Evidence of meeting #42 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Kristen Courtney  Committee Researcher

4 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

Chair, maybe what we need is to put it somewhere else.

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

We can entertain that as we move forward. If you see a place where that should be put, we can put it.

Your turn, Mr. Ouellet.

4 p.m.

Bloc

Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think the situation gets complicated when we compare the French translation to the original English text. In English, it says:

“In the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of this Act and the provisions”.

In French, that doesn't exist, it's not there. The French is very clear; it says: “Les dispositions de toute convention internationale en vigueur au Canada l'emportent sur les dispositions incompatibles de la présente loi.” And you could put “conflictuelles” instead of “incompatibles”.

I wonder if, instead of amending the amendment, we should just…I would translate “inconsistency” with “conflit” in French, but, apart from that, the paragraph is very clear in French. It's the English that is not clear, in my opinion, and that's where the complication arises. We are all talking about the words “In the event of any” that do not appear in the translation. It may also be that the amendment was written in French first and translated into English badly. I don't know, but, Mr. Chair, it seems to me that the situation is clear in French, but not in English. Someone will have to tell us what it is supposed to mean.

There is another thing. We can spend hours on discussions like this. Mr. Chair, there is never one judge in a court like this, there are three or five, because people around one table do not agree and never will. Let us try to do the best we can rather than wanting to settle only for perfection, because I don't think we will ever get there. I think we could be happy with that. We have to keep one thing in mind: our goal here is to protect the environment, not judges and lawyers.

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

We always strive to be perfect.

No, I understand that the French version is more clear, has greater clarity than the English version, so we will have to work this one out with translators and legal services, or the drafter who was used when you put this together.

4 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

It's the same drafter as the bill, I think.

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

It's the same drafter as the bill?

So let's draft it in French first and then translate it into English.

Okay. I have nobody else. I think everybody has spoken to the subamendment. I'll call the question on the subamendment.

4 p.m.

An hon. member

Can you read the subamendment?

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

I'll read the subamendment.

This Act is intended to

—we'll take out “compliment”—

ensure consistency with Canada's rights and obligations under international law. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of this Act and the provisions of any international law enforced in Canada, the provision of the convention will prevail to the extent of any conflict.

December 13th, 2010 / 4 p.m.

Liberal

Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

How do we reflect the possibility of accepting the subamendment but moving it somewhere else in the bill?

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

We can stand the amendment and tackle this at the end if we find a better place.

Is there agreement to stand this and deal with it later?

4:05 p.m.

Bloc

Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC

And adapt it.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Then we'll get some legal advice over the next few days, before the next meeting.

Do I have consensus to stand clause 6, the amendment, and the subamendment? We'll vote on it.

(Clause 6 allowed to stand)

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Moving on, we're going to clause 7, then.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

A point of order. We've stood the amendment. I guess we have to stand the clause itself. Is that what you're saying?

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

That's what I'm saying. We can't deal with the clause until we deal with the question of the subamendment and the amendment. How do you vote on a clause without it being...? That's a matter of order.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

Okay. I apologize. I'm just new to this committee and—

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

And if you were listening intently, I did call the question based upon standing clause 6, the amendment, and the subamendment.

Mr. Warawa.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC

On the same point of order, I think you may have just answered my question because you're saying it was back to the main motion, the amended main motion, clause 6, is that correct?

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

We can't deal with the main question until we deal with the amendment and the subamendment.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC

So had you actually called the vote on the subamendment?

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

I did call the vote. If you were listening intently again, I called the vote on clause 6, the amendment, and the subamendment, to have it stand. And that's what you guys just voted on. That has just carried and--

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC

Chair, on that point of order, I think Mr. Woodworth brings up a good point. You've had a vote on it to stand. I don't think you understand my question, though. Did we actually have a vote on the subamendment or the amendment?

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

No, we did not. We never did ask the question. We stood the entire clause, the amendment, and the subamendment.

I did call right now to see if it was going to carry. There was a request to stand it. We voted on it to be stood, and it stood.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC

So my question is a procedural one, I guess, through you to the clerk. Can we actually call a vote to stand a clause when that's not the item of debate? If we have not dealt with the motion that's on the table, which is the subamendment—

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Just to go back for you, we just stood the title, the preamble, the definitions, and clause 2.