Evidence of meeting #29 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was targets.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Conservative
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Okay, then the first half of this motion--that the deliberations on Bill C-377 be taken into consideration and that we have that testimony--may be appropriate. I myself have it, but there are some new members on the committee, and I think it'd be helpful for them to have previous testimony as a resource.
In regard to the last two sentences talking about immediately proceeding to clause-by-clause consideration, we've just heard from Ms. Duncan that she's not opposed to hearing from further witnesses. Well, that's exactly what would happen if you move to clause-by-clause: you would restrict hearing from any further witnesses. That's inconsistent.
We've also heard from Mr. Hyer that he's open to having amendments to his bill, to having this committee do work on his bill and make possible amendments. That takes time. That needs consideration.
To immediately move to clause-by-clause would restrict witnesses and it would restrict consideration of amendments to this bill and healthy dialogue, so I'm opposed to the motion. If the last two lines were taken out in the form of a friendly amendment, I think you might find consensus around the table.
Conservative
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
I'm asking as a friendly amendment that the motion end after “review of C-311”.
Conservative
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Just for clarity, Mr. Warawa, I was not presuming, and maybe procedurally I was incorrect in saying that. I was in no way suggesting there not be amendments.
The gist of my motion, if you take out the clause-by-clause, is that we have agreement, first of all. I agree with you, not everybody was on the committee before. I wasn't. I found it very informative to go back and see what my fellow members said. So I'm simply trying to say we should table that for everybody's verification. Maybe then, once they see that, they can decide whether it's worthwhile bringing those witnesses back.
What I'm wanting us to agree on is that immediately when we reconvene we continue this discussion on Bill C-311. So I'm happy to take out the clause-by-clause.
My motion is twofold. One is that we table before all the members, even if it doesn't say that we exclude those witnesses.... I just think it's really important for people to see what was said before, so we don't repeat it unnecessarily. You may want to follow up with some of the witnesses; you may not. But I think it's incumbent on us to look at what has already gone before and that we recommence on Bill C-311 immediately when we reconvene in September.
Conservative
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
No, because he's taking out my motion that we proceed to consideration of Bill C-311 immediately when we resume.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Chair, I'm not prepared to make an amendment yet. I'd like to hear from others before.
Conservative
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The problem I'm having is that while I don't mind reading the previous testimony, the motion as it currently stands doesn't give me an opportunity to question witnesses, because we'd be going right to clause-by-clause. I also think that while the opportunity to read previous evidence is a useful tool, I would want to make it clear that I wouldn't want my acceptance of that tool to mean that I was in any way giving up the right as a member of this committee to have an opportunity to question witnesses.
I regret if sometimes my passion for getting out the whole truth comes across as attacking a witness. I certainly didn't intend that this morning with Mr. Hyer, and he knows that. My passion for getting out the whole truth in questioning witnesses is really just to get out the evidence. Whereas a member opposite me may ask what I believe, I ask what evidence they have on which to base their belief. I don't regard that, as some timid souls might, as fear-mongering; I regard it as a conscientious search for evidence, which I think I have an obligation to pursue on behalf of the people of Canada and the people of my constituency.
I just want to make it clear that I can't support the resolution as it's currently worded because it would seem to prevent me from having that opportunity to question witnesses as to the underlying evidence they rely on, rather than simply their rosy opinions or beliefs.
Thank you.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think some of my thoughts have been encapsulated by Mr. Woodworth and Mr. Warawa, so I will simply say I am against the motion.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Mr. Chair, my understanding is that we have a work plan set up for the fall. We had agreed to somewhere between five and six or seven meetings, if I recall, on the climate change issue as prompted by this bill. The really good news is that this bill is actually prompting the committee to deal with the climate change crisis. I just don't understand how we can move forward.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
We're dealing with a motion and a motion can be in camera or public.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
According to the orders of the day, it's under committee business.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Yes, but we don't necessarily have to go to in camera. It's at the will of the committee.
