the committee they bring forward a motion that we think is of substance, requiring a royal recommendation, which we also think is possible through this and through the government's consideration, which we encourage the government to do. But to rule on this today would be a mistake. It would be to slip into the error the Liberals have made in presenting this in the time they have. I would urge this committee to stand this motion and to move on with other business.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

You have an option, Mr. Cullen. I've made a ruling.

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

Is the option to challenge your ruling and stand the motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

No, you have an option to challenge the ruling.

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

Chair, in order to save a good idea presented in a bad fashion, I'll challenge the ruling. Following that I'll seek to stand this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Okay.

The question is not debatable. Is the chair sustained?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Chad Mariage]

The question is that the chair be sustained or not.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Sorry, Mr. Chair, what does “sustain" mean?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I made a ruling and the ruling has been challenged. So do you vote to sustain the chair, sustain the ruling, or not sustain the chair?

[The Clerk]

The question is shall the chair be sustained?

(Ruling of the Chair sustained)

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

The chair is sustained by a vote of 7 to 5.

Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm incredibly disappointed, but I'm not surprised. We wanted to get things done on the environment commissioner. We wanted to make some progress.

Mr. Chair, I have an alternate amendment that I'd like to move that does not require the spending of any funds beyond what is already provided for in the given authorities. I would like to distribute that. I have copies available, translated into French.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Jean.

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

Mr. Chair, here we are, at 10:10, with another amendment put forward by the Liberals. I mean, the sham here, the sideshow, is clearly evident.

We have a government that put forward a legislative committee, in cooperation with the NDP, and we've come before Canadians prepared to make amendments. We want an act that does a good job. For the first time in history, we have a government that's prepared to stand up for Canadians and put mandatory regulations and emissions standards in place, as well as clean air, in homes and outside.

This is absolutely ridiculous. We have a government that's prepared to cooperate, to compromise, and here we are, at 10:10, receiving more amendments from the Liberal Party. It is quite frankly a sham, and the sham is over on that side. We have come forward to work cooperatively, and we want to do so, but how can we do that when this kind of sideshow happens? It's disturbing.