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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
You were coming after Mr. Longfield, but before Mr. Baker. You don't need to put your hand up. I've made a note.
Mr. Longfield, if you could take your hand down....
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
That's fine.
We have Ms. Collins and then Mr. Baker.
We'll have to pause for a second. I need to see this written down. I think Mr. Longfield is sending the amendment to the clerk, who will then send it to me.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you, Mr. Longfield.
If the clerk wouldn't mind sending me Ms. Collins' motion with Mr. Longfield's amendment in yellow or some colour that demarcates it from the original motion.... I'm sorry for the delay, but this is the new reality.
I'm going to wait until I receive the wording, but as I understand it, Mr. Longfield, what you're doing is just saying that you would like to be considered, as part of this report, that—
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
We had a previous study on it and we could take some additional testimony in order to do the proper work to give our report back to the House.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Yes. I'll just take a second.
Okay. Here we go. Here's the way it reads with Mr. Longfield's amendment. As I understand it—and please feel free, Madam Clerk, to correct me—the only part that would stay the same would be “That this committee”.
The motion as amended by Mr. Longfield reads, “That this committee, further to the motion adopted on February 1, 2021, related to a hearing on the role of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, produce a report with respect to strengthening the role and mandate of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development; and that the committee take into consideration all testimony to the committee with respect to that role and mandate in the 43rd Parliament, as well as the report of the committee tabled in the 39th Parliament, first session, on March 1, 2007.”
I think I remember that report.
That's what we're voting on, essentially. Does somebody want to debate this?
Mr. Baker, do you want to debate this amendment?
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Mr. Chair, just to remind you, I still had the floor while you were pausing. I would like to comment first.
Liberal
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Thanks so much, Mr. Chair.
I just want to say that this amendment does delete the entire content of my motion, which I'm not sure—this is my first term on committee—is totally in order.
I also want to speak to the fact that, really, this motion that I've put forward is a replica of the motion that was put forward by the Liberals back in 2007. This is something the Liberals were on board with when they were not in government. They sent a report at that point.
We heard very clearly from all of the witnesses in our one-day hearing that this needs to happen. We need an independent officer of Parliament. I guess it's surprising to me that the Liberals have hesitation about supporting the motion as is.
I'm hoping that we can just vote on the motion as is and ideally send this report to Parliament.
Liberal
Liberal
Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Thanks very much, Chair.
Ms. Collins made a few points. I want to speak to one or two of those, and then I have some other thoughts to add.
I hear your point, Ms. Collins, about removing so many words of your motion. The good news, at least from my vantage point, is that I think the intent is to address the same problem that I think you're trying to address. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but I think what Mr. Longfield is trying to do is to suggest that we look into the problem that I think you're trying to flag—or at least one of them, if I understand the intent of your motion correctly—which is to make sure that we understand how we strengthen the accountability mechanisms, or one of the key accountability mechanisms, to make sure that government is doing what it has to do to fight climate change, protect our environment and achieve a whole bunch of other goals.
So although I appreciate how it has eliminated a lot of the text, I wanted to flag that aspect of it. I saw it much more as a sort of co-operative or constructive approach to trying to address the same problem that I think you were trying to address, although I'm not trying to put words in your mouth.
You referenced that this motion is similar to what was done in the past. I have to admit that I wasn't around for that. I gather you weren't. You clearly identified it, though, and I applaud you for having caught it. I wasn't there for that. I wasn't part of that Liberal team. I don't know what was moved and in what context and everything else. I also wasn't there for the reports that Mr. Longfield alluded to that had been done by the committee.
My thinking is that if we're trying to solve the problem of making sure that the environmental commissioner is providing the appropriate oversight and transparency, a study on the matter, or studying the matter further, would be helpful. It would just help us be that much better equipped to make sure we have those mechanisms in place. That would be my key argument for supporting this.
One other thing that is worth keeping in mind.... I think it was when Ms. Hogan came and presented to us. I think on a couple of occasions the issue came up of the importance of having environmental and sustainable development expertise available and involved across all audits. There are such things as just environmental audits, but many audits or a lot of oversight involves a range of expertise across a range of ministries, etc. That would be an argument for why, I think, if we want to achieve the goal of providing the best possible oversight....
Let's look into that. Let's study that. I'm all for that. It's important. But I would suggest we take that extra step to do it as thoughtfully and in as balanced a way as possible to make sure that we come up with the best outcome.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Ms. Collins and Ms. Pauzé have a point of order.
Go ahead, Ms. Collins.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I just wanted a ruling on whether this was in order, given that it takes out the entire content of my motion.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
I'll be brief. I feel excluded from the debate. I'm having trouble following you. If I at least had the written motion in English, I could use the interpreter. I don't have the written motion, so I can't know what it's about.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
I thought it was to be sent to our personal email. This would have allowed me to at least better follow what's going on during the debates.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I understand.
One moment, please.
Ms. Collins, I've checked with the clerk, and I think you're right, in the sense that.... It's not so much the number of words that Mr. Longfield has added; it's that an amendment is meant to add to the motion or subtract from the motion to some extent, but here we seem to be totally stripping the motion of all its content.
As I said at the beginning, all we're leaving is “That this committee”, so I have to agree with you that it's not admissible.
Liberal