Evidence of meeting #17 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 39th Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was renewable.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
From a technical point of view, if this is voted upon and passed, does that negate my amendment, which comes under the same...?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Not at all; there's no conflict between the motions.
Go ahead, Mr. Moffet.
Director General, Legislation and Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Environment
Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry; I've misspoken. I apologize. Section 140 in fact is of course the fuels provisions that we're actually talking about today. The amendments, both from the Bloc and in the government bill, would not in any way affect the existing regulatory authority for nutrients. I apologize for misleading the committee on that point.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Are there any other comments?
(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
(Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Now we're going back to clause 2. We were debating the NDP-2 amendment, and I believe there is a friendly amendment being proposed.
Go ahead, Mr. Storseth.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I'm not sure if you can accept it as a friendly amendment, but I would put an amendment to the motion.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
It would read:
(6) Within one year after this subsection comes into force and every year thereafter, a comprehensive review of the environmental and economic aspects of biofuel production in Canada should be undertaken by such committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament as may be designated or established by the Senate or the House of Commons, or by both Houses of Parliament, as the case may be, for that purpose. (7) The committee referred to in subsection (6) should, within one year after a review is undertaken pursuant to that subsection, submit a report on the review to Parliament, including a statement of any recommendations that the committee makes in respect of biofuel production in Canada.
Basically, Mr. Chairman, this amendment amends from six months to a year after the legislation comes into place, and then every year thereafter. It does go from “shall” to “should”; it is still being forceful in setting the precedent, but it is not binding the hands on that exact date and time. It is much the same as what we have with PMRA at this point in time.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
That's all right.
Okay, we have a subamendment to NDP-2 on the floor from Mr. Storseth. Is there discussion on it?
Go ahead, Alex.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
I just wanted to say that we did go back and forth on this, and I agree with that subamendment.
Conservative
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
With all due respect, I still think it's rather redundant. Could our officials give us an opinion on it very briefly? Do you really think this is necessary? Is this going to add to...?
Director General, Legislation and Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Environment
I have two quick comments.
First, I will repeat the observation that this committee has the authority to conduct such review. It doesn't need statutory authority to do so.
The second point I would like to make, if I may, with respect to the proposed amendments, has to do with the use of the word “should”, which would be highly unusual language to find in a statute. Typically one would either use “may”, which would imply discretion, or “shall”, which would imply that you must. I'm not familiar with the word “should” being used in a statute.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Moffet is right in saying that you don't generally find it in statutory language, but if you look under general international policy when dealing with international guidelines on many treaties, the word “should” is often used in order to be a stronger word than “may”, which can oftentimes be seen as still waiting for direction or for an answer to something.
After listening to the concerns of Mr. Steckle, Mr. Easter, and Mr. Atamanenko on the desirability of having something like this without tying the hands of the government on the actual timeline, I believe “should” would be perfectly reasonable.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
I have a suggestion for the mover, and obviously with discussion with Alex. What about if the intent of this basically said “shall have a review after one year and may have a review every year thereafter”? So you have that flexibility. What it's doing is holding out the first one, the first year of something being done, and then after that....
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
It's pretty much saying that right now with “within one year”. It's demanding it now.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Mr. Chair, if you guys let me keep kicking their butts, I'd be more than happy to.
“Shall implement” is that it has to after the first year, which is honestly probably the most.... It's the years thereafter that we're probably more concerned about, because it's going to take some time for this policy to really get up and running and implemented. Therefore, I believe that we should leave it as stated as “should”. It leaves more flexibility for the committee and still sets a precedent that we feel that it should be done.
February 26th, 2008 / 1:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Are there any other comments on the subamendment?
It's actually changing four words.
Guy.
Conservative
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
Our discussion really just makes the point--why don't we let the committee itself decide what we're going to do with this? That's our responsibility. We have the authority to do that. We have all the power to be able to do that. I really believe that this is just....
With all due respect, Alex, I know what you want to try to do, and we want to do the same thing, but let's not get caught up in “shall do”, “shall not”. Why don't we just go on the faith of the committee. You can bring that up at any time in this committee. You can bring it up in a month's time or six months' time or a year's time. As people mentioned, we all believe in agriculture, so we'd all vote for it naturally, if we thought there was anything being done to the environment. So I really think it's unnecessary.