Environment Committee on Feb. 9th, 2023

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I guess there are two things.

One is that I do think that this amendment sets out some good accountability measures, and I hear the department's concerns about setting strict timelines. Again, I want to remind the committee that it says that if they determine that the proposed regulation or instrument can't be developed in that time, it just means that they're publishing the reasons.

As I mentioned at the beginning of this debate, I have an alternative motion that I think is a little bit less stringent. It's not my preference, but if this doesn't pass, I have an alternative proposal that I hope will be agreeable to folks around the table.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I don't see any other hands up.

Oh, it's Mr. McLean. You're right. You're right there.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I'm easily forgotten.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It's not that.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

I know.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'm just trying to get through this.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

I'm going to propose that we stand this down, because I really still am not fully clear on how this functions.

I appreciate Ms. Farquharson's explanations, but with the various instruments and the various amendments that are coexisting here about timelines and so on....

Ms. Farquharson, I appreciate what you're saying, but I am not completely following the timelines we're talking about and what the reporting mechanisms are in the interim to make sure that there is accountability to Parliament.

I'm asking to stand this down temporarily so that we can have, if you will, a Gantt chart that says, “When this enters here, here's the timeline. Here's the accountability mechanism where it's going to Parliament at this stage. Here are the requirements, and”—as with Ms. Collins' amendment here—“here is the exception to that”, and insists upon something if the time that Parliament expects the public to be aware of in this process is exceeded.

If that was available.... I do need to walk through exactly where Parliament is involved in this, and I apologize that I'm not completely catching everything that you're talking about with regard to these various instruments.

Would it be amenable, Mr. Chair, to stand this down until we completely understand the reporting aspect?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Here's my understanding of how we can go about this.

One, Ms. Collins can ask for unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment, or two, if we want to stand it, we have to have a motion, and it has to pass with majority support.

Is that correct?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Standing down needs unanimous support.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Oh, is it unanimous as well?

[Damien Kurek, Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC]

Do we have to stand the motion or the clause?

[Leah Taylor Roy, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, Lib.]

I think we have to stand the whole clause.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We have to stand the whole clause.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but either Ms. Collins could ask for unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment—that's number one. Otherwise, we could stand the whole clause with unanimous consent, or if we don't have that, it would be through a motion that carries with a majority.

Okay, here's what I'm told. To withdraw NDP-28, Ms. Collins would have to achieve unanimous consent unanimous consent, and because we're already—

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Then let let me withdraw what I said—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Can I just finish?

To withdraw NDP-28, Ms. Collins would have to achieve unanimous consent. To stand clause 22, because we've already started debating an amendment, we would need unanimous consent. If we hadn't been debating an amendment, we could do it by a majority vote, but in both cases we need unanimous consent.

Mr. McLean, you wanted to say something?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

I am not moving to stand it.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I would prefer that we vote on it, even if it's going to get voted down.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Can we go to a vote?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Do you have an alternative?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I do, yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll go to a vote on NDP-28.

(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to propose another amendment. I've sent it to the clerk. Unfortunately, there wasn't enough time to get it translated, so I'll read it out.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay.

This is a motion from the floor, and Ms. Collins will read it out slowly.

Is it long?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

It looks almost identical to the amendment to clause 21 that the government put forward as a counter-amendment to my amendment around risk management measures.