Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on March 27th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Okay.

Mr. Bigras.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, Mr. Jean has withdrawn, so we're back on the regular motion, are we not?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Regrettably the motion was proposed with those words. That's the amendment that was proposed.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Are you suggesting that cannot be removed and withdrawn?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Yes, by agreement of the committee.

Mr. Cullen.

[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I'll move to have those words withdrawn, and I'll remind committee members that there's a national advisory committee already built into CEPA that has on its table the provinces and first nations.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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

On a point of order, Mr. Bigras.

[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?

[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.

[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)

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

We are back to amendment G-1 as originally distributed.

Mr. Cullen.

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Jean, on the government side, what's your response to the friendly amendment?

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Is there other debate on that friendly amendment?

Mr. Warawa, are you prepared to address the friendly amendment?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

We have no problem with the friendly amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Bigras, does that amendment present a problem?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

No. We'll go on to the vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Godfrey.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I will lean on Mr. Moffet here.

Are there any unintended consequences, Mr. Moffet?

[John Moffet]

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.