Evidence of meeting #2 for Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was witnesses.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5 p.m.
Conservative
5 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
No. It's accomplishing the same purpose, following on to what we're hearing from the environment community. It's actually later than they wanted it, but we're making concessions.
5 p.m.
The Clerk
So the revised motion, then, would read “that the committee hear witnesses from February 5 to March 2, and that the committee report back to the House no later than March 19”--simply.
5 p.m.
Conservative
5 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Well, I thought we actually had a compromise proposed by Mr. Bigras that allowed us to do a number of things: have enough time for witnesses; a little time for thought, reflection, to think through what good amendments would look like on the basis of that; and then go to clause-by-clause beginning on March 19.
I cannot, for the life of me, see what gains are made by the unrealistic expectation of people sitting at a time when they should be thinking, and actually pulling together something that would be done by the end of March. I find this disrespectful of a serious process. And it's done for whatever motives, which I won't go into.
But if we're going to do this seriously, we have to hear the witnesses, think about it, and come back with the amendments after March break.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
With respect, Mr. Chair, to you, I can't help this. We've had 13 years, quite frankly, of talking and listening and spending taxpayers' money with no results.
We've heard enough. We've had committee after committee that has heard about and done reports on this particular topic. We need to get some results for Canadians, and we need to do it now. We're already 13 years behind on what the Liberals promised. It's time to get some action done, and this is enough time to do it.
With respect, Mr. Chair, this is not about holding up legislation; this is about the best interest of Canadians, and we need to do something.
5:05 p.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
First of all, it may be important to remember the initial suggestions that were made. Without it being stated officially, everyone agreed that the government wanted us to consider the bill quickly because it is urgent to act soon. The government even wanted to complete the study of bill C-30 within a mont and a half. The Liberals wanted to do a more in-depth study of the bill, which could have taken another three months, or even four, far longer than what the government proposed.
We need to come to a consensus and adopt a compromise, which would be to study the bill for five weeks and use the two break weeks to digest the testimony we will have heard. If we feel that we need to hear additional witnesses, nothing prevents us from sitting during the break weeks to hear other witnesses and put the finishing touches to our study. These two extra weeks would mean the study would be completed by March 19. This seems like a reasonable compromise to me, and midway between the four months that had been proposed and the government's position, which was a month or a month and a half. Overall, we will have studied the bill for approximately two months.
I would remind the government that we are about to a move to a vote. The government asked the opposition to show some flexibility and some openness. That is what the opposition, the Bloc and the others have done over the last few hours. I hope the government will show some consistency; you wanted to move quickly, and we accepted your arguments, even though we may not necessarily have wanted to. We did so because we believe it is important to accelerate the process and work more intensively.
I hope we will be able to reach a compromise and bring everyone on side, one that will give us the flexibility we need. Otherwise, Mr. Chairman, we will not be able to vote in favour of a motion forcing us to table a report by March 19. It can't just be a difference of two weeks. I don't believe that two weeks' difference should be enough to prevent us from reaching some consensus. Between a three-month difference and two weeks, I think a compromise... We have to be willing to compromise, take this seriously and provide a reasonable timeframe. I think two months is reasonable and acceptable. The government was saying a month and a half a few hours ago, while the Liberals seemed to have a more ambitious plan.
A good compromise has been suggested. The committee should function in this non-partisan way. If we can't compromise now, I really wonder how we will do down the line. Unfortunately, we will have to vote against this motion, and some people will have to explain why the committee failed to come to an agreement on this two-week discrepancy, considering our agenda and the action plan to be considered under bill C-30.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
I wasn't going to, but I have to make a couple comments about the speed at which this is apparently supposed to be dealt with and treated.
First I'd like to debunk one of the myths that is constantly the Republican technique refrain of the government about 13 years of inaction. If they want to build trust, faith, and credibility here, they should go back and understand that first of all the Government of Canada ratified the Kyoto Protocol in 2002. Secondly, a full year later, when Russia entered into the agreement internationally--
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
In the spirit of Mr. McGuinty's comments about not wishing to go down some partisan track, I agree with him that there were inappropriate comments, but a briefing on his government's history is just.... Let's not continue with this.
It was said by the government chairs...and I disagreed with the use of partisan attacks or records being brought forward. I don't think it serves us or Mr. McGuinty to continue discussing the merits of what Liberal plan was brought forward, and when Russia ratified Kyoto.
5:10 p.m.
An hon. member
It's not a point of order.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
It's a point of debate. In the interest of moving it forward and trying to maintain some non-partisanship here, I would like to get back to debating the motion itself, if we could do that.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
I'm trying to make progress. Thanks, Mr. Chair. I'm not going to get into tit-for-tat, because it's not worth it. What I'm trying to point out here is that it took time. In three weeks of hearings, three weeks of witnesses.... Is that what we're contemplating now for March 19, to report back with amendments and clause-by-clause?
5:10 p.m.
A voice
Sixty witnesses, a maximum of one hundred.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
The best way I can illustrate it is to give by example a process that was done by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy some years ago, a climate change forum, so that you get a sense of the kind of time it took 30 members of the Order of Canada to listen to experts and to deal with some of the design features of our response nationally and internationally.
That process lasted several months, and those members of the Order of Canada had the benefit of hearing from experts eight to ten hours a day, for several days—many, many days at once—two or three days and then a break, then two or three days and then a break, and so on. I think there were five sessions in total. It was limited to 35 experts, but they were speaking about climate change in its entirety. We're not going on that great a journey. But I think we should be very careful trying to circumscribe the debate and perhaps even censor the debate by trying to cap it too early.
I think there's a perfectly reasonable middle ground here to give us the time to hear from the witnesses, to draft amendments and take them forward, and then go through clause-by-clause. I'm not sure why there is the rush here for March 19. Is this a budget deadline? Is this a pre-budget submission that we're looking towards? Can someone help me understand why March 19? Why not March 17 at 12 noon? Can we give ourselves an appropriate amount of time here so we can do our work and hear from people? We're not talking about six months. We're not even talking about three months. We're talking about how many weeks, to the end of March--six weeks?
After a year of silence from the government on the issue, I don't think it's a bad thing, six weeks.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Mr. Chair, I'd like to call the question. I'm asking for a recorded vote.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Unfortunately, in committee you do have to allow debate to go on, but I would encourage getting to that stage at some point here fairly quickly.
At the moment, we have two more members who wish to speak.
Mr. Scarpaleggia.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
I have a simple question for Mr. Jean and a simple question for Mr. Cullen. I'd like them to tell me why it has to be the 19th. Is this political gamesmanship? We have a choice here, a fork in the road, and I'd like them to say it for the record.
We have a fork in the road. We do something for political reasons or we take the time to reflect, even if it's just another two weeks, to get it right. That's the choice.