Evidence of meeting #48 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I'm sorry, Mr. Longfield, but the clerks are asking that you start at the very beginning, so it would be the whole thing, from “If more than two years” and all of that part.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Okay.
Let's get to the English version.
I'm just seeing whether what I have in front of me has that “more than two years” section. I'm going back to amendment NDP-31 now, because we have several versions here.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
This is not NDP-31; it's NDP-31.1. It's a whole new amendment.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Oh, that's right. That's why I can't see it in front of me. That was in an email, so I have to go over to my emails now.
It would read, “If more than two years have elapsed after the publication of a statement respecting the development of subsequent proposed regulations or instruments under subsection (1) or (2) without the minister having published all of the regulations or instruments proposed in the statement, the minister shall publish in the annual report required by section 342 a report on the progress made in developing any subsequent proposed regulations or statements, including an update on estimated timelines and reasons for any delay.”
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay, so that's what we're voting on, the “including” part.
Are we ready to vote? It looks as though we are. Wait just a moment.
Somehow it doesn't seem to jibe with what the legislative clerk has, so we're going to allow the legislative clerk to read what they have, which is what we would be voting on.
Go ahead.
Philippe Méla Legislative Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm just going to read from the start: “(3) If more than two years have elapsed after the publication of a statement respecting the development of subsequent proposed regulations or instruments under subsection (1) or (2) without the minister having published all of the regulations or instruments, including an update on estimated timelines and reasons for any delay proposed in the statement, the minister shall publish in the annual report a statement made jointly by the ministers indicating the reasons for the delay and the time frame within which each of the proposed regulations or instruments is to be published.”
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
I don't believe that's what the subamendment from Mr. Longfield was. I could read what it is.
The beginning of the amendment by Ms. Collins reads, “If more than two years have elapsed after the publication of a statement respecting the development of subsequent proposed regulations or instruments under subsection (1) or (2) without the minister having published all the regulations or instruments proposed in the statement”, comma.
Then it goes to the subamendment that Mr. Longfield brought forward. That's where that subamendment would be inserted. It's what Ms. Collins had there, and then the end of it would read, “the minister shall include in the annual report required by section 342 a report on the progress made in developing any subsequent proposed regulations or instruments, including an update on estimated timelines and reasons for any delay.”
It consists of the first half of the amendment that Ms. Collins put forward, and the only change being made is in what happens. Instead of “the environmental registry”, it's “the annual report”, and it talks about estimated timelines.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay. We're going to need this in writing. We're at the end of our meeting anyway.
What's being proposed is Mr. Longfield's subamendment to Ms. Collins' amendment. We know Mr. Longfield's subamendment is pretty simple. It starts with “including”, but we're attaching that to....
Go ahead, Ms. Collins.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
To me, this is a very friendly amendment. It seems to capture the essence of what we're trying to get at with language that the government is comfortable with.
I would love to hear from Ms. Michaud before we vote. However, I'm wondering if maybe we can try to adopt it by unanimous consent.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Then you still don't know what we're adopting.
The problem is that we don't know what we're voting on; the clerks don't really know what we're voting on.
Ms. Michaud, you have the floor.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I could not agree with you more.
It was easy earlier, when we were looking at annual reports, because we were just changing a word or two. Here, however, even the legislative clerks are saying that it would be preferable to have the text set out in writing.
Mr. Longfield said one thing and Ms. Taylor Roy said another. I am not sure which we should go with. As long as we do not have things set out in writing, it will be difficult to understand. Even if it's a friendly amendment, it would be useful to have it in writing.
Liberal
Terry Duguid Liberal Winnipeg South, MB
Mr. Chair, I think Ms. Michaud made a good point. I see the clock at 5:30. I have an engagement outside of the city and I would propose that we adjourn.
I move the motion of adjournment.