Evidence of meeting #21 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
There is no consent, so we now have to vote on the first amendment.
On that first amendment, those in favour—
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
This is the one we were going to withdraw. We need consent to withdraw it and we've been denied unanimous consent.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
The amendment would insert, after the word “bill”:
...after the mandated 5-year review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) is complete or until after the winter break (Christmas recess), whichever comes first.
We want to deal with CEPA first. We had a gentlemen's agreement. I'd like to remove that, but we don't have unanimous consent.
I will be supporting the motion, because I do support it in principle, but it appears we're not going to be successful.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Is there any more debate? No?
We have a request for a recorded vote on this amendment. Those in favour?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
We're voting on the original amendment. We asked for consent to withdraw that, as the mover wanted. We did not get unanimous consent because Mr. Vellacott opposed it. Therefore, we now have to go to a vote to accept or oppose the amendment, and it will be a recorded vote.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
I asked if anyone wanted to speak on the amendment. Hearing no one wanting to speak, I went ahead to call the vote.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
I thought you had a new thing on withdrawing it and it was a vote on that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
No, this is on the original amendment, because we were refused consent to simply remove it. We're now voting on that amendment put forward by Mr. Warawa some time ago.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
I placed the question, I received no replies, and I'm therefore moving forward with the vote on the amendment.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
We now go back to the new amendment, which is being proposed, I believe, by Mr. Rodriguez.
Could you read that amendment to us again, please?
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
The initial motion mentions at the bottom of the page that the study of the bill should commence no later than Thursday, November 2, 2006, and that there should be a clause-by-clause study no later than November 21. That is where the first change goes: we replace this latter date by December 5, 2006. And then we add that the report of the bill to the House must be no later than December 7, 2006.
It is therefore a simple amendment which replaces November 21 by December 5 and November 23 by December 7.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
There will be a recorded vote on this. Is there any discussion on this amendment?
Mr. Vellacott.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
We'll go back to the original here. Obviously we have some different points of view, certainly on our side, and probably over there as well. As an individual committee member, I have a major concern. We have already moved to pre-empt CEPA. I think we're setting a precedent, and I think it's a very unhealthy one at that.
By way of the previous amendment that was just defeated, we've already agreed to the fact that we were going to be looking at that in the month of February. For us to have that kind of agreement is better than any other private member's bill that I know of. Normally it's off into the distance, with some vague or ambiguous kind of a future.
We've even gone so far, Mr. Rodriguez, as to agree to when your bill is going to be up. That's certainly far ahead of any other thing I've seen in the way of private member's bill dealings around here in a long time.
As was mentioned and stressed, the fact is that this CEPA review was mandated every five years, by your own government, no less. It wasn't something put in by the new Conservative government. CEPA, 1999, was a Liberal initiative in a previous mandate here, and we're already two years behind your mandated review. These delays now are even making it later and later.
This is crucial stuff that concerns the health of the public, including children, who are the most vulnerable population among us. I have family and relatives and constituents in my riding of Saskatoon—Wanuskewin who are concerned with getting on with this and getting it moving so that we can take the kinds of steps necessary under the CEPA review to deal with the issues.
I thought there was that great heart and passion to get that done by members all around the table—members on the government side and members of the opposition as well—in a diligent, aggressive, assertive approach with respect to that, but now we're delaying that. We're already two years behind that mandated review, and now this kind of stuff wants to put us into a corner, making it even later.
We've been mandated to carry out that review of CEPA, and the committee can't afford to waste time and delay the CEPA review. I think it should be the priority. We should continue that CEPA review and try to finish hearing from witnesses by December. We're already up against some timelines here.
The tentative schedule for CEPA witnesses had already been formed. Witnesses were contacted for the next number of weeks. I think it's very unfair to witnesses to have things rescheduled, as that creates a great deal of uncertainty as well.
As we know, for the consumer, the taxpayer, if you will, there are considerable costs incurred. As a result, that's also at issue in respect of this. We had a number of items to discuss, and we need to take the time to properly look at those other priorities instead of at a coercive plan that has come before us now.
With respect to the intent that we had by way of giving the promise to put it off and do it at a later point, we were of the view that the committee can't afford to waste time and delay that review. Therefore, we wanted to finish hearing from witnesses by December. We need to write the report for CEPA, and that tentative schedule had already been formed, witnesses were contacted, and so on.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Mr. Vellacott, if I might interrupt, we have heard all of these arguments and it's time for us to now move on. I believe you're straying away from the amendment that has been worked out between the two sides. It's ready to be voted on. Unless you have something very new to add, I think we've heard all of those arguments already.
Does anyone else have any comments on the amendment?
Conservative
