Evidence of meeting #55 for Environment and Sustainable Development 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.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Just half a second here.
It's the last part of 7.1, with the clause 5. It's that clause that is similar.
11:35 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
It's a little difficult to deal with because, I guess...are we being asked to consider 7.1 in its entirety or just a piece of it? Whereas we have new clause 2.1....
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
No, no. Mr. Chairman, on this point, I think that the important difference that strikes me immediately is that 7.1 talks about “for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent” not only “environmental degradation”, but it also says “to prevent adverse health impact”.
Now, it's my hunch that most of us would probably want that included, as well as preventing environmental degradation, but I'm curious to hear Mr. Cullen's response.
11:40 a.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Chair, it seems to me that amendment 5.2 amends clause 2 while amendment 7.3 amends clause 3. Is that not right?
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Yes, the amendment on page 5.2 would become new clause 2.2. Instead of new clause 2.1, Mr. Bigras, it would become new clause 2.2.
11:40 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
His point, if I could, Mr. Chair, is that if you read G-7.1, it amends clause 3. So to compare them...they're different clauses. and this G-7.1 has quite a bit more in it. So to compare them is to say one or the other, and I don't think it's actually correct.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
The clerk advises me that you can't have the same language twice, so this is where the conflict would come in.
11:40 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Then my point would be that this new clause 2.2 comes first in the bill. If we need to amend the government to remove.... I understand the clerk's point.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you, Chair.
We want to have a language that is the best proper legal language, so perhaps I could ask the department which of these two will--
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
I believe the point that Mr. Cullen is making is that we are, at this point, looking at new clause 2.2, and when we come to clause 3, that's where we could amend what we have in front of us. Am I not correct?
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
I would agree, Chair, but you can't say the same thing twice within the bill and get under the 7.1, the proposed clause 5, under our amendment 7.1. It deals with the same thing, so which is the better text?
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
11:40 a.m.
Director, Risk Management Bureau, Department of Health
I think we need to look at where you want to put it in the bill. I think the really key point to look at is whether you want to put the issue of looking at preventing health effects as well as environmental degradation. That's the real key difference. The rest of it really depends on how you want to set up the architecture of the bill.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Of course, clause 3 of the bill deals with regulations. Under G-7.1, clause 5 being proposed by the government would apply to this question of the creation of regulations.
Mr. Cullen's motion would apply. It says “In the administration of this act”. I see that as a broader and more all-encompassing opening of that phrase. It applies to the whole bill. There may be lawyers who could tell me differently, but it seems to me it would apply to the regulations as well. I think it's fairly obvious.
But my point would be this. If we accept Mr. Cullen's amendment, I would prefer the last two lines to say “to prevent adverse health impacts or environmental degradation”. I'm looking for his response to that suggestion. I think you'd have it apply to the whole bill and you'd cover both elements.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
May 3rd, 2007 / 11:40 a.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
I do not think that the two are redundant. M. Cullen tells us that he would like the precautionary principle to apply to the whole of Bill C-307. Further on, the government says that it wants the precautionary principle to be considered in other acts to which the bill would apply, such as the Food and Drugs Act and the Hazardous Products Act.
I think that by passing the two amendments, we would reinforce the precautionary principle whenever the act applies, and even in the details of clauses that would apply under other acts.