Evidence of meeting #114 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was see.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
But just as Garnett came to sub in, you could have sent a sub to do it, just as Garnett is coming in and subbing in now for somebody else.
9:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Ed, other committees have sat much longer than we have on important bills. If this is one of the most important bills, as you have said repeatedly—
9:35 p.m.
Liberal
9:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Every time I asked, it wasn't acceptable.
I have been fair. I've given us time to debate way over what the motion gave. The question of privilege is on the floor. We're in the middle of a vote on whether we accept that question of privilege and whether we do a report.
I don't agree that there is a point of privilege.
9:35 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
We're debating a point of privilege. You accepted it. We've spent the last 10 minutes debating a point of privilege.
9:35 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
We're debating about a point of privilege raised by my colleague, Mr. Genuis, here at this table.
Am I wrong?
9:35 p.m.
Liberal
9:35 p.m.
Liberal
9:35 p.m.
Conservative
9:35 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
No, you cannot, not on a point of privilege. We can say our piece.
9:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I'm going to do a reset button here to be fair, just to make it clear because I haven't been clear.
I am going to rule whether there is a question of privilege. I have tried to explain, as you have brought forward your points, why I'm not agreeing that your privilege is being denied. Only if I were to agree that it was would we do a vote on a report that is going to the House. That's not happening because I don't agree that there's a breach of privilege in this case. I haven't seen you multiple times before, trying to get a chance to be here to talk about the changes that you wanted. That isn't what's happening here, so I'm not accepting the question of privilege.
If you have something different to share with me, I'm open.
9:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Wait a minute. Gérard has been trying to say something. Let me hear from him, and then I'll get back to you.
May 22nd, 2018 / 9:35 p.m.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
First of all, I will try to explain in French because I am a little bit tired, like everybody.
Madam Chair, I think it is perfectly normal for people, who come here in good faith, to want to debate important issues properly. As time passes, we start to get a little tired, which is quite normal, but no one here is acting in bad faith.
What do we have here? We are dealing with a very important bill. We were elected to debate issues and the future we envision for our country. Unfortunately, this bill is full of items that deserve to be improved. That is why so many amendments have been introduced. There are 400 amendments.
Madam Chair, I have sat in other parliaments and I do not recall having to vote on a bill for which hundreds of amendments had been moved. Let's be honest, we can hardly do a meaningful and rigorous job when so many amendments are introduced.
This bill is quite impressive. Our party has introduced some 90 amendments, but other parties have introduced more. Whenever we have to explain why a particular amendment has been proposed, we are surprised to see that so many amendments have been proposed by the government party.
I would not say that the bill is a draft, but perhaps 400 amendments have been introduced because it was rushed. Now, the worst thing would be to improve it on the fly. On the contrary, we must take the time we need to analyze it, to examine the arguments and to see whether the amendments are consistent. A precise analysis must be done. That is what we are used to doing and that is why Canadians pay us.
If we are going to look at 400 amendments in a rush, I think my privilege as a parliamentarian is being violated. That is why I raise this point of privilege.
