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

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

Well, then, Mr. Chair, this is a critical moment in terms of setting a tone for this committee. We've attempted to be up front. We've all agreed upon the rules. I'm looking at your ruling when we decided on how amendments would be brought. The suggestion that a substantive amendment....

We heard testimony about the Commissioner for the Environment many weeks ago. This did not happen in the last few days. So while it may be valid to have this consideration with regard to Bill C-30, it's irresponsible to drop it on the day of. And to expect committee members to discuss and cast votes on it can be seen as a form of delay. This is a substantive amendment on which we heard testimony some weeks ago, and suddenly we want committee members to address it and vote on it today--to change Canadian law, change the role of the Commissioner for the Environment, all with five minutes.

I think it's irresponsible on the part of my colleagues in the Liberal Party when we've been trying to work in a spirit and environment of cooperation and forthrightness. My goodness, we in the NDP tabled our amendments in November.

This is just totally unacceptable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Okay.

I would like to hear from Monsieur Bigras, and then I would like to move on--

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

Sorry, Mr. Chair, but this is important. If the Liberals are proposing that this come up now for our vote and our consideration in debate today, and this is the type of precedent we're setting for the rest of Bill C-30, then--

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Well, there are a couple of things we're going to get to before we get to that one. My suggestion may be that we allow them to move it and we at least hear it. Then we can decide whether we're in a position to discuss it or not.

Monsieur Bigras.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have not read the blues from the last meeting, but it was clear that we were to provide most of our amendments by the 15th, although we were not to be precluded from tabling other amendments after discussion.

In my opinion, we could certainly allow the Liberal Party to present its marathon amendment on the environment commissioner, but we should expect this amendment to be stood, given the fact that we have not had the opportunity to look at it and that we need some time to do so.

Therefore, the Liberal Party presents its amendment, but we ask it to accept the idea of having it stood, in order to be considered later on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Godfrey.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Two points, Mr. Chair.

First of all, the location of this amendment about the Commissioner for the Environment comes as a result of advice from the drafters. They felt this was the logical place to put it. I understand and share Mr. Cullen's concern that it's come early, that there hasn't been that much notice for it.

The second observation I would make is that I thought--unless I misunderstood him during the discussion on the Commissioner for the Environment--that at some point Mr. Cullen thought it would be a useful idea to migrate the independent Commissioner for the Environment into Bill C-30.

So while I understand the difficulty of confronting a new piece right off the top, it was suggested strongly by the drafters that we do so, and that this was the place for it. Secondly, the overall idea is not out of line with what I understood Mr. Cullen's thinking to be.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Can I ask a question? Is it acceptable to members to follow Mr. Bigras's suggestion that the Liberals be allowed to move it, and then we can decide whether--

[An hon. member]

Let's talk about it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Okay.

Mr. Manning, go ahead.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

Thank you again, Mr. Chair.

I respect Mr. Godfrey's comments, but to say we didn't get much notice.... We got five minutes' notice. To bring in a substantial amendment and give us five minutes' notice to sit down here at the table and to make a decision on that amendment I think is unfair to all members of the committee. If we're going to bring amendments--and we had the right to table amendments at each meeting--it's going to take the plan we had for today and put it to one side. To deal with this amendment I think is unfair to all committee members, and I think we should have a serious look at whether we even accept the opportunity to put forward the amendment today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I'm going to let the Liberals move it, and, per Mr. Bigras's suggestion, put off discussion of it.

M. Bigras

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

My question is for the legislative clerk. Apart from the marathon amendment, is there, among those amendments that came in this morning and that we have just received, any amendment that might have an impact on other amendments that are already contained in the binder?

If such is the case, then it is more than a problem of substance, it is a technical problem. We would have to ensure consistency and we are at present very ill-equipped to do so, because we have not had the opportunity to analyze the amendments we have just been given.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Jean.

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

Thank you for recognizing me, Mr. Chair.

I think the key here is that we've got a lot of work in front of us. We've got one of the most aggressive schedules of any legislative committee in the past, and this sets the precedent for the rest of the time. I think it's very important. It's not whether it's good or bad, and very possibly they're good amendments. The point is--and we respect they can be brought up at any time--we set a schedule and we set that schedule to meet certain criteria and to make sure we had an appropriate time to analyze the amendments. We have four different parties here, 12 or 13 different people who are putting forward a different role, and we need to make sure we can analyze it appropriately.

I would suggest--and I saw some agreement before from Mr. Godfrey that seemed to indicate he was prepared to do that--if there is a situation where these particular amendments deal with any other amendments, I think we have to put those at the end and deal with them at a subsequent time. We can bring them forward at any time they're deemed to be appropriate. Certainly, Mr. Chair, we need to look at some flexibility on the part of the other parties so we're not taken by surprise and some particular piece of legislation that is not appropriate in this particular case, or good for Canadians, slips through.

As I said before, I think the reality is they might be good amendments, but we don't know that without a proper opportunity to compare all four different sections with each section we have to deal with from the amendments from all parties and the original bill and what the witnesses have said. There's not a lot of opportunity to do that. With respect, Mr. Chair, I think there should be some flexibility on behalf of the other parties to at least, if one of the other parties doesn't want to deal with it at this stage, put it at the end so we can give some sober thought to it and look at all the considerations. I would think this would be the best opportunity for us in this particular case.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

If I could make a suggestion, I think I did sense some of that with Mr. Bigras's suggestion and Mr. Godfrey's comments that we call it when it comes. The Liberals can move it, but we stand discussion on it until the clerks have had some time, because there are interrelationships, which they're obviously not equipped to deal with on such short notice, nor are other members of the committee, other parties, equipped to deal with that on short notice.

Is that an acceptable way to proceed? When it comes up in sequence it will be moved, and we'll stand discussion on it until everybody has had a chance to examine it. Is that--

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

I'm sorry for not being recognized, Mr. Chair, but I think all related clauses would as well be fair because of the necessary connection among them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

As we go through it today, if some of them relate to that one, then we'll have to consider it at the time.

Mr. Cullen, do you have a final word?

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

I would assume the related clauses are just about every Liberal amendment, because they took out all of them and put in a whole bunch of new ones. I don't think I can hear any Liberal amendment today, but I don't know.

This is a complicated act. When you adjust one piece, you adjust another. I don't have the Parliament of Canada Act in front of me, and I don't know if anyone else does. By changing all of the amendments, bringing in new ones, or bringing in a couple of substantive ones with a new act, it affects other pieces of their amendments. I can't hear any of them.

The Liberals have brought this on themselves. This is absolutely ridiculous.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I'm going to make a ruling in a minute.

Monsieur Paradis.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would tend to agree with Mr. Cullen. We are talking about two substantive amendments that may appear simple, but that is not necessarily the case, because all of the amendments are interconnected. We have analyzed the amendments we received earlier, those provided by the Bloc and the NDP as well as the Liberal Party. We must now examine a whole new series of amendments. We do not know what they deal with and I doubt that this would provide for an efficient discussion. We were provided with no prior notice and I fear that because of that some errors might slip in. We must be responsible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

A short point, Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know it took the Liberals ten years to get to the point to be able to drop something like this on the committee, but I hardly think it's fair that we have a few minutes to assess the impact of the interconnectedness on the rest of the amendments.

It might be nice to suggest that they simply be introduced and we'll stand them, but how many other consequential amendments are linked to those that we might have to stand? We don't have an understanding yet of the interconnection. I think it quite frankly inhibits the work of the committee today.

I understand this probably adheres to the letter of the law regarding amendments, but it certainly violates the spirit of it. It's not simply to consider a few amendments that are new and are not necessarily substantial. This is brand new, and I think it violates any possibility for goodwill at the committee. I really think it was a disappointing thing to happen today.

Mr. Chair, perhaps it would be fair to subject these to the 48-hour notice rule. It would allow them to come before the committee in two days rather than introducing them here today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Jean, on a point of order.

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

Yes, I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

We have precedents set here. The precedent in relation to the question being asked is that each member of this committee has an opportunity to speak before any other member.

I've had an opportunity to speak three times, and it's four times, including this point of order. Mr. Warawa and many of the other members have spoken. Mr. Manning has actually had his hand up for quite some period of time and has not had an opportunity to be heard.

Mr. Chair, I think it would be appropriate for all members to be heard before we make any ruling.