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.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
The second point is that we are not here today to discuss the work plan.
The third point I'd like to make—and, Mr. Chair, you know this, having sat on the committee when it was chaired by Charles Caccia—is that if members really want to tackle a problem, they can double up on meetings in a given day. I've been part of other committees that have done that, and you have as well.
So I don't think that's an issue. I think this is a red herring and that we should go back to the original motion and talk about the work plan another time.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Okay. We're still waiting on the ruling that we....
Are we getting close?
Does anyone else...?
Yes, Mr. Godfrey.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Clearly we can't be accused of submitting an incomplete work plan when the other side is preventing the work plan from going forward. We actually reduced the number of sessions to accommodate the government side, so that we could return to CEPA as quickly as possible. We can't both be accused of delaying things in the CEPA review and at the same time be told we don't have enough sessions and that we need to have more.
The government will have to decide which of those two propositions it supports, but we will obviously adjust. Once we get our work plan, we will clearly work as a committee in the spirit of cooperation to adjust, to accommodate witnesses from the other side, and to give the thing sufficient time. If we need more time, we'll take more time. But we can't even know when to begin until we actually decide that we're going to move ahead.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Yes, Mr. Godfrey, just to reply to that, the government side also has a list of witnesses, a list of dates.
Obviously we would have to meet, in answer to Mr. Scarpaleggia's point, literally every day for many more hours to accomplish this by the dates that are set out—just so the committee realizes that this in fact is what we're going to have in front of us, moving forward, when we discuss the work plan.
Mr. Bigras.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Chairman, I would like you to place stricter limits on the debates in the orders of the day. I get the impression occasionally that we are discussing the work plan for reviewing Bill C-288. I would suggest that you accept proposals and adresses concerning the motion we are debating. We are establishing a work plan even though this is an item that is farther down on the orders of the day. I don't mind discussing the content of the motion, if required, but I would ask you to keep the discussion under tighter control.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Thank you, Mr. Bigras. Basically what we're doing is waiting for the clerk to come up with the facts. That in fact is why I have allowed debate to go so loose. These are all subjects that are, of course, going to have to be dealt with.
Are we ready for the...?
We're just getting further clarification. But let's keep in mind what Mr. Bigras has said and not get too far-ranging in our comments.
I think, Mr. Cullen, you haven't said much in this debate.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
No. As fascinating as it has been, Chair, I've resisted at every turn.
I think what the committee has to establish is the number of hearings we need for—
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
No, no. Allow me this.
In all this confusion and debate about the number of days available prior to CEPA and all the rest of it, there is urgency to get CEPA out the door before Christmas. I think we can accomplish that.
The committee simply needs to decide on the number of suitable hearings we need to have, schedule those hearings, and not be limited purely to the nine to eleven o'clock time slot on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Many committees have done this in the past. Opposition parties have worked with government to make it happen in the past.
Finally, I'd say, regardless of the ruling coming back from the clerk and you, that we call the question and get on with it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
One of the problems I have, Mr. Bigras, again from experience, is that I don't recall ever spending this much time discussing a private member's bill when there is government legislation in front of us. It is rather unusual territory that we're into at this point.
Anyway, I think the clerk is—
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Chair, there's an important point, though. There isn't any government legislation in front of us.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
But that's not legislative. It's a non-legislative review.
It's very important for people to realize that there is no other pending work, other than the CEPA review we're going through, which is non-legislative.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
If I can quote:
The chair cannot adjourn the committee on his or her own authority; only the committee can decide when it will adjourn. The chair may ask if the committee is ready to adjourn and if no one objects or wishes to keep speaking then the chair may adjourn the committee. Many chairs and members do, however, believe that the chair has this authority and a number of chairs have acted on that belief. In the event of disorder, the chair may suspend the meeting until order can be restored. Or if the situation is considered to be so serious as to prevent the committee from continuing with its work, the meeting may be adjourned.
So if you get too rowdy, obviously I can adjourn the meeting. If you stay civil, then you heard the ruling.
This is a handbook used by clerks to find citations. They're now going to give you chapter and verse and the whole bit you want. Just one minute.
Yes, Mr. Cullen.
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
On that last point, I asked for the question to be called on this motion. It feels as if we're simply spinning wheels here and delaying.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Okay. Let me finish this point of order, and we'll get the citation. Then that's dealt with, and then we'll get to the amendment.
Let's try to get on. Is there any more debate on the amendment? I think you've all seen the amendment. Obviously, we're going to give you the exact.... Are there any more comments on that amendment? That's what we'll be voting on when we get this citation.
Mr. Warawa.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, the reason for the amendment is that I expressed concern moments ago that what's being proposed in the original motion does not give adequate opportunity and time. Mr. Godfrey did make a comment, also a moment ago, that he would be willing to provide adequate time, more time. If the mover were willing to provide an amendment to his original motion, that would provide adequate time for witnesses. And as I pointed out to him, what's being proposed with the wording of his motion is it only allows two meetings for witnesses. Yes, there are meetings for clause-by-clause. As of this week, there is an opportunity to table a working plan and also to go over the list of witnesses. We could do that in one meeting, next Thursday. But then we need more than two meetings to deal with all the witnesses. We could resolve this.
Mr. Chairman, at the same time as doing Bill C-288, we may also want to consider doing the CEPA review, so both are ongoing. We can be creative as a committee and deal with both, because I sure hope I'm right in that there is a genuine concern that we deal with the CEPA review and that we continue it. Maybe they could be done in parallel. We could be creative and come up with a solution that this committee could move on and deal with all the issues, not just the plans and aspirations of the opposition, but also the requirements of us as parliamentarians.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
So you're proposing we do Tuesdays--whichever order--on CEPA, and then on Bill C-288, and we alternate. That's your proposal?
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
We have an amendment on the table now, and before we vote on that, could I hear some comments from the other members, if there's an appetite to be a bit more conciliatory?
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of cooperation, we would be prepared to spend a number of additional meetings discussing Bill C-288. There is no problem on that score, I wish to assure you. We ought not to go so far as to alternate meetings to also discuss the CEPA, because we are clearly not obliged to give priority to the CEPA over Bill C-288. We have until May to study the CEPA whereas we have only 60 working days in the House to deal with Bill C-288.
That said, let us set aside the CEPA file and return to it as soon as possible. We will do solid team work and get back to it as soon as possible. But if the government wants to extend work on Bill C-288by a few days, we are prepared, in good faith once again, to spend a little more time on it, but strictly to speak about Bill C-288, and not to mix in all kinds of other subjects.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
If Mr. Warawa would withdraw his amendment, we could amend the motion to read simply, “begin its study of the bill no later than Thursday, November 2”, understanding by this that the session would be to discuss the work plan. We don't put a final limit; we will allow ourselves to establish the work plan, which will tell us when we would have our clause-by-clause.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
We could add, “begin its study of the bill to be concluded as soon as possible after the establishment of the work plan”—something to that effect, which allows us to—