Evidence of meeting #22 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 c-288.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
You can adjourn and continue the debate at the next meeting, if you wish, without having to force a vote.
9:05 a.m.
The Clerk
To adjourn you'd have to have a motion. If the committee is on, say, a point of order or debating and we get to eleven o'clock and the member wants to keep talking, we can't adjourn unless there's a motion--a motion to adjourn.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
No. Debate would carry on.
I'm just trying to suggest something so that we don't have confusion and that we settle it before we get into another situation like that.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
I asked the same question and I got a different answer five minutes ago, so I just want to make sure.
9:10 a.m.
The Clerk
Mr. Mills I think was trying to establish the procedure, not a ruling or anything. The procedure is basic. It takes a majority of the members to adjourn the meeting, as simple as that. So if you're still going, you're still going. That's the bottom line.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
That's the only objection I had, that we won't force the vote if we're not ready for a vote.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
[Inaudible--Editor]...the clerk was going to convey to us.
9:10 a.m.
The Clerk
It's only in English, but we can get the French. It's from the Journals from 1971, a Speaker's ruling. It basically says the same thing, a majority of members--if you want to read it.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
I don't think we need to spend any more time on that.
The second item I wanted to bring up again was a tradition of this committee. When we put forward a list of witnesses, the normal way we've handled that in the past is that each party puts forward a list of members. I would like this committee to instruct the clerk and his associates that he make sure to have a rounded group for the panel, that in fact we don't have all from one group or all from the other group, that in fact we have members from both groups or as much as possible not just one group, and that we don't have repeat witnesses serving on four or five round tables. Any comments on that?
So I would like your direction--and this is all I'm asking, to get direction to the clerk so that he hears it from all of you that in fact he is instructed to take the lists and to get members from all of those lists as much as possible, so that we never end up with a group from just one list or the other, and that in fact we don't recall the same people over and over, committee after committee.
Mr. Warawa.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think your suggestion is good. I just want a clarification, though.
You're talking procedurally for all future meetings, whether it be for Bill C-288 or the CEPA review--
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
No, I'm talking about Bill C-288, specifically, because we have lists now from everybody. I'm just saying that it would be good to clear the air now; that the clerk gets the instructions from this committee, that he does not have members from just one list at any given round table that we would have in the future.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
I feel that's fair and I think it will work quite well, and it's a procedure that should be followed for all topics of discussion.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
As you know, with CEPA, those are the instructions we've been working under, and I think they have worked quite well.
I'm suggesting let's do that right now, because we're faced with long lists, and let's not have them all from.... The clerk and Tim and so on are faced with the difficult task of getting people here, but if we give them those instructions, then that's how it should work.
Are there any other comments on that or any problems with that? Is everybody in agreement?
Mr. Cullen.
9:10 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'm looking at the two lists we have before us today and the balance between expediting this bill through and a thorough assessment of the implications of the bill. I'm still not convinced, looking at the number of meetings available, that the balance is there. I'm just not sure that in one, two, three, four meetings--
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Could we do that when we get into the work plan, Mr. Cullen? I think maybe that's where that could be dealt with.
I'm just suggesting a principle that we follow.
9:10 a.m.
NDP
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Well, let's get there, but I want consensus so that we give clear direction to the staff about getting witnesses.
Are there any problems with that for anybody? Good.
Let's move on then to item one that we have here, Mr. Warawa's motion. I believe everybody has a copy of it.
Mr. Warawa.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is an item left over from our last meeting, and I was actually quite pleased with the spirit of cooperation that we all saw at our last meeting.
I did, at our last meeting, express concern that CEPA appeared to be shelved for the time being, and as you all know, I think it's a high priority that we need to deal with. Again, in a spirit of compromise and the willingness to keep the momentum of the CEPA review ongoing and the list of witnesses we have, I've represented in this motion that I'd be willing to work within the committee an extra day a week so that we could keep the CEPA going.
What's being proposed in the work plan for Bill C-288 is that we meet Tuesdays and Thursdays at our normal hours. We could then continue on with the CEPA review in an additional meeting per week. This would show support for CEPA and the review, which is a legislative requirement. We have to finish. The plan was that we were going to have a report tabled in December, and hopefully we can still strive to meet that goal.
So I hope for your support.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Well, I understand and have some sympathy for that point of view. It seems to me, though, our world has changed since the motion was put forward. We now find ourselves moving forward on the clean air bill after first reading, and while it will be going to a special legislative committee, I suspect that many of the people around this table will be part of that special legislative committee. I would assume that many of us would want to be.
Ironically, of course, the bulk of the work around the clean air bill will be about CEPA. It is an amendment to CEPA. Mr. Warawa was not to know what the conclusion of those negotiations were when he put forward his motion, but I think realistically for those of us who.... We don't know for certain which of us will be there, but I suspect that we'll be doing double shift, as it is, with the environment committee on Bill C-288, and then some of us will be on the special committee, so that to add a third burden would be unreasonable, particularly since we will be discussing CEPA.
I think it would be very important, by the way, for as many of us as are around the table to be part of that special committee, because we've been prepped on CEPA. To go out and find other people who have not been studying it, as we have since May, would be very unproductive. It's rather ironic, actually.
I think in the context of the new responsibilities that many of us will have, I would have to vote against this, simply because--you weren't to know--I think we can't--
November 2nd, 2006 / 9:15 a.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We should give this a little more thought and consider the consequences of passing this type of motion, since a special committee will be examining the Clean Air Act. Since the members of this committee will probably sit on the next one, this could make their work more cumbersome.
We could ensure that our committee and the one that we will strike will respect both the spirit of the resolution and the parliamentary secretary's motion.
It will not be easy to accommodate both committees, so we should tread carefully in considering adding another Standing Committee meeting.