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.
Conservative
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
What we can do is pass the original motion and clarify what natural resources testimony is there, if that would make it easier for committee members, and then suggest a second motion.
Clearly the point of this is to have as much information in committee members' hands as possible, and to realize the path already walked.
January 29th, 2007 / 3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Yes, Mr. Chair.
I support Mr. Cullen's motion, but I'm wondering if we couldn't just do it in the one motion that's before us by putting in “that all the submissions and the reports from the natural resources, industry, and environment committees' study of the Kyoto Protocol,” etc.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I appreciate the attempt at clarification, but it might muddy the waters a bit.
The clerk has the motion as amended. Perhaps he can read that and we can vote on it and get on with it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
We'll take an intervention from Mr. Bigras, and then we'll re-read the motion.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
To begin with, let me say that I welcome this motion. I think that it is an excellent idea.
Mr. Cullen told us that its purpose is to allow us to obtain more information. We should then be able to make better decisions by taking into account the work done by the Standing Committee on the Environment. On the other hand, I want to be clear about the intent of the motion. In fact, we were told that we should avoid doing work that has already been done.
I want Mr. Cullen to assure us that this will not prevent certain witnesses who already appeared before other committees regarding the Kyoto Protocol from appearing before this committee and presenting briefs on Bill C-30. If we are sure of this, we will support our colleague's motion.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
It's not an exclusionary list. It's intended for the committee's information, to aid us in our deliberations, nothing more.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
It's a matter of public record in any event, so committee members would be able to use it, or not, as they see fit.
Conservative
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Chad Mariage
The motion is:
That all submissions and reports from the Environment Committee's study on the Kyoto Protocol in the 38th Parliament, the reports and submissions from the Environment Committee's study of Bill C-288, and the submissions from the Natural Resources Committee study on the oil sands in 39-1 be tabled as evidence for the study on Bill C-30.
(Motion agreed to)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
As far as the rest of the business is concerned, we have an order of business here. Does the committee want to proceed in that order, or do we want to take some of what might be the easier ones first?
Just as a suggestion, it was put to me by a number of people that the selection of witnesses might better be left to the end because it may take a little bit longer.
Mr. Cullen.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'm not so much concerned about whether we take the schedule of meetings, although we have some proposals for that. For the witnesses, perhaps it is to identify a process that's going to be effective. Is it simply going down the witness list and voting on each one? There are concerns about an exaggeration of time for this.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you, Chair.
If there is an appetite to have a steering committee look at the witness list, then I'd suggest that we determine whether or not there's going to be a steering committee. If there is, then we don't have to go to the list. If there's not, at that time we would go to the list. So I'd suggest that we maybe look at our schedule, because if there's going to be a steering committee, that could be at the end.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Before going on to the following points on the agenda, namely choosing witnesses, the schedule of meetings and the notice of motion, and even before we vote on the motion regarding the creation of a steering committee, it may be useful to hold a more general debate, albeit concise, on the spirit in which we intend to work. I think that if we proceed too quickly with choosing witnesses, we might not cover the ground properly.
If, ultimately, we are not satisfied with the orientation of the committee or if we have difficulty establishing a procedure to follow, we could envisage creating a steering committee. In any case, we should discuss this before raising issues like the selection of witnesses or the schedule for the meetings.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
What I'm hearing is that Monsieur Bigras would like to discuss the schedule of meetings and sort of work towards a timeframe. Is that what you're suggesting?
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I get a sense that Mr. Bigras wants to have a larger discussion. I would support such a thing, as long as we're focused and we move on, beyond that, to the actual choices we're making today.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Do you mean a discussion in terms of setting our own timeframe and deadline? Is that what we're talking about? Or am I missing that?
In terms of objectives, Mr. Bigras, are we talking about the timeframe? Is that what you're looking at getting into? The spirit of the work is, I hope, a spirit, ultimately, of cooperation. We're going to get to clause-by-clause, of course, and see what comes out at the other end. Is that what you're getting at? Or am I missing something?
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Chairman, we cannot discuss the selection of witnesses if we have not previously decided how to orient our work. We could very well discuss whether we should study the bill during one month or five months, but these are technical elements, and although they are important, they must be based on a consensus within the committee on the tenor of our debate. For instance, if we decide to spend a month studying this bill, it means that we want to apply certain principles. I think that we must discuss this issue.
I do not know what my Liberal colleagues think of this.