Evidence of meeting #42 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
December 9th, 2009 / 4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Point of order, Mr. Chair.
Since we've had a vote, I'd like to move my notice of motion, the one that was sent out on Monday, and I would like to read it into the record:
That the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities extend meeting hours on Wednesday, December 9, until 6:30 p.m. and/or Thursday, December 10, from 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. or other agreed upon time in order to complete clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-37, an act to amend the National Capital Act and other acts.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
As much as I would like to accommodate our colleague from Fort McMurray, the parliamentary secretary, I don't think the Liberals will be able to support this motion, for a variety of reasons. I shan't go into all of them, but we are going to go to a vote at about 5:15 to 5:30 and we're going to repeat this process of coming back and forth. There is unpredictability with respect to votes for tomorrow, and we're not in a position where we want to interrupt the schedules that have already been established for tomorrow and for this evening. So we're not going to be supportive of that motion, regrettably.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In the case of Bill C-37, I think all the parties showed their good will; there was a desire to study the bill in a collegial manner. I get the feeling that there is a major lack of understanding, most likely from the government, which, initially, had reached out to us. I remember what the minister came and told us, that they were going to try to introduce a bill that would please everyone, and then, they decided to go it alone.
The government probably has the support of the NDP. I want to warn the NDP members and tell them to make sure that the interests of the National Capital Commission are being protected. I think that wanting to rush through this debate does nothing to protect the interests of the public, the National Capital Commission or elected officials. It is clear: by not allowing the House to study this matter, by not allowing the provinces to be consulted, we are disregarding a democratic principle.
This bill should be debated for however long is available; there is no need to rush through it or to try to study it as quickly as possible for strategic reasons. We owe it to the public to take the time that is necessary.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
I actually think we need to look at this in great detail, and not rush through it. I would propose a friendly amendment that we go right until 8:30 tonight.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
I have two things to say. The first is a question for you, Mr. Chair.
If the friendly amendment is accepted, the motion would read: “... Wednesday, December 9 until 8:30 p.m. and/or ...”—that is where I have a problem—“... and/or Thursday, December 10 from 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. or ...” It includes the word “and” because it is in the same sentence, “or other agreed upon time in order to complete clause by clause consideration ...”.
What I am wondering is who would decide upon another time to complete the study. Does that give the government or you, Mr. Chair, carte blanche to call another meeting at an agreed upon time to complete clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-37? Clearly, what the government wants, without putting it in writing, is to complete clause-by-clause consideration tomorrow in order to report to the House on Friday, if I understand correctly. That was my first comment.
It seems that Mr. Jean wants to respond on your behalf, Mr. Chair. My question was directed at you.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
If the motion is accepted, I would probably assume the responsibility for finding an agreed upon time for tomorrow.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
That is what I thought. So, it would give you carte blanche. In that case, my answer, which is also my second comment, Mr. Chair, is this: absolutely not. You know we are at the end of the session, and there is no way that we will hurry things along, that we will try to fast-track a bill, which, initially, seemed to please everyone and on which everyone seemed able to agree.
Mr. Chair, I represent a riding in the National Capital Region. There are people who are very concerned by the direction that the NCC, in some cases, or the government is trying to take. I think we need to slow down and take things at a reasonable, respectful pace, not rush anything or act like a bull in a china shop.
I cannot support this, and, if the motion is adopted, I challenge you, Mr. Chair, to find an agreed upon time.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
If Mr. Bélanger was proposing a friendly amendment to have specific times and only include up until tonight, my understanding is that the Liberals have a party tonight, a Christmas party, and I don't even know what time it starts, because obviously I'm not invited. So maybe I can--
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Thank you, Mr. Volpe.
Maybe you can advise us what time it starts. I'm certainly open to a friendly amendment to determine the times here now.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Mr. Chairman and colleagues, I gave an indication that we couldn't support this, not because we don't want to do what's right by this bill. You know that in the three years that I've been part of this committee no other bill has received as much attention as this one has so far and has received the good wishes and the cooperation of committee members like this bill has so far. The only other one had to do with the introduction of a safety management system, and with that one, we spent a lot of time on clause-by-clause.
In my experience, a bill of this nature where the minister came forward and said he would like to have the cooperation of everyone because he wanted everyone to be happy with the bill was again an extension of the cooperative nature of the committee.
This motion suggests that the cooperative disposition has somehow evaporated. I must agree with my colleague Mr. Bélanger that the open-ended nature of the motion really does strike at the heart of the intention of trying to do something in a deliberative fashion.
We have so far in this committee, on other bills and in this one in particular, tried to come up with a decision. Yes, on occasion there has been slight little political jazz, but I challenge anyone on the government side to say we haven't been looking for a way to resolve any differences. In fact, the minister acknowledged as much when he invited members of the opposition to sit with him in an open-ended discussion, which some members took as an opportunity to present amendments and others as an indication that subsequent to that meeting they could develop some amendments. We even said, let the government bring a whole series of amendments to this discussion, to clause-by-clause. This is a huge number of amendments from a government for one of its own bills. That's just to give you an indication of how predisposed we and the opposition have been to being reasonable about this.
So this kind of motion, quite frankly, jars us a little bit. On the procedural component of it, we can't find it acceptable; and on the substantive implications, I think we need to be able to give the bill its deserved attention and its requested attention—requested by the minister. If we were to follow this motion, if we were to accept it, we wouldn't accomplish either one.
5 p.m.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
Mr. Chair, like several of us on the opposition, I am a member who is directly involved with the NCC issue, on both sides of the river. In fact, we have given it not just our time, but also our hearts. We have also met with our constituents and spoken with those at the NCC. We have been studying this bill and its proposed amendments since June.
Keep in mind that, when Lawrence Cannon became the minister responsible for the NCC after the January 2006 election, he, himself, moved to increase transparency within the organization. Those changes were welcomed by a number of stakeholders including municipal officials, environmental and ecological groups and Gatineau Park conservation groups. They wanted to do everything possible to implement those measures.
Amendments to bills such as this one arise every 25 years or so, if not more. So shoving this down our throats is not a good way to do things. And nothing is going to change if we keep working on this bill in January or February.
Those who are worried about an impending election need to know that is not what they should be focusing on. Instead, they should be thinking about making the bill the best it can be and allowing us to study it until 5:30 p.m. Regardless, we have commitments elsewhere, and it is the end of the session. There are other factors at play, and the situation is not pressing. This is not the time to put the cart before the horse.
Let's use the time we still have left. Let's take part in the parliamentary legislative process we all know so well. And if the debate needs to carry over into the new year, then it will carry over into the new year. At least that way, we will have heard all the arguments—even if all of our points of view cannot be successful—and that will give rise to the best amendments possible under the circumstances with respect to a bill that is very dear to many people in the region.
I will vote against the proposed motion.
Thank you.