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.
6:30 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Chair, I think legitimately there's some confusion around the table.
My assumption in watching all of my colleagues vote against a motion that is identical to the one that the NDP and Liberals intended to vote for.... Obviously a certain amount of conversation happened to which I have not been privy since I'm not a member of the committee, but it seems clear to me that the government's intention, with enough support from people around the table, is to change clause 7 to make it at least 10 years before, and I think there was confusion as they voted down my amendment which was identical. I was getting very concerned because I think the intention here is to pass amendment G-4.
G-4 hasn't come to a vote yet, and I think we should ask the clerks to reconsider whether the confusion around my amendment.... It's certainly not my intention, at all, ever, to get the Green Party logo on an amendment. I don't care, but the point of this motion and the point of the effort of the committee is to improve the bill. G-4, like PV-9, will improve the bill.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Yes. I was getting a sense that there was some confusion and that people were voting the opposite of what I expected them to vote, but I will perhaps have to ask the legislative clerk. Is it an ironclad rule that because we've negatived amendment PV-9 we cannot vote for amendment G-4?
6:30 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
It is, because the committee has made the decision on an amendment that is identical to another one.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I'm sorry, but I have Mr. Saini, Ms. McLeod and then Mr. Bachrach.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, I appreciate the words of Ms. May and Mr. Baker. I think I was confused also. I didn't realize that voting down one would negate the other. I don't know what we can do in this situation, but it certainly wasn't my intent to, in any way, blunt the sort of focus or spirit of what was happening. I was confused. I thought we were voting down amendment PV-9 but that we would then have the opportunity to vote for G-4, but I was confused.
6:30 p.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Thank you, Chair.
I believe you did outline what would happen if we voted one down. I'm wondering how long it would take to check transcripts to make sure your instructions were clear, but certainly I recall some fairly specific instructions.
Thank you.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Madam Clerk, is there any way to check this on short notice? Is there any way to check it after the meeting and to come back to this?
6:30 p.m.
The Clerk
I was going to say the committee could have stood the clause, but now they've voted on it. They've made a decision. We can review the blues, but they won't be available until at least some time tomorrow.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
If we find that I didn't read that second part, would we be able to come back and vote on G-4?
6:30 p.m.
The Clerk
I would have to defer to the legislative clerks to see if this clause is consequential to other clauses.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Let's say that it was found, upon looking at the blues, that I did not read the second part, which says, “If PV-9 is negatived, so is G-4 for the same reason.” Can we come back and say, “Well, we can now vote on G-4”? This would be something we would do at the next meeting, because we don't know what's in the blues.
6:35 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
I might have a suggestion. If we could suspend for a few minutes, we could have a look at ParlVU and we would have the answer.
6:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay. Let me get through Mr. Bachrach, Mr. Redekopp and Madame Pauzé, and then we can break and look at ParlVU.
6:35 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I don't think the issue was that you didn't mention it. It was more that we assumed it was similar to the previous instructions, and we glossed over it in an effort to get to the vote. People just missed it and didn't flag that it seems contrary to our understanding of how things were going to move forward.
If we can't have unanimous consent to redo the vote and we can't move a motion with the same wording, I wonder if you would accept a motion from the floor with slightly different wording. Would that be in order?
6:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We'll ask the legislative clerk.
Madame Thivierge, is that possible?
6:35 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
Yes. It's possible, but we will have to see the motion.
6:35 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Perhaps we could recess while I provide the wording, but my intention then would be to bring forward a motion that replaces line 5 on page 4 with the following: “greenhouse gas emissions target at least 3,650 days before”. I had to get out a calculator, but I think that's 10 years.
