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

December 13th, 2010 / 3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

I will call the meeting to order.

We're continuing with our consideration of Bill C-469. When we were at this last Monday we were on clause 6, Liberal amendment number 1, which is on page 9 of your amendment packages. The Conservatives were speaking to it.

As you know, we have our time allocation of eight minutes per party per clause, amendment, or subamendment. When we left there were four minutes and twenty seconds left for the Conservatives.

It's my understanding, Mr. Woodworth, that you're on for four minutes and twenty seconds.

(On clause 6--Purpose)

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

Thank you.

I just want to be sure whether I'm speaking—

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

You're speaking to Liberal amendment number 1, which is the new subclause (2), in clause 6.

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

Correct. Somehow I thought we had passed that. I thought I recalled Mr. Scarpaleggia speaking on that and responding to some of what I had to say.

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

No.

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

That's not the case.

In any event, then, would it be in order for me to make some comments regarding clause 6 proper in the course of discussing the amendment?

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Yes.

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

I can speak about clause 6 in the course of discussing—

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

No. You can speak to the amendment: subclause (2) to clause 6.

Do you have anything you wish to say to that?

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

With respect only to the amendment?

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Only to the amendment. We're speaking to the amendment.

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

The difficulty I'm having is that it's a little difficult to speak to the amendment without referring to clause 6.

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

You can refer to the entire clause 6, but make sure your comments are directed towards the new subclause (2).

I'll start the clock now.

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

I'll recap what I said last time about there being something problematic in referring to inconsistencies rather than conflicts. An inconsistency can mean something other than a conflict. In my experience, it hasn't been the case that statutes refer to inconsistencies, but rather to conflicts, where one prevails and one does not.

Secondly, this amendment talks about the provisions of international conventions in force in Canada. Although I stand to be corrected on this, it's my general expectation that even though one might say that an international statute that has been ratified by Canada is in force in Canada, if there hasn't been any legislative implementation of it, it won't be something that could conflict with Bill C-469. If that's the case, one has to wonder where one would find the inconsistency or the conflict if there hasn't been any implementation of an international convention in Canada.

Beyond that, the part that's supposed to be added doesn't fit, in a grammatical or drafting sense, with the part it's intending to modify. Clause 6 simply says that the purpose of the Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights is to do certain things. There is no subclause 6(1). I suppose one would have to make the existing clause 6 a subclause 6(1) in order to add this subclause 6(2). If one were to do that, it's still uncertain whether subclause 6(2) would overcome anything in subclause 6(1). That is to say, if the “purpose of the Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights is to (a) safeguard the right of present and future generations of Canadians to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment” and it happened that subclause 6(2) came into operation as a result of a conflict or an inconsistency between the act and an international convention, it's not clear that simply adding a subclause 6(2) would override anything that would be in subclause 6(1), which would outline the purposes of the act.

If one wanted subclause 6(1) to be read subject to subclause 6(2), then I suppose one might say that in subclause 6(1). One might say that subject to subclause 6(2), the purpose of the Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights is to do certain things. In the absence of that, it's not clear to me that either of those subclauses would have any control over the other.

There are other things that I might say in relation to the main provision, but I'll forego those for the moment. When I talk about this amendment, I have in mind the Marine Liability Act, which contains a statutory implementation to discern how liability will attach to international shippers.

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Your time has expired, Mr. Woodworth.

A point of order, Ms. Duncan.

3:35 p.m.

NDP

Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Mr. Chair, I'm trying to recall where we were last Monday. Did Mr. Woodworth table an amendment to the Liberal-1 amendment to change “complement” to “conflict”, or did he just vaguely talk about it?

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

He just talked about it.

3:35 p.m.

NDP

Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

So we're simply talking about the Liberal-1 amendment.

Thanks.

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

We're talking about the Liberal amendment. It's Liberal-1 to clause 6.

The Conservative time has all been used.

Mr. Scarpaleggia.

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

I do recall discussing being quite open to the point Mr. Woodworth raised about the word “conflict” being more appropriate than “inconsistency”.

I don't know how we'd go about this, but I'd certainly be in favour of changing “inconsistency” to “conflict”.

Do we need a motion?

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

To an amendment.

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

It's a friendly amendment, I guess.

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

But it can't be from you. This is your party's amendment.

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

I understand. That's why I'm turning to you, Chair.

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

I have Ms. Duncan on the speakers list, so I could turn it over to her. She's indicated that she would—