Evidence of meeting #21 for Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) in the 39th 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.
9:30 a.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
I'm not moving the same amendment, but I was going to support Mr. Jean's friendly amendment, even if the notion of significant area remains. Therefore, if Mr. Jean is prepared to maintain his friendly amendment, I will be pleased to support it. I don't want him to withdraw it. I won't move it, but I would like him to do so, and he can count on our support.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Mr. Jean has moved the amendment as read. The committee can approve the withdrawal of those words as a friendly amendment.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
To be fair, Mr. Chair, I don't think I can make a friendly amendment to my own amendment.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
No, I'm saying it's up to the committee to agree, or not, to withdraw those words that were added.
On a point of order, Mr. Warawa.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Mr. Chair, Mr. Jean has withdrawn, so we're back on the regular motion, are we not?
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Regrettably the motion was proposed with those words. That's the amendment that was proposed.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
9:30 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'll move to have those words withdrawn, and I'll remind committee members that there's a national advisory committee already built into CEPA that has on its table the provinces and first nations. I'll move to have those words removed from amendment G-1, and then we can proceed.
9:30 a.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
A point of order, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like some clarification from the legislative clerks. Should we defeat the subamendment tabled by Mr. Jean? Can we really withdraw it? Wouldn't the only way to get rid of it be to defeat the friendly amendment that was just moved?
9:30 a.m.
Joann Garbig Procedural Clerk
As the chairman mentioned, Mr. Jean proposed an amendment which seeks to add a few words. That amendment is currently before the committee and it is up to the members to decide, by unanimous consent, to withdraw those words.
However, Mr. Cullen moved a subamendment, precisely in order to delete the words “after consulting with affected provinces, territories and first nations”. That subamendment will therefore have the same effect if it is adopted.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
We have a subamendment on the floor from Mr. Cullen. The subamendment would remove the words, “after consulting with affected provinces, territories and first nations”.
Is there any debate?
(Subamendment agreed to)
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
We are back to amendment G-1 as originally distributed.
Mr. Cullen.
9:35 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
This will hopefully be a less controversial amendment to move. This came up in the testimony of a number of witnesses. We would like to amend proposed subsection 53.1(3) to read:
Information provided to the Minister under paragraph (2)(a) shall be published in the national inventory of releases of pollutants under sections 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 and 53.
For those of you who don't have CEPA at your fingertips or ready to go at all times in your minds, this closes a loophole that witnesses identified. When the national pollution inventory is done, there are occasions when companies will claim confidentiality over some pieces of it that are completely unrelated; therefore, the government is unable to understand how much pollution is actually being released into the air.
We think these changes tighten up the reporting. If you can't measure it, you can't manage it. This has been an ongoing problem with CEPA and our ability to manage certain industries.
This amendment is a friendly one, so I'll open it to debate for other committee members.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Mr. Jean, on the government side, what's your response to the friendly amendment?
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I have no response. The parliamentary secretary is just conferring. He'll provide a response in due course.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Is there other debate on that friendly amendment?
Mr. Warawa, are you prepared to address the friendly amendment?
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I will lean on Mr. Moffet here.
Are there any unintended consequences, Mr. Moffet?
9:35 a.m.
Acting Director General, Legislation and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
It's nice to know somebody relies on my—Maybe you could have a word with my wife!
I don't think the addition of these references to these provisions substantially changes the thrust of the overall amendment.