Evidence of meeting #62 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 clerk.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Just for clarification before I speak again, we are speaking to the amendment--is that correct?
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
My first question to you, Chair, is whether or not the original motion is in order. Without an original motion, you're not going to have an amendment.
I received during yesterday, and even late last night, an agenda that did not include this motion from Mr. McGuinty calling for another meeting on the main estimates.
When did the clerk receive this motion from Mr. McGuinty?
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Mr. Warawa, the clerk informs me that he received the notice of motion at ten minutes to five yesterday and sent it out about ten minutes to six. Members had until six o'clock yesterday to get this to the clerk, as I understand it; therefore the motion would be in order.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you. I just wanted clarification of that.
I also want to begin my comments in addressing a question from Mr. McGuinty. He asked, when we had the minister here:
Can you provide for the committee, say by Thursday of this week, a detailed written breakdown of this so-called new environmental spending?
He asked for it to be received on Thursday of this week, which is today, and it will be received today by the clerk.
Hopefully that answers the question, Mr. McGuinty; it definitely will be received today.
Chair, we've had numerous meetings already on the estimates. We met on March 22, May 16, again on May 17, and again on May 29. We've already had numerous meetings on this. I'm not quite sure Mr. McGuinty said he had.... I think he said he was confused.
So we've had numerous meetings; the minister and the department have been here; we've already discussed this subject. If the committee wants to have further meetings on it, I question the rationale, the why. I don't have a problem. If they want to have more information, fine; we can meet on June 7. But I question why.
We've built a schedule of meetings. One of the agreements was that we were going to have—
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Mr. Warawa, I'm sorry for interrupting, but can I ask you to hold the broader question of whether to have these meetings at all until after we've settled this amendment? Do you mind?
The question really is, if we do hold them, do we do it on Tuesday or Thursday? The motion is to do it Thursday; and Wednesday hasn't been moved.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
If we want to call the question on that, then we'll see what happens. Otherwise, if we're going back to the general day of the 5th, then I will have more comments.
So we'll call the question on June 7.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
In terms of calling the question, you're asking if it's the will of the committee to go to the question. If there are no further speakers on this, then we'll go to the question.
Apparently Mr. McGuinty wishes to speak.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
It's a point of order that goes back to what Mr. Godfrey brought up a moment ago. And this question, Chair, is through you to the clerk.
Is it possible, technically, to hold such a meeting on the 7th, when the government has instructed the official opposition that it has allotted the final opposition day on Thursday of next week. Is it then, in fact, too late to hold this meeting on Thursday the 7th, and are we obligated to hold it on the 6th instead?
The Clerk
If in fact the last allotted day is June 7, then the main estimates on June 7 at that point will no longer be before this committee; they will have been deemed reported back on that day. Therefore, the last day this committee can take up the main estimates—
The Clerk
Even with the extension.
The last day the committee can take up the main estimates is the day immediately preceding the allotted day, which in this case would be on June 6. But I haven't heard officially that June 7 is the last allotted day.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Okay.
Does that mean the motion is still in order, because you're saying you don't know whether or not June 7 is the allotted day?
Mr. Bigras.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
The question is simple. Does the fact that the June 7 opposition day prevent us from going ahead with the study as presented? If it does not, we can study the estimates, and the committee can get more information. Nothing prevents us from doing that.
However, if there is a vote, I admit I have a problem with that. Decisions will probably have been made with regard to the budget. In that case, can the committee proceed with the study as proposed for June 7?
Bloc
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Thank you.
Just before I answer that, I think this takes us back to the first question I posed when we started this subject, which was whether or not this was to be part of the study of the main estimates or whether it was to be a self-initiated study, because what the clerk has indicated is that it could not be part of the study of the main estimates, if next Thursday is, as we know, the last allotted day. Therefore, it could not be part of the main estimates.
Now, that begs the question of whether or not the mover of the motion wants to make an amendment to withdraw the part about the main estimates. But if you want to have it under the main estimates—in effect, the estimates at all—it would have to be by the 6th.
So your question is whether the motion you made is receivable, in view of the fact that the last allotted day is next Thursday, as we all recognize.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
The motion contains no reference to the main estimates.
Was there an amendment?
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
When a motion is made, the mover can change the wording as he moves it. That's happened.
When Mr. McGuinty moved the motion, he indicated that it was for the main estimates. They are included in the motion for now. But that can be amended, or not.
Mr. Cullen is up next.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Right.
We'll do the main estimates on the 6th. However expeditiously we can get ourselves there, let's do them. I find this conversation is running in circles.
If the intention is to look at the main estimates and the day we can do that is the 6th, then let's vote on a motion to do that.
