Environment Committee on April 14th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We're on new ground.

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

—and it's new ground, we're saying that those particular clauses that have not yet been looked at or discussed, that Nathan has not had the opportunity to propose yet or put on the table, are the ones that are at risk.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Yes.

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

We're looking at report stage as where, if they were to be heard, it would be at that stage. It's not at third reading?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

No, we would be asking the Speaker to consider that amendments that have been put—those ones we didn't deal with—be accepted at report stage as amendments.

As you know, we can all put amendments at report stage, provided they have not been dealt with in the committee, and that's the Speaker's ruling.

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

That they've not had an opportunity to be dealt with here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

That's right. So if you came up with something in clause 5 that you felt was totally different from what had been dealt with in committee, the Speaker would probably rule that it could then be debated at report stage.

But the Speaker would charge us, saying, “Committees, you have to deal with the bill.” That's our job. That would be his comment.

Mr. Bigras.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I do not see why Mr. Vellacott is asking for these clarifications. The government's position has been clear for a minute and a half now. He wants to keep debating. Mr. Warawa has just given us two options: we continue debating clause 10 or we adjourn.

We are going to have to decide. We have cameras on us. I do not feel that people in Quebec or in Canada—mostly people in Canada—would be very pleased to see us acting as we are at present. We are wasting a good deal of time at the committee. We are wasting taxpayers' money.

I have had just about enough of the government's present attitude.

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

Just very quickly, I have as much right, Mr. Bigras, and I think you're well aware of that, as any other member around this table to ask questions, to raise issues, to do this.

That was my point. That's what I was doing—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I hope I clarified that, Mr. Vellacott. The Speaker is always going to say that the committee is master of its own fate, but he's also going to say that you have to deal. Our argument, where we'd be in new territory, would be that we did try to deal with this whole bill, but we didn't get past whatever point that is, and we would request that he in fact allow this.

Now that's a pretty simple request. I would suggest that in our report we could argue that. We can never know for sure, but I think it could be favourably looked upon.

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

Well, it's speculative to some degree, but that doesn't mean to say that it could not have been yet presented in the two weeks remaining. This is a bit of a presumption.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We have, potentially, five meetings before...four after today. It's just that when you look at the time we've spent, I guess I would argue that it appears maybe we wouldn't get to those last three. But the Speaker can rule otherwise.

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

Yes. It's like reading minds, I guess, really, at that point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

It is.

Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I'm sorry, I don't understand the government's position. What is the government's position here? Can I hear it again?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I can ask Mr. Warawa to state it clearly.

I think I understand your position, Mr. Warawa, but could you just clarify it quickly for Mr. McGuinty?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I don't.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you. I will be glad to.

Again, I want to thank Mr. Cullen for making this suggestion. I just want to make sure of the ramifications of a decision like that. That's why we normally have a 48-hour time period before motions are tabled, so that we have an opportunity to think it through, to prepare.

I was taken by surprise by his motion, and I would like to meet with my colleagues to make sure they are finished what they would like to present on Bill C-377. As I said, I have some more I'd like to share on Bill C-377.

Taking into consideration the 48-hour notice requirement, it's not really in this, Chair, but in the spirit of that, maybe if we were to adjourn and reconvene on Thursday, that would be adequate time to consider this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Maybe I can then restate what I understand. We've been here for 20 hours looking at this bill. We have an offer on the table here today from the party moving the bill to take it off this committee table, to stop what is clearly, and I think objectively, a filibuster, to take it to the House of Commons.

We broke and allowed the government an hour of conversation time, and now the government is coming back and telling Canadians and all the opposition parties here that this measure of good faith isn't acceptable, that it wants to continue raising concerns about Bill C-377.

Is that what I understand is going on here?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I was—

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Is that the position of the government, Mr. Chair?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, maybe I could answer that. I want to make very clear that I have a number of issues with Bill C-377. I have shared some of them and I have a lot more to share. As has been shared numerous times, we have to protect the right of members in this committee to be able to have the opportunity to share their concerns on Bill C-377, or any other bill. So I'm not going to take any lessons from Mr. McGuinty.

I do appreciate the good faith of Mr. Cullen, what he has attempted to do here today, but it's a rushed motion. We heard at the beginning of this meeting--and it was 45 minutes, not one hour, and I appreciate that 45 minutes--that this is not a normal procedure. Not being a normal procedure, I would like to make sure we're heading in the direction I'm comfortable with, so I'm asking for some time.

Right now, I don't want to stop anybody else from speaking, so I'm not going to make a motion for adjournment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Godfrey, did you have a quick comment?

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

Just to speak plainly, Mr. Chair, I'm assuming from all this—and there's no harm in staying it—that the government hasn't been able to get in touch with the folks it wants to reach to make sure they're happy with this idea, and absent that getting in touch, they feel they have to carry on upon the old track. But I'm also reading into it that they haven't rejected the idea; they just are not in a position to act on it.

Is that roughly where we are?