Environment Committee on May 26th, 2008

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

I'm trying to appreciate the circumstance of people having to make changes as they go, which have a domino effect on the rest of the bill. It seems--and this is meant to cause no offence--it's a bit of a waste of time for the rest of the committee members when people are both trying to understand what the implications are and at the same time trying to explain to the rest of the committee what it is that we're actually going to end up voting on. I don't know if it's possible to take a five- or ten-minute pause. If so, I'll be reassured, but I'm not feeling reassured right now that we're not going to go through a lot of very complicated and twisted explanations over the next hour, and it seems not fruitful for us to spend our time this way.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Thank you.

I'll go to Mr. Bigras, but before I do, I'll just say that my sense here is that this clause is the main product of the discussion that was held before this meeting. I hear what you're saying.

Mr. Bigras.

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

Mr. Chair, I feel that committee members have been waiting patiently since 3:30 p.m. so that the government and the opposition can negotiate and come to an agreement. But I see no agreement; I just see that things are more complicated than they were 20 minutes ago.

I have no problem with negotiations between the official opposition and the government. But I remind you that there are two other parties around the table and that they have the right to understand what is being discussed. I recommend that we adjourn the meeting until things can be sorted out. My impression is that two parties out of four are being left out. I find that unacceptable.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Mr. Godfrey.

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

First, my apologies to my colleagues in the other parties. These negotiations really are not about matters of substance; rather, they are technical questions to ensure that the two bills correspond.

I personally support the idea of suspending the session for 5 or 10 minutes so that we can solve the problem. I want people to clearly understand that this is technical in nature. The problem is that it is written in English only. We cannot distribute a document in English without having a French translation.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

That is correct; the committee cannot distribute a document if it is not bilingual.

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

But we could distribute it ourselves.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

You decide among yourselves. But those are the regulations, as Mr. Harvey has just said.

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

Could we have a five-minute suspension while we try to--

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Before I can do that, Mr. Warawa asked for an opportunity to speak, and then I'm prepared to have a five-minute suspension.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I just wanted to comment to Mr. Bigras.

Yes, there are four different political parties represented in this committee. Regarding the negotiations that were ongoing, if I were in his place, Chair, I would be a little bit frustrated and concerned too. The reason Mr. Godfrey and I were discussing is that we were looking at very similar amendments being proposed to Bill C-474, and we were trying to put them together. So his input is very appreciated and very valued.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

If we agree, then, we will have a five-minute suspension.

The committee is suspended for approximately five minutes.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Colleagues, we'll come back to order, if you please.

The clerk has offered me a good suggestion here, and apparently it's worked well in other meetings with complex amendments.

We can start by looking at Mr. Warawa's amendment and the subamendment that Mr. Godfrey has just made, then Mr. Bigras' amendment. We could then let Mr. Godfrey and Mr. Warawa explain...

We'll ask them to walk us through the rest of the bill so that we'll all have an understanding of where we're going here. Then we'll go back and start moving those amendments one at a time. As indicated to me by the clerk, this has been helpful on other committees where you have a whole range of amendments that are affecting one another. So if you agree, we'll proceed now.

Mr. Godfrey, is that a friendly amendment about each minister presiding over a category 1 department, within the meaning of the Auditor General Act, etc.?

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

No. We're going back to the original wording because we think it covers the.... Sorry about that.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

So we still have them reading what Mr. Warawa read.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

There are some corrections.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

What are the corrections, Mr. Warawa?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

We had in (2) “A minister to whom”.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

So that's instead of “a minister who”.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Correct. Then in the last line of (3), after “(2)”, the word “apply” would be inserted.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

So it would be “apply in respect of the department or agencies”.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

In the last line of (4), instead of “requirement”, it would be “required”.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Mr. Cullen.

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

On a point of helpfulness, we're now making some changes to the amendment that was proposed earlier. I'm not sure if other committee members have the new text. Has this been given out? It's very difficult to have a text read to us and then amended in the reading.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I appreciate that.