Evidence of meeting #4 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was park.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Andrew Campbell  Senior Vice-President, Operations, Parks Canada Agency
Darlene Upton  Vice-President, Protected Areas Establishment and Conservation, Parks Canada Agency
Stephen Van Dine  Vice-President, Strategic Policy and Investment Directorate, Parks Canada Agency
Michael Nadler  Vice-President, External Relations and Visitor Experience, Parks Canada Agency
Catherine Blanchard  Vice-President, Finance Directorate, Parks Canada Agency

10:40 a.m.

Conservative

Kerry-Lynne Findlay Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC

We have until the end of May to discuss the main estimates with the minister. I think it is important, again, that we separate this out, and I do not appreciate the chair mischaracterizing what we are saying. You are resaying what you started out as wanting, and we are saying something quite different.

With that, I would suggest you do call the question and we have a vote on it.

10:40 a.m.

Liberal

Peter Schiefke Liberal Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC

Can I get a point of clarification? I just want to make sure we're all on the same page.

10:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi

Yes.

10:40 a.m.

Liberal

Peter Schiefke Liberal Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC

Is the honourable member asking for the minister to come for...? She had mentioned earlier—and I'm not sure exactly what the context was—that yes, it's fine if the minister comes for one hour and the departmental officials answer for the other hour. Is she asking for two one-hour sessions with the minister, or is it...?

I'm just trying to clarify. If the minister comes for a two-hour period to discuss the mains if they are available, would that be amenable to you, or would you like it to be one hour at each separate meeting? I just want to make sure we're all on the same page.

10:40 a.m.

Conservative

Kerry-Lynne Findlay Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC

We would like it to be two separate meetings, because we feel there will be enough questions asked on the supplementary estimates, which could be an hour with the minister and an hour with his officials on the 12th, that it warrants another meeting with the minister later, specifically on the main estimates.

10:40 a.m.

Liberal

Peter Schiefke Liberal Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC

What would be the length of the second meeting? I'm just trying to clarify so that we're all on the same page.

10:40 a.m.

Conservative

Kerry-Lynne Findlay Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC

It would again be a two-hour meeting, which may involve both the minister and the officials.

10:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi

Is everybody understanding the change that Madam Findlay wants to make?

Is the discussion coming to an end? We have discussed it, so I would like to take a vote on this, and then we will take a vote on the new motion.

Will you present that?

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK

Can I move an amendment to this motion?

10:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi

Absolutely.

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK

I would suggest that we delete everything after the semicolon.

10:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi

He says that it's the phrase “...and that if they have been referred to the committee, the Main Estimates.”

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

Kerry-Lynne Findlay Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC

It has to state the date, though. We need to add March 12.

10:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi

The first thing I need to do for procedural purposes is defeat this motion. Then your amendment has to be voted on.

10:45 a.m.

Bloc

Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC

What is the member asking for? Does he want to delete or change the sentence?

10:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi

He wants to delete what comes after “(B)”.

We would also add March 12.

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

Kerry-Lynne Findlay Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

When there is an amendment proposed to a motion, do we not vote on the amendment first and then the main motion, not the other way around?

10:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi

We can. The reason is that I want to ensure that we are defeating this motion and then going with a new motion.

I am fine. If you want, we can ask for a vote on the amendment.

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

Kerry-Lynne Findlay Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC

It doesn't work that way.

10:45 a.m.

Liberal

Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON

On a point of order, it's 10:45. I have to go.

10:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi

Don't disappear.

Okay, having heard the amendment, can we vote on the amendment?

10:45 a.m.

Liberal

Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON

No, I have to go.

10:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi

Can we just vote on this amendment to eliminate what comes after “(B)”? If the amendment goes through, then we are fine. If it is defeated, that's fine too.

10:45 a.m.

Liberal

Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON

We have to have unanimous consent to go past time.

10:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi

Can I have unanimous consent to go past time?