Evidence of meeting #22 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 amendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, it looks as though the clerk has just emailed us a new copy. I did send it out months ago, but it looks as though it just arrived in my email.
The Clerk of the Committee Ms. Isabelle Duford
Ms. Pauzé, notice was sent out in November, so it has been a while. I just sent it to the committee again.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I just received it. Perfect. We have the motion.
Mr. Longfield would like to propose another amendment to the motion.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Perhaps I could just restate it for the benefit of Madam Pauzé, because I think I'm making it easier to follow by—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay, but I would still ask the analyst to type in your amendment and send it around to us so that we know what we're.... It's one thing to hear it, but I need to see it.
Go ahead, though, Mr. Longfield.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
For the analysts, then, it is “that this committee”, and then remove “call upon the government” and put in “produce a report for the government”.
At the end of that statement, take out the “by” so that it would say, “That this committee produce a report for the government to bring forward legislation to strengthen the role of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development considering”, and then those points.
Then they aren't recommendations out of nowhere; they're considered and they are part of the report.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Can we, so that we all know what we're doing...? That's a pretty simple change, so if the analyst or whoever is doing the typing over there—
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I don't believe there's any mal-intent here, but in effect he's doing the same thing that you've already ruled out of order. He's doing indirectly what he can't do directly, and I would ask you to simply say that a change to what Ms. Collins has put forward substantially changes the intent of the motion and should just be ruled out of order.
I would hope that members would simply let Ms. Collins have a vote on it so we could actually get on to the business that is on the committee docket today, which is Bill C-204. Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I'm still going to ask an analyst or the clerk to send us a typed version of the motion as amended [Technical difficulty—Editor].
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
[Technical difficulty—Editor] a ruling, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Yes, I'm going to get to that, but I can't rule on it if I can't see it. I'd like to see the text with Mr. Longfield's changes in red or something, and I'd like that sent to the members of the committee, and then we can make a ruling on it.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
He's taking an NDP orange and making it into a Liberal apple. That's a substantive change.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Your point is clearly made.
The clerk is sending it around so that we can all see what Mr. Longfield is proposing. Mr. Longfield's additions will be in red.
It hasn't changed much. It is very much a refinement. It's not a total negation of the ideas in Ms. Collins's original motion. I mean, look, if there's disagreement with the amendment, the committee can vote down the amendment. Then we're back to debating and voting on Ms. Collins's original motion.
I don't think it's out of order, to be honest, but I'll wait until you all get a written copy. We have more speakers, but that doesn't prevent us, after the speakers, from voting on Mr. Longfield's proposal. If it's defeated, we're back to the original motion.
Has everyone received the written version with Mr. Longfield's proposed changes?
As I understand it, it says “That this committee produce a report for the government to bring forward legislation to strengthen the role of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development considering”, etc., and then it all follows.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
The clerk has just sent it. There's one error, I think. There are two mentions of “considering” in the motion. The first one doesn't belong there, so that it's just “bring forward legislation to strengthen the role of the Commissioner”.
So that first “considering” comes out. I think you can all see that.
We'll go now to Mr. Bittle.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Longfield has his hand up, so perhaps he can address this. I think there might be a disparity in what was sent by the clerk and what Mr. Longfield proposed. He can explain that better than I can, but I'll make my point regardless.
It's a very bizarre argument that, “Hey, MPs like you, 14 years ago, agreed on this. Let's just push this forward without any further discussion on the issue.” If that's my understanding of things, in 2007 I was just out of law school. Mr. Baker was probably in elementary school—
Liberal
Liberal
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I very much want to hear what Mr. Bittle has to say.
I just wanted to maybe get clarity from Mr. Longfield to make sure that the amendment is correct before we continue on with a discussion of the amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Mr. Longfield, am I correct that the only—I don't want to call it an error—thing that needs to be taken out of what the clerk just sent us is the first “considering”? There are two in the same sentence.
