Evidence of meeting #47 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.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I'm asking for a ruling on whether I'm correct on the point of principle.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Parliamentary committees are the masters of their own domain. I put clause 2 up here because there's nothing in clauses 6 or 9 that will affect clause 2, so essentially we can deal with it. But I have no problem with it. If the committee wishes to move to clause 6 and clause 9 and come back to clause 2 later, we'll stand clause 2 again.
Is there general agreement on that?
I haven't seen heads nodding, and I'm not seeing any opposition. Okay. Let's go to clause 6, then.
(Clause 2 allowed to stand)
(On clause 6—Purpose)
We have one amendment, Liberal number 1, which is on page 9 in your docket.
Going back, we actually started debate on clause 6. Amendment Liberal L-1 was already moved and on the floor. We then had a subamendment moved by Ms. Duncan. I will just read it back in case you don't have it there, Ms. Duncan. It is that the amendment be amended by (a) replacing the word “complement” with the words “ensure consistency with”; (b) replacing the words “in the event of an inconsistency” with the words “in the event of any conflict”; (c) replacing the word “convention” with the word “law”; and, (d) replacing the words “the extent of the inconsistency” with the words “the extent of any conflict”.
That is the subamendment we were debating.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
It is (b) replacing the words “in the event of an inconsistency” with the words “in the event of any conflict”. Essentially, we are taking “inconsistency” and replacing that with “conflict” and “complement” with “ensure consistency with”.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
Is that one subamendment, or are those four separate subamendments?
Conservative
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Chair, as I understand it, the reason we held this back is we wanted some direction from the Library of Parliament staff, looking at other precedents. We wanted to make sure we were using the appropriate wording that was consistent with other statutes, so if we could defer to them to report to us, I would appreciate that.
February 10th, 2011 / 9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Kristen Courtney Committee Researcher
Guyanne is distributing some examples of wording used in some other legislation to deal with this particular issue, which was raised by the shipping industry. These are just a selection from four different acts of ways that it's been dealt with. As you'll see in most of them, they specifically address the international law with which we're concerned there may be a conflict, as opposed to wording it in general terms. The Oceans Act is one exception where they do apply it generally. They say “subject to Canada's international obligations”. In that case, the law would have to be interpreted and applied in light of those international obligations.
Maybe I should refresh everybody's memory of what this is all about. The shipping industry was concerned that the civil action provisions of this bill could potentially conflict with an international convention that we've implemented in domestic law through the Marine Liability Act. Mr. Scarpaleggia's amendment was intended to ensure that doesn't happen, but there were some concerns about the wording. These are a few examples of how that's been dealt with.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for compiling this information.
Having looked at the legislation, I have to admit to finding the original proposed amendment odd, because it is at odds with what the Government of Canada has done in all other circumstances, where they in fact have provided that the environmental statute prevails over other rights and opportunities. It leaves us in a quandary. I'd be willing to hold my comments and let Mr. Scarpaleggia speak to it because I believe it was he who brought forward the original amendment.
What we are looking at is simply whether to use “complement”, “conflict”, “consistency”, and so forth. The use of that language has been quite helpful and I think that advises us we should use the word that was given, “inconsistency”. I have to say that I am troubled that only in this law are we saying that the provisions of the convention would prevail over.... No, it doesn't?
Maybe we could get clarification. I'm trying to see the difference between this and the provisions we're given.
Conservative
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Okay. The Oceans Act would be the only one that would deal with the same subject area.
Committee Researcher
They all do the same thing. Basically, in all four of these acts they're saying that whatever this domestic law we're dealing with, the Marine Liability Act is the one that prevails in the case of an inconsistency, which is the domestic law implementing the international law.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Correct, but this provision says the opposite, does it not?
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
It says that in the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of this act and international law, the convention would prevail. So it says the opposite.
Committee Researcher
The provisions of that act, the Marine Liability Act.
Sorry, the Marine Liability Act and the convention say the same thing. The reason this wording—
NDP
Committee Researcher
That's right, because if you reference the international law, I think there are concerns in some circles about subjecting Canadian sovereignty to international law, which people are sometimes uncomfortable with. If you reference the Marine Liability Act, then we're only subjecting our Canadian laws to another Canadian law. It doesn't raise that concern in the same way.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
In fact, if we were going to be more correct, we would specify that the provisions of the Marine Liability Act would prevail.