Evidence of meeting #52 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 vote.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:20 p.m.
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
There is duplication, and there is a reference to a wrong paragraph, but I might have said there was duplication twice.
First, you have to— I'm sorry. I don't want to tell you what to do.
If you adopt clause 10, there will be duplication and wrong references.
4:20 p.m.
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
That's the upshot. In clause 10.1, there's a reference to proposed paragraph 56(1)(b), which will no longer exist. Clause 11.1 creates a second proposed section 60.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB
I do.
If this is non-debatable, I think it's fully reasonable to open it up, as a courtesy. The NDP has to vote for this unanimous consent motion to open it up, so we can have the very conversation she's trying to have—or not.
I'm willing to support the unanimous consent motion, but it's non-debatable.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I gave permission to Ms. Farquharson to answer a couple of questions.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB
Once we get into the conversation with members of the committee.... Once you open that door, anything non-debatable in the future becomes debatable by this precedent.
4:20 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I don't consider it a discussion. I consider it a point of clarification.
Do you have a point of clarification?
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I have a point of clarification for the process involved, right now.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
The process is that we have to deal with these two clauses. We have to bring them back. We can only bring them back by unanimous consent. There's no debate on the unanimous consent.
I allowed Ms. Farquharson to answer a question, so we could better understand. However, perhaps we can ask her a question again, once we get to clause 10.1 and clause 11.1, if we agree unanimously to bring them back.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I'm curious: If this unanimous consent motion is voted down, right now, since, at this moment—
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
My question was more about this: If someone were to bring back this unanimous consent motion later in the day, at a later stage in this—
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We want to vote on clause 10 as amended. That's where we're at. However, before we vote on it, we should clean up this problem.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I'm not trying to debate. I'm just reiterating the same comments I made before. At this point, I'm not willing to open up the debate and have this potentially deleted without knowledge in advance about whether or not that is a good direction to go in.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We can debate whether it's a good direction if we bring it back.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I understand. However, at this point, I have control over whether or not we delete it. If we open it up, I will not, so I'm hesitant to hand over control to a committee that has shown itself to delete important sections.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay.
Now, can we still vote on clause 10, or is it just going to make a big mess of things? Should we stand clause 10?
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
No, we have an outstanding unanimous consent motion that has to be addressed, but we can debate.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
4:25 p.m.
Liberal