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
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—
Conservative
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.
Liberal
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.
Conservative
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.
Conservative
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?
Conservative
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.
Conservative
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.
Conservative
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?
Liberal
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 23rd, 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 2nd, and there would have been another meeting on the 7th, and then the 9th, then the 21st and the 23rd, which would have been five meetings and not two. We calculate the number of working meetings.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Perhaps you would direct your questions through the chair, please, otherwise--
Conservative
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?
Conservative
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.
Liberal
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--
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chair, the government did not break its word.
Liberal
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
I would ask the honourable member to provide information to support his claims, because they are not accurate.
Liberal