Environment Committee on April 14th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We will begin.

I have a point of order first from Mr. Cullen. He wants to present that off the top, and then we will go to a speaking list.

As you know, we adjourned, so we do not have a speaking order at this point. We'll let the clerk, hopefully in an orderly fashion, come up with the speaking list.

But Mr. Cullen first.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

This is part of the conversations we're having just with other committee members in finding out where the space is available. I'm not sure whether it's a point of order. It's an appeal to the committee, essentially.

The government, I suspect, by the quantity of papers today, is going to continue with the same conversation we've been having for a number of weeks and hours. The recommendation of what the committee do to allow other things to proceed, if the government is so determined on this particular strategy, is to essentially take a snapshot of the bill, as is, right now—the work we've done is done—and send it back to the House either immediately or effectively on the date it was meant to be returned, which I believe is May 7, and allow the chair and the Speaker and the House to determine what happens to the rest of the amendments that still exist.

Hopefully this wins out over experience, but we're attempting to allow the committee to do the work we're charged with doing, yet not forget the work that we've already done on this particular piece of legislation.

So I put that forward to committee members. I don't know if we're able to have a conversation or if the different parties want to think about it in their own caucuses. I'm just determined to find a way that we can allow progress, that we can allow some democratic discussion to go on, because I don't think any committee members—and I would suspect even Conservative members—are satisfied with showing up here day after day and effectively not being able to progress on issues relating to the environment.

So I make that appeal of conscience to members present today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Obviously, trying to move the yardstick is something that all of us would like to see, so I think I will entertain some discussion around this. I think that's for the good of the committee. Try to keep it as brief as you can, and then we'll see, Mr. Cullen, if we can get a decision.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to thank Mr. Cullen for his suggestion. I think it merits good consideration.

I think each of us has grown increasingly frustrated by the lack of focus on solutions. Chair, you have a number of issues you'd like to see us deal with. Gasification is one of them. Carbon sequestration, carbon storage, is another.

I think we need to look at solutions, but to be able to now move and look at the solutions, which we've heard from the environment commissioner also, encouraging this committee to work together looking at solutions, solutions that will help fight climate change, I think that's a good suggestion.

I don't want to stop anybody else from making a comment, but what I would ask is that we have 10 minutes to talk about that and then come back and see if we can move forward.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I can just add, in discussion with our clerk, that there is a bit of a problem with the process in that we have a number of options: there is, of course, the extension, which we already have used; we can report the bill back unamended, which we can do and would happen on the 7th if we were unable to complete that; or we can look at the whole bill and send it back with the amendments, as we were attempting to do. To report it back half looked at would pose difficulties. So I'm not sure. That's something we would need to consider.

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Just on that question, as we've been going through this process, I'm sure I'm not alone, but I have been talking to the desk and the Speaker of the House as to what options are available under this circumstance. We don't have any experience with this circumstance in Parliament, so there's a certain unknown territory in which we're walking.

When the suggestion was made about the scenario I presented to committee members today, there was some openness. Of course, nothing you ever get from the table is official in terms of final advice, but there was certainly openness, considering the particular circumstances that we are now in at this committee, to look at alternative ways of progressing forward. Otherwise, I don't think it sends the correct signal. I think this third option, as you've described the options so far, allows us to move ahead and see the bill, have a democratic choice, and if that can be allowed, then that's something we're encouraged to look at.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I'm a great one for thinking outside the box. I love doing that. That's what we should do more, challenge the rules as we see they need to be changed.

Mr. Warawa just asked for a few minutes to consider this. I think that's fair enough.

Certainly if you would like to consider it, we'll suspend for 10 minutes.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

There are more people I need to talk to. I'm ready to provide what I believe is some very important input on Bill C-377, but I would ask that we suspend for another half hour to give me a chance to make sure we're heading in the right direction.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Well, we're at the will of the committee. I'm quite in favour of that.

Is the committee in favour? I don't hear any....

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

When is the next committee meeting?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

It's Thursday at 11 o'clock.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Once we know the answer, we can plan for Thursday.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We can, yes. I would suggest we should carry on at 4:30 p.m.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

All right.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We'll suspend until 4:35 p.m.

We're suspended again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I call the meeting back to order.

We'll start with Mr. Warawa and ask him to comment.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, I would like to hear you or the clerk explain what the options are.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Basically, in our discussions and then in discussions with the table and so on—and please correct me if you see that I'm misstating here—our main option would be that we could report the bill, even if we did it on May 7, back to the House, with two reports: we would report the bill back, but with a report that would say we were able to look at the bill up to clause 10 but were unable to deal with the last part of the bill, so would request that the Speaker rule to allow amendments at report stage that had not been dealt with by the committee. The arguments would be that the committee made every effort to deal with the bill but was unable to move forward, past clause 10, because we had difficulty with it; that we sat for 19 and a half hours on the bill—and we'll check that time to be sure we have it right—and attempted to deal with it and were unable. It would relate too to the report that was tabled today in the House about the difficulty with the rules, and so on.

Then I would make a personal argument to the Speaker that in fact he see our report and approve of it. There are no guarantees.

Yes, Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

This is just a small clarification. In one part of what you described for us, I would like to see the work we did on clause 10 also be part of it. You said, “up to 9”; we've amended clause 10.

I think the table has told us that it gets very confusing when a clause is partially amended. You have to then explain what's going on. I didn't want to have committee members not understand what was actually being proposed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

No, that's right. I think we have passed the amendment for clause 10; we just haven't carried clause 10. That would be a point we would have to make sure we clarified when doing our report.

That would basically be our option.

The other option, of course, is to carry on and have, I suppose, as many as five more meetings on Bill C-377, and it would be reported back to the House on May 7.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that explanation. I also appreciate the patience of the members of the committee in providing opportunity for me to talk to my colleagues.

At this point, there are a number of concerns I have on Bill C-377 that I have yet to be able to share with the committee. I would like to see debate continue, so please put me on the list as a speaker, if we are going to continue on clause 10.

I am also concerned that if, as was proposed by Mr. Cullen, this is reported back to the House on May 7, if clause 10 weren't passed, it would have to carry, I think, before it could go back with that first part.

I have a lot that I would like to share with the committee yet today. I think we should either continue debate today or adjourn today and reconvene on Thursday. I'll wait for your ruling.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Vellacott.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Just as clarification of your remarks, to summarize, then, it's that because this is a fairly unprecedented kind of process—we don't do this, and it's not been done—