Environment Committee on May 14th, 2008

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

That's my question: is there any legal weight in the kind of language that says “dramatically accelerated”? What does it mean to the courts when they're trying to weigh in and determine whether the bill is being abided by? I don't think a court.... It's a bit difficult to make that kind of determination.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Again, we're setting up the procedure of this bill. Interpretations are left to courts. Of course, courts, as you know, can interpret things differently day to day. We have to get the best wording possible, and I think that's what members have to determine.

I have Mr. Godfrey next.

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

I'll simply say that while the effect of many of the Conservative amendments is to remove what you might call the aspirational quality of the bill, what really matters are the accountability measures.

One would certainly hope that this process will lead to an improvement of environmental matters in the country. That phrase is not essential to the successful operation of the bill. Of course, I would like it there myself, but it's not an essential piece of the legislation. We'll find that throughout; there'll be other areas where I would have wished the government to be more aspirational, but I accept that they want to be a little more prosaic, and that's okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Warawa is next, and then Ms. Savoie.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Actually, Mr. Vellacott brought up my point, and I don't want to waste any time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Go ahead, Ms. Savoie.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

In terms of what Mr. Vellacott said, I appreciate that the original wording was difficult to measure. Forgive me; I was referring to the amendment that Mr. Godfrey agreed to withdraw. I thought there was a way of measuring the focus precisely. I think one of the problems we've had in Canada is that we've always assumed we had to make one decision on the financial over the environmental or over the social, with no way of focusing what “integration” means. I thought the amendment would precisely allow us to measure how good we are--not at balancing, but at integration.

That's why I thought it would be possible to measure. I didn't like the original wording, but I thought the amendment was a way of clarifying that piece of legislation. If the author of the bill wants it gone, then so be it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Go ahead, Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I have a follow-up comment.

I appreciate the concern. I think what I've tried to do is clean up the bill. As was pointed out initially, it's vague. Mr. Godfrey seems to be fine with it. I think we end up with a much cleaner clause.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We're on the amendment first. Do I need to read it again for clarity? It says:

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

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Now back to clause 3 as amended. We have the two amendments.

Shall clause 3 carry as amended?

Yes, Mr. Vellacott.

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

I'm assuming there's no objection or no comment from Mr. Bigras or Mr. Lussier, that the French translation is deemed correct as far as they're concerned?

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

Yes, we have voted.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I'm sure they will keep track of that for us.

(Clause 3 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 4--Application)

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We have no amendments on clause 4, but if you could take a minute to look at clause 4.... Are there any comments or questions?

(Clause 4 agreed to)

(On clause 5--Basic principle)

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We have two amendments on clause 5. The first one is G-6 on page 12. I should advise the committee that there is a line conflict with Liberal 7, so that if G-6 is adopted, then L-7 cannot be put.

Mr. Godfrey.

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

L-7 will not be put.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I will go to Mr. Warawa for amendment G-6 on page 12.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I'd ask that clause 5 be stood, because we have amendments to this clause that are consequential to the core amendments we'll be introducing to clause 8. We've stood clauses 1 and 2, and if we could stand clause 5 and then come back to it after clause 8.... It will make sense after, when we get to--

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Okay I do need agreement on that.

Mr. Godfrey, Mr. Bigras, and Ms. Savoie.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

We're agreeing to postpone discussion of clause 5, is that it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Yes, clause 5. We'll just stay that and we'll come back to it.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

And we'll understand why soon.

(Clause 5 allowed to stand)

(On clause 6--Cabinet Committee on Sustainable Development)

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We have government amendment G-7, which is on page 15. Just another note on that. If amendment G-7 is adopted, then Liberal amendment 19 on page 38 cannot be put. I'll give everybody a minute to check those out.

Amendment G-7 is the one we're on right now, clause 6. If that one is adopted, then L-19 on page 38 cannot be put because it refers again to the committee and secretariat. So if we pass amendment G-7, we cannot then deal with amendment L-19; just so everybody knows that when you're looking at this. Is everybody clear now?

We are looking at clause 6 and amendment G-7, which is on page 15, and I'll ask Mr. Warawa to explain amendment G-7 to us, please.