Evidence of meeting #34 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
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I certainly wouldn't want my views misrepresented like that.
First of all, this bill is not about smog or polluted air; it is about greenhouse gases.
Secondly, Mr. Vellacott says there won't be enough consultation. I thought I heard the government say they were in consultation on more stringent measures for things like greenhouse gases already.
Thirdly, if there is some concern that there's not enough time, I would strongly urge through the parliamentary secretary that the Department of the Environment get on with it now and be prepared for when this legislation becomes law. That will give them a head start.
Conservative
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
By way of response to Mr. Godfrey in respect to the timeframe, let's be realistic. With an election coming up probably in the middle of next year, by the time we get into 2008 we as a majority government are not going to have time. With the best of intent, you cannot have the time, within a short half-year period, to get that all done. I think the honourable member, having served in the capacity he did, should well know that, and it would be truthful to state so.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
We'll take a recorded vote on clause 7.
(Clause 7 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3)
(On clause 8--Consultation for proposed regulations)
December 7th, 2006 / 10:40 a.m.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
Again, Mr. Chair, I'll be fairly brief on this one. Clause 8 is dealing with regulations and has three different bullet points. I think we'd all agree, or should agree at least, that the government needs to follow due process in exercising its regulatory authority, but this clause 8, as it is before us in its unamended form, doesn't follow due process, and we'll vote against it. Really, the preference would be to delete it entirely from the bill, to save the member opposite from embarrassment. As it stands, we'll be voting against it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Are there any other comments on clause 8?
(Clause 8 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
(On clause 9--Minister's statement)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
We do have an amendment to clause 9. If you would turn to page 23, you'll see that the amendment replaces line 20 on page 7 of the bill. As you see, it says:
Protocol, pursuant to subsections 7(1) and (2); and
Mr. Rodriguez, would you speak to that amendment, please.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
Mr. Chairman, there is a problem with the translation: in the French version, it refers to subsections (1) and (2), whereas the English version only talks about subsection (1)1. I just want to be sure the two versions correspond. That's all.
Maybe you want to speak on this, Maurice?
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
Would you prefer it? Okay, yes, sure. What do you want to hear?
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Mr. Rodriguez, I think there is an error there that can be corrected.
Liberal
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
My only comment would be that I think, if it's serious, as you've done on the environment, naming your dog Kyoto is not sufficient in this bill or any other bill.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Are there any other comments on the amendment? It's simply a technical correction.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
Conservative