Environment Committee on Oct. 31st, 2006

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

May I just make a comment, Mr. Chair? I have another committee to go to, of which I'm the vice-chair, so I'll be leaving. But somebody else will be coming to replace me. I presume that if the meeting has to go on—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Bigras is also vice-chair.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Bigras could take over then.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Unless he's leaving too!

We're just looking for the reference you've requested.

Are there any other comments while we are waiting?

Yes, Mr. Rodriguez.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Chairman, there is a simple way to put an end to the debate: by taking a vote. I presume that this is not the intention of the Conservatives. Although they say they do not want to filibuster, they are continuing to do so. If we adjourn now, I presume that they will start over with the same manoeuvre on Thursday, Tuesday and the next Thursday. They have never demonstrated their good faith. Quite the contrary, Mr. Chairman. We will therefore be forced to continue the debate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Rodriguez, maybe you can clarify your understanding as you explained it to me, the fact that if this motion passes, the second part of it is to discuss the work plan; therefore, the work plan would be the subject of Thursday's meeting, at which time witness lists and so on could be put forward.

That is Mr. Rodriguez' understanding, if I've translated that correctly.

Mr. Harvey.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Chairman, to finish with the CEPA, how many meetings do we still need? When would we be ready to submit a report?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

CEPA needs to be reported back to the House, I believe, on May 10. This bill is reported back to the House in sixty working days, which is some time in February, so those are your timelines on the two pieces we have in front of us. And of course at some point in there, the Clean Air Act could come to the committee as well. Those are the things we've got in front of us, plus I believe there are several other private members' bills that will be coming forward.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

As we're waiting for the clerk to share some guidance with us from the procedure manual, I do have a question. Again, in the spirit of wanting to cooperate with Mr. Rodriguez' motion, we were talking about the amendment, and we'll go back to that. I do have a question.

Mr. Rodriguez' original motion said we would begin studying his bill, Bill C-288, no later than Thursday, November 2, which is this week--two days from now--and that we would proceed to clause-by-clause no later than Thursday, November 21. I'm looking at the calendar and see that this would leave us, with a break week in between, only two meetings. I am ensuring I understand the original motion and why I have raised an amendment. What the work plan would do would allow for two meetings for witnesses. Am I interpreting that right? If I am, that's why I have great concern.

The original work plan presented by Mr. Godfrey had seven meetings; what you're proposing has only two. There are only two scheduled meetings, which would be November 7 and November 9, and Mr. Cullen's motion was to invite the minister before she went on her trip to Kenya, and that could be on November 7 or November 9 as well.

We have a lot of pressure on the committee. I think your original motion is not realistic. It does not provide adequate debate, adequate witnesses, adequate meetings. That's where I think we're having a huge problem, in that Bill C-288 needs to be done properly.

If we vote on my amendment, which we will do--when, I'm not sure--and then go back to your original motion.... If the amendment doesn't pass--hopefully, it will pass--but if it doesn't and we go back to the original motion, what are you proposing? That's my question to you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Rodriguez, I think that part of your schedule is Thursday. I don't think it's realistic to expect that we'll get through the work plan and have decisions made so that we can have witnesses on Thursday. Obviously, there is a problem in terms of timing. Do you want to address that?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Of course, asked me the question directly, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, we accepted the government's word, which is to say that we placed our confidence in the government when it said there would not be a filibuster. We may have made a mistake in the first place by trusting the government.

Second, if we were to work on Tuesday and continue until the 23^rd, that would represent five working meetings and not two, if you tally up the meetings. Mr. Chairman, if there had not been filibustering today, we would have begun on Thursday, hence the 2^nd, and there would have been another meeting on the 7^th, and then the 9^th, then the 21^st and the 23^rd, which would have been five meetings and not two. We calculate the number of working meetings.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

How many meetings would you have witnesses at?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

How many meetings? Three, four—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Perhaps you would direct your questions through the chair, please, otherwise--

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

My question to Mr. Rodriguez is, at how many meetings would we have opportunities to have witnesses? What Mr. Godfrey proposed was six or seven different meetings. We have a list of witnesses. Again, the opposition, in the spirit of cooperation, needs to consider our list of witnesses, our topics, too. But what you yourself had proposed was seven. Where are those seven days? What are you proposing?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I think it's obvious we have Thursday, we have two more days next week, we then have the break week. We're now into November 21 and November 23 for clause-by-clause, which we finish on November 23. I think that's how the work plan, as I read it, said. So there is...to make sure we're talking about the same days and so on.

Anyway, Mr. Scarpaleggia, I think you had something to add here.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

I think there are a couple of salient points here. One is that the government side of this committee broke its word. I think that should be on the record. It's not a good precedent to be setting.

Secondly--

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have the floor.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chair, the government did not break its word.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

No, I said government members did.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I would ask the honourable member to provide information to support his claims, because they are not accurate.

[An hon. member]

That's not a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Let's get back to—

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

I'm not finished my point, Mr. Chair.