Environment Committee on Dec. 8th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

To stand down on this so that we can move on and then see when we come back to it?

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Then we just revert back to this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Yes, we come back to this.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

I'll take that offer.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I'm under no illusion where this is going, but I think—

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I'll put it out there again. I think I'm in order to do that.

Do we have unanimous consent to stand this discussion down and move on to the next clause and see whether we come back to this? We will come back to this if it's required in the changes that we adopt later.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I'm willing to hear what he has to say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Okay. We're going to stand this down at the moment and we're going to move on.

(Clause 1 allowed to stand)

The next one up then is PV-1, which was Elizabeth May's.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I don't know how much time you allow me at this committee. This is my first time at clause-by-clause with you, but the convention around here has been to call Green Party amendments “Parti vert”. That's where the PV-1 comes from. I think it was because government amendments are the big G and people didn't want the Green Party amendments to be momentarily distracting government members who would potentially vote for something just because it looked like a government amendment.

So, backing up—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Come on, we have some credibility.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I know, absolutely. I'm just having a flashback.

If you'll forgive me, I'll just say that when Jim Robb came to Ottawa in 1987 to meet with the Minister of the Environment on Rouge Park, I was the one meeting with him from the minister's office. I want to add one little historical footnote that Jim missed, which is, not only was John Theberge's report “Parks 2000” a key part of where ecological integrity came from, but the very definition that we are now using in the bill for ecological integrity comes from the panel on ecological integrity convened by Minister of the Environment Sheila Copps in 1998, reported in the year 2000, and it is pivotal to the integrity of our national parks process that we have this ecological integrity.

My amendment is adding after line 12 on page 1, and I'd like to actually, if you'll forgive me, Madam Chair, change one word in my amendment, but let me explain where it goes. It would come right in after the definition of ecological integrity, a new section adding, “The Minister must, in the management of the Park, ensure that protection for its natural resources and natural processes is at least equal to that provided by”, and then I'd like to change the word “provincial“ to “existing” because the impression could be created that we're actually dealing with Ontario provincial park standards, and we're not. They're fairly much unique to the way the Rouge is managed now, so I'd rather use the word “existing” than “provincial”.

It would continue, “existing park management plans that apply to areas near the Park.” That's my proposed amendment. It fits in right after the definition of ecological integrity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you.

I am going to rule. You're not going to be happy with me, but I'm going to rule that it's inadmissible. The reason I'm going to rule that it's inadmissible is that in the House of Commons Procedures and Practice, second edition, on page 766, it states:

An amendment to a bill must be relevant in that it must always relate to the subject matter of the bill or to the clause thereof under consideration.

You're actually addressing a different clause that is about the management of the park, which is not actually discussed in Bill C-18. I know you're not going to be happy with me, but that's my ruling.

I'm now moving to clause 2 and CPC-1.

It's not really debatable if I do a ruling.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I wouldn't try.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I know. I just didn't know if Mr. Stetski was going to do that.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Jolly good. Thank you very much.

We're just moving along here.

(On clause 2)

The next one is clause 2, and it's CPC-1.

Would you like to bring that forward?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Yes. I'll bring it forward, but I understand you may be ruling that out of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

We'll see.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Which is why—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I still want to see you put it forward.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

We have backup plans, you know.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

It's okay. You're giving me practice today. I knew I would be on the hot seat.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

It's more rewarding when you put it forward, and she shuts it down.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Yes, I know. She loves that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Not really. Trust me, no, I don't. You know me well enough to know that's not the case.