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.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Is there debate? Do we need to review that motion one more time?
We'll call the question.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
No, there was a question put about numbers of witnesses and such. Just so people at the committee understand, the way Parliament works, this committee essentially can override any other committee. But even not doing that, we have the availability of many hours of witnesses. But even going just on three weeks, under the proposal we've put forward, allows for approximately 60 witnesses. If we chose to take a more aggressive weekly schedule, we could get up to 100 witnesses, almost include everything that has been suggested, which I don't think is a good idea, but just to put that into context for people as to the thoroughness that we are contemplating for this law.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
I appreciate that we have time for witnesses. Can you tell us how much time we would have, after those witnesses speak, to prepare amendments and be able to put those amendments together? How much time does this work plan allot for the development of amendments and consideration of what the witnesses have told us?
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
There's an interesting thing in this, Mr. Chair, in that it's coming from Mr. Holland's benches, a government that, when in power, said they had a plan ready to meet Kyoto. And that's just a claim I've put forward in terms of substantive changes to the law of Canada required, budgetary or otherwise.
I would assume there is substance behind that claim. That substance could fall into amendments, I imagine, quite readily. If claims are being made by members around this committee for two things, urgency and capacity, and each party has made various claims on Kyoto and our abilities to meet it, then I assume they've done the legwork on it in their green plan that was issued when they were in government and in Mr. Dion's statements since in terms of confidence in meeting Kyoto objectives. Those are the amendments that the NDP have put forward and made public. If committee members have chosen not to do that or their parties have chosen not to do that work, then they have a lot of work ahead of them.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I'm just really trying to understand. There are three things in play. One is the number of weeks we're going to take. Clearly, on this side, up to a certain point--the point being in the corner--there's a feeling that a reasonable compromise between going long and going short is the one we had previously agreed to, which would have us begin clause-by-clause on March 19. I think we will stick to that. Whatever the other two parties choose to do about it, they will live by the consequences of that.
I take it that we're not now debating the particular days and hours. That's a separate matter, is it? And we are also not debating the format of the meetings. There is a proposal here, but I have suggested informally a more fulsome proposal, which I think would be more useful, one proposed by the NGO community. So that is a separate discussion, I am assuming, which we have not yet come to but will have to in a future meeting.
Today this discussion is strictly about the weeks.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
The Clerk
Okay. The motion is that week one, from January 29 to February 2, include finalizing the process and witness list and hearing from departmental officials--Environment, Health, NRCan--Minister of the Environment, Minister of Health. Weeks two to five are February 5 to March 2, and the committee will report back to the House no later than March 19.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
The vote is tied. Now we come to the first tiebreak.
According to Marleau and Montpetit,
The Chair is not bound to give reasons for voting. By convention, the Chair will normally vote in such a way as to maintain the status quo or, when no further discussion on the matter is possible, to keep the matter open for further discussion in the committee or at a subsequent proceeding in the House.
Therefore I'm voting against the motion.
(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 6)
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I propose that we go back to the plan that we originally agreed on: that we hear witnesses until March 2, that we take the two-week break to reflect on amendments, and that we begin our work on clause-by-clause on March 19.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Well, not to predict future votes, but to me Mr. Godfrey's proposal is not acceptable. I think the notion I brought forward in terms of a proposal to have a subcommittee decide this is a valid one for this committee to consider in terms of our having some ability to get to a work plan. We're drawing near the time of two hours to decide on a work plan. It seems to me that ending up inevitably or potentially at a tie vote, with a potential continuation of discussion by the chair, does not serve us well.
If the committee is hoping to compromise.... We've all been on committees where subcommittees have been struck and work very effectively--the environment committee, for instance, in the last session.
So I make my intention known, as I have before, in terms of this proposal by Mr. Godfrey. I will be suggesting that we move a subcommittee so that we can sort this out and allow Canadians some sense of hope that we're getting something done.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
I would like to make a friendly amendment.
The concern I have is that this be done in a timely fashion. I was hoping for a quicker resolve to this. Mr. Cullen's suggestion, which was just defeated, I think was a form of compromise, but unfortunately it did not pass. The suggestion now is that we deal with clause-by-clause beginning on March 19. I'm going to ask for the mover to accept a friendly amendment that we have closure at a known date. I would suggest that one week later would be reasonable. Instead of March 19 for closure, it would be one week later, March 26. We could be assured that it would be no later.
So through you, Mr. Chair, would the mover accept a friendly amendment that it be reported back to the House no later than March 26?
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
No. It may well be that we're done by then, but this is not a short bill. We're not going to drag it out, but I don't want to tie our hands if it turns out that we're into....
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Then I would move that as an amendment, Mr. Chair, and would like to speak to it.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
The motion states that we would begin clause-by-clause on March 19. My amendment would be that Bill C-30 be reported back to the House no later than March 26, which is a week later.
Mr. Chair, we need to have a good, healthy clause-by-clause discussion, but I'm quite concerned about what might be perceived as stall tactics going on here. There is an urgency to get this back to the House. Is a week adequate? Absolutely. The work can be done. Hopefully we can even complete this before then. March 26 would be the absolute latest it would have to be reported back.
So in terms of eliminating the opportunity for anybody to think that there are going to be stall tactics here, I think this is a healthy amendment.