Environment Committee on May 14th, 2008

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

Very briefly, there was some concern by the Bloc and others that when you use the word “national”, it sometimes implies that there has to be some kind of coordinated effect with the provinces. This limits the effect of the bill to the operations of the federal government within its own sphere.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Then it doesn't stop you from having some discussions.

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

No, you could, but this removes any ambiguity about who the bill is directed toward, which is federal government departments for which we're responsible and their agencies and corporations.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

And it can't impose on the provinces?

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

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Okay.

Are there any other questions?

We are voting on amendment G-5.

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Still on clause 3, our next one is Liberal amendment L-6 on page 11.

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

We withdraw.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

It is withdrawn.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I have an additional amendment, then, to clause 3. I thought we were going to be dealing with amendment L-6. I was going to subamend theirs, but because of that, I will be presenting this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We agreed at the last meeting that we would accept amendments as we moved through the bill. What we cannot do is accept amendments going backwards, only going forward. So I assume, Mr. Warawa, this is still clause 3, but an addition.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

It is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We're just taking a look at it quickly.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Could that be distributed to the members of the committee? It's been presented to the clerk. Maybe we could have the clerk read it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I'll just wait for Mr. Warawa to make sure I do this correctly.

Mr. Warawa, what we're doing is in line 42 of the bill. We're saying that “Federal Sustainable Development Strategy”, which is line 41, “that will make environmental decision making more”, and then we eliminate lines 1 and 2, “transparent and accountable to Parliament”.

What we have done then is remove line 42 and then, over the page, lines 1 and 2, so it would now read, with the previous amendment:

Federal Sustainable Development Strategy that will make environmental decision-making more transparent and accountable to Parliament.

Mr. Godfrey.

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

We accept.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Any other comments on that amendment?

Mr. Warawa, you need to move it. Sorry.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

I do move it. The rationale is that what we've removed, which is “dramatically accelerate the elimination of major environmental problems”, is vague and it's not measurable. So what we end up with is a lot clearer and yet does not change the intent. If this amendment is accepted, clause 3 would say,

The purpose of this Act is to provide the legal framework for developing and implementing a Federal Sustainable Development Strategy that will make environmental decision-making more transparent and accountable to Parliament.

And that's been moved.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you. You have moved that.

I've already heard Mr. Godfrey's comments. He's happy.

Ms. Savoie.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I understand the part about being measurable or not measurable, but are we now making this small and measurable rather than...? Doesn't it defeat the purpose of this whole act, which, as it says, is to “accelerate the elimination”? I agree this was perhaps worded awkwardly, but I liked the amendment that was withdrawn, that it could be clarified and be measurable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I have Mr. Vellacott and then Mr. Godfrey.

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

I appreciate the ambition--

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Sorry, John, it's Mr. Vellacott, Mr. Godfrey, and then Mr. Warawa.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

I'd like to ask our legal people here too. I know from other bills that sometimes we get these fine-sounding sentiments in here in terms of the language, piling up the adjectives and so on, but my understanding is that this is not something that has legal weight when you make a statement such as “dramatically accelerate” or “elimination of”. How do you measure that? What's dramatic to one person may not be dramatic to another. It's not an objective statement when you put it in and say you've got to do this and that.

We all understand that, and we're not going to have a difference there, but it's the more subjective terms, I think, Denise, that are inferred here. You've been around committees enough to know this, but I need to have that from the clerks as well. Is that the problem with the expression that's there? That's my cross-reference to other committees. When you're not getting precision, it means one thing to one person, and it has no bearing in the courts. That's my point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I don't think there is an interpretation possible there. I think it's going to be a matter of the members making that interpretation and voting accordingly, Mr. Vellacott.