Evidence of meeting #19 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
4 p.m.
The Clerk
Was it? You have my apologies.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
No problem.
We will go to the vote now.
(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay. We will have another meeting. We'll invite the FCM.
There's been no time limit set on it.
This is again a question for the clerk. Who decides if it's one hour and then we go to clause-by-clause, or if it's two hours and then we go to clause-by-clause in yet another meeting? Who makes that call?
4:05 p.m.
The Clerk
It would be the committee that would provide me with direction on how to proceed.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
How would we do that?
It wasn't specified in the motion. Can that not be at the discretion of the chair?
4:05 p.m.
The Clerk
I believe there are some people who would like to speak, but I take direction from the committee or the chair.
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
My question was about that.
As I was saying, I am on the fence.
However, I would be quite agreeable to a one-hour meeting followed by clause-by-clause consideration. I propose one hour and no longer.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Yes, I am.
That the meeting last one hour followed by clause-by-clause consideration.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay.
Mr. Baker, do you have something to say about Ms. Pauzé's motion?
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
I think that it is worth taking two hours. There are a number of complex issues, and it would be helpful to examine the issues before proceeding to clause-by-clause consideration.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I think Madame Pauzé's suggestion of one hour seems more reasonable than two hours. We've heard from the officials already. I guess the only new group we are hearing from with this motion is the FCM. It seems like we could maybe keep those officials who are there for clause-by-clause in that same meeting.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
My understanding is that this extra meeting, the extra hour or extra two hours or whatever, is not for officials. It's for FCM and Mr. Davidson. I've already said that we're going to invite the officials to be there for clause-by-clause. Whether they join in the second hour or at another meeting, I think they need to be there.
Mr. Albas.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Mr. Chair, I would say a couple of things.
First of all, it's unfortunate that this passed, because unlike our usual process, where all parties get to submit witnesses, this was jammed so that other parties, like the Bloc and the NDP, do not have a say in bringing forward their witnesses. Certainly, Mr. Davidson did a very good job representing his point of view. He probably would appreciate the ability to speak to it.
I would also simply say that I really hope this doesn't become the example for other committees for doing private members' business. Usually we have a process for these kinds of things. Now that it's out of the box, maybe the rules aren't so ironclad. At other opportunities, other parties may try to do a “Schiefke”. Maybe that's what they will call it down the road.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I think an hour is more than enough for Mr. Davidson and FCM to get their points across.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Schiefke Liberal Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First, I want to say that if they use my name to refer to due diligence, I'll take it any day.
With that, I'd like to call the question.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay.
Let's vote. We have already agreed to do an extra meeting. This motion says that the meeting will be one hour for Mr. Davidson and the FCM, and one hour for clause-by-clause. As I understand it, that's what we are voting on.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Mr. Chair, I don't think we need to have a vote. I think we could have unanimous consent.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I don't have this in writing, but we are voting on Madame Pauzé's motion. For this extra meeting that we have agreed to have, based on the previous vote, the motion is that the first hour will be with the FCM and Mr. Davidson, and the second hour will be clause-by-clause with the officials.
Madame Pauzé didn't say it would be with the officials present, but there was unanimous consent around that, and we are going to invite them.
That's how it will play out. It will be one hour with Mr. Davidson and the FCM. The next hour will then be clause-by-clause with the officials present, to answer questions, as Ms. McLeod says, about the potential impacts of amendments and so on.
That's what we are voting on, unless I got it wrong.
Is there unanimous consent to doing it this way?
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We will have to schedule that. I don't know when we will schedule it, but we will schedule it.
Mr. Baker.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal