Evidence of meeting #1 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
December 14th, 2021 / 12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Liberal
Liberal
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
At the time that we write reports, we decide on whether there are going to be dissenting reports. There are timelines given for those. I think that's counted within the procedure of adopting reports. I think these issues are something that we could look at with the steering committee, in terms of what we're going to be doing and what studies. I've already mentioned the water study that we began in the previous Parliament, and I know that you can't tie the next Parliament with the work of the previous Parliament, but we had started something that was going to be very worthwhile, and my suggestion was that it be included in our list of studies. I would like to see it done first.
We're all going to have ones that we want to do first. Maybe that's something the steering committee can look at in setting the agenda for the upcoming session.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Normally I agree with Mr. Longfield, but not this time.
This is a report that was adopted unanimously, I repeat. The wording we chose is the most appropriate. On the 120‑day deadline, the minister had three days left to give us his response. He could have given an answer more quickly. There were three days left before we received the official response from the minister, but then the election call came.
This is happening everywhere, in every country. Most countries have these kinds of laws, and most countries have more electric cars than we do here in Canada. Therefore, we are lagging behind.
I think we can table the report in the House of Commons. The 120‑day period will begin and, if I am not mistaken, there is a 60‑day period in which there could be a dissenting report, as Mr. Albas said.
So the idea is to table the report quickly. That way, the 120‑day period starts and we can get the minister's response as soon as possible.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
The dissenting report must be prepared before the report is tabled.
I have a practical question for members of the committee.
Mr. Albas said that his party had no intention of submitting a dissenting report.
Ms. Pauzé, I assume you have no intention of doing so either.
Ms. Collins, is the NDP looking to submit a dissenting report to the report we adopted? I don't think so. I don't get that sense. I haven't had a signal that you wanted—
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
We are not intending to present a dissenting report. That said, the concern that I heard from Mr. Albas was that they don't want this to be used in the future.
Maybe, Mr. Chair, if you don't mind clarifying, my understanding of the standing rules is that there is a requirement right now for the time period for dissenting reports. We don't necessarily need an amendment. In any report that the committee is tabling, there would be an opportunity for this. Is that correct?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Would the next question be, what kind of time limit do we want to give ourselves?
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
The thing, I think, that we're arguing, Mr. Chair, is that we don't want that to happen—
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
A suggestion might be for us...and I'm sorry to interrupt, Dan. This virtual thing is challenging.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Maybe the committee could write a memo to the minister to ask for a response to the report that was tabled in the previous Parliament, and give him 120 days or give him 60 days to respond. Could we do this in the form of a letter?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Actually, that's not a bad idea, Madame Pauzé, because instead of giving the minister another 120 days, we write a letter and we say, “We're sure that your response is ready. Could you table it in the next 20 days?” or whatever number we want to come up with. Then, if that doesn't work, we can retable the committee report.
I don't know if it was Ms. Collins or Mr. Albas next.
Ms. Collins, is your hand up again, or is it from the previous time?
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Mr. Chair, again, even though that is a suggestion, it is outside the motion that is before us, so I think we have to dispose of the business that's at hand first. If it brings some comfort, maybe what I could do is see if it would be a friendly amendment to Madame Pauzé to simply add some language that any dissenting report would be required within the next 24 hours of adoption of this motion. That should give you enough time to be able to table it in the House.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Again, that gives the government another 120 days, whereas if we send a letter, we say, “Look, give us your response to our report within the next 10 days,” or whatever we want to come up with. If the government doesn't respond within 10 days, then we say we're going to retable the report with dissenting reports.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Again, members could vote this motion down, I guess.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I'm going to ask Madame Pauzé what she'd like to do.
Do you want us to retable the report with the possibility of including a dissenting report, and give the government 120 days to respond, or would you prefer that the committee send a letter to the minister asking him to respond within the next week, saying that if he doesn't respond, we will retable the report?
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Mr. Chair, I agree with Mr. Albas' proposal regarding the 24-hour period. Personally, I wanted the report to be tabled before Christmas.