Evidence of meeting #35 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.
6:35 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Okay, then it would be “nine years and 364 days”.
The will of the majority of the committee is clear in this case, and the will is being held back by somewhat esoteric procedure. My sense is that we should find some way to have the will of the committee reflected in the legislation.
6:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Is that the wording you're submitting while we break? Is that correct?
6:35 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
My question for you, Mr. Chair, and through you, to the legislative experts, would be, if we replace “10 years” with “3,650 days”, is that substantively different enough to qualify as a different motion? If it is not deemed to be different enough, then I would move that we use the words “at least nine years, 364 days”.
6:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay. Let's break. I'm going to consult the legislative clerk.
6:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Mr. Chair, before you do that, I think it's important that you hear from all viewpoints before you decide, because eventually you're going to come to a ruling.
6:35 p.m.
Liberal
6:35 p.m.
Conservative
6:35 p.m.
Liberal
Han Dong Liberal Don Valley North, ON
On a point of order, Chair, I wonder if we can go on and suspend the committee for a few minutes.
6:35 p.m.
Liberal
Han Dong Liberal Don Valley North, ON
I also have a couple of suggestions, but I can hold off until we come back.
6:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Yes. Then we can break again. There's no problem.
Okay. I'm just going to recess for a second. Thanks.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
They checked ParlVU. In fact, I did say that. I did read out that if amendment PV-9 was negatived, then so would be amendment G-4, for the same reason.
However, there are two ways of proceeding. It can be fixed. One is to propose nine years, 364 days. That could be reversed to 10 years at report stage in the House. Or we can just move on and, again at report stage, we can reinstate 10 years.
I'll go through the speakers list.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I'm getting there. I have a lot of names on the list. Everyone will get their turn. I had to consult the legislative clerk.
Mr. Albas.
May 26th, 2021 / 6:45 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a few things.
Regardless of whether or not you had said it, as parliamentarians, we all understand the need to follow parliamentary procedure. It's very easy at committee for anyone to assert their rights, but when they do not, when they choose not—in this case, the committee chose clearly, in majority, to vote against the previous one.
We have had occasions—I know I have—whether they be at this committee or in other committees, where exactly the same thing has happened. The idea is to stop vexatious, dog-chasing-its-own-tail arguments, in which someone says, “Well, you don't like nine years? Great, we'll put forward eight years and 364 days. Oh, you don't like that? Well, we'll do nine years and one day.” That eats up committee time.
The committee clearly made a decision. All of us have our rights. We have a right to raise our concerns if we didn't use it, but it's on us; it's not on you as the chair.
My suggestion would be, Mr. Chair, that we move along. Again, members can assert their rights in the House of Commons. If a majority of the House of Commons chooses to do that, then that's a conversation members can make known. There can be debate around that, but, Mr. Chair, let's work well.
I have to say that I've served on some committees in which we did not strike off well. This committee, even though the issues can be very tough and divisive, has been very productive, and we've directed ideas and policies. We've gotten political around ideas but not around personalities.
Please, Mr. Chair, I would implore members to take this as a learning experience and to move forward, assert their rights in the House of Commons and to work with other members to correct what they think is wrong but not to subject the committee, because it cuts both ways. If this happens again in the future, the shoe might be on the other foot, and I might want to move a motion to get around the spirit of a previous vote. I hope that each one of you would remind me and say that there's a reason we have these rules. Partly it's to protect the process from, again, becoming a dog-chasing-its-own-tail scenario, Mr. Chair, in which it is more vexatious and spinning around and around.
Thank you.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Again, though, no one has asked for that. I would say it's probably not going to be coming. By the same token, Mr. Chair, you've already deliberated on other ideas. This is how we work as a committee, by discussing options and then moving forward.
6:50 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I think it's about trying to move forward in the spirit—
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
My system shows a different order, but if Madam Pauzé is next, then by all means. It's my system. I don't know what it is.
