Evidence of meeting #42 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 rouge.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Let's just make it clear. He's replacing “ecological integrity means” with “conservation means”. Then he has.... Go ahead. —
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
“The protection, care, management and maintenance of ecosystems, habitats, wildlife species and populations, within and outside of their natural environment, in order to safeguard the natural conditions for their long-term permanence”, which is the IUCN definition of conservation.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
While I appreciate Mr. Fast's input on this proposed change, ecological integrity is essential to Bill C-18. With that said, I'm not supportive. I don't know where we move into the process. I just want to say that this is not consistent with the intent our government has put forward with this legislation, and I can't support this.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
There's always a little bit of a challenge with these things. There's an order that has to be followed properly, and I'm just trying to follow that order.
My understanding is that I would need unanimous consent to stand this down, so that you could move to the further clauses to see whether there's something you're going to do there that would allow this, then, to be changed. There's an order here.
You're really putting me through my paces today. Thank you very much.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
We will need unanimous consent to stand down the discussion on clause 1.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Provided we bring it back afterwards, we are supportive of that.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Okay, there's a no. We do not have unanimous consent.
Now we're kind of stuck.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
If we don't have unanimous consent, it can't be admissible. It doesn't fit within the flow; it's not in the right place.
I have to have a reason to bring this forward. I'm rather caught in a box.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
On a point of order, Madam Chair, the unanimous consent was only to allow the discussion to happen, essentially; it was not a question of voting in favour of what Mr. Fast was proposing.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
We could move to the next discussion to see if we're going to adopt any changes that then require this definition to be changed.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Can Mr. Fast not explain now what his intent is with respect to why he's doing this? He's obviously going to change wording later on to reflect this new definition he's creating.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
I'm going to say the other option is for me to retract and offer unanimous consent.