Environment Committee on Nov. 15th, 2016

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

The amendment is that Bill C-238 in clause 2 be amended by replacing lines 8 to 18 on page 1 with the following:

ments and with representatives of other interested governments in Canada that are responsible for the environment, and in consultation with all interested persons or organizations that he or she considers appropriate, must develop a national strategy for the safe and environmentally sound disposal of lamps containing mercury. The strategy may include (a) the identification of practices for the safe and environmentally sound disposal of those lamps; (b) the establishment of guidelines for facilities where activities involved in the safe and environmentally sound disposal of those lamps are carried out; and (c) the development of a plan to promote public awareness of the importance of those lamps being disposed of safely and in an environmentally sound manner.

That is the conclusion of my amendment, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Just to make it clear, does everybody know how that fits in? You start at clause 2, and then you go to the third line.

Mr. Choquette.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Did Mr. Gerretsen explain his amendment?

Did you explain your amendment or do you want to explain your amendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Just give the rationale.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

The rationale for this amendment was to ensure that we include indigenous governments and related stakeholders.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Basically, it's expanding from just “provincial and territorial governments”.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Yes.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

I would like to talk about this amendment.

I have some questions. I understand the need to cooperate with environmental groups and with first nations; that goes without saying. My question is why was the reference to the implementation of the strategy removed? Before it said:

“must develop and implement”

The amendment says:

“must develop a national strategy”, but there is no more “must...implement a national strategy”.

From my point of view, that's a concern. You might have a national strategy, but if you don't implement it, what does it serve?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I think I'll let Mr. Fisher expand on it. This is something he addressed in his comments when the questions were asked of him at that time. The rationale for that was to ensure that the proper relationships were respected among the different levels of government.

Madam Chair, can I turn...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I'm happy with that.

Go ahead.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

The Minister of Environment wouldn't have the ability to implement it on her own because of the multiple jurisdictions involved, so she will work towards implementing it in conjunction and collaboration with other levels of government.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

You'd be entrenching other jurisdictions.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Why don't you just write that we should implement it with the coordination of the other groups?

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

That's essentially what it does say.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

The minister doesn't have the authority to implement a strategy without recognizing the different levels of jurisdiction.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Is that the reason you have “may”?

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

The “must” would fetter ministerial discretion, arguably, in other jurisdictions. The intention is to dial that back, with it not fettering jurisdiction.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I think that answers the question.

Mr. Genuis.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I have a follow-up question to the comment that putting language like “must” or “implement” in the legislation fetters ministerial discretion. Of course, that's the purpose of legislation: to fetter ministerial jurisdiction. It's for the legislature to give direction to the executive about what the legislature, the representative of the people, believes must be done. My view would be that it's entirely appropriate.

In the final line of the first paragraph, there's the phrase, “The strategy may include...”. I wonder why it doesn't say, “The strategy must include”? Such language is closer to the original. I see the value of some of the amended language, but this would actually ensure that these things are done, not that they're mere suggestions contained in legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Mr. Gerretsen, do you want to answer?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Yes, I'll answer that. I don't think that putting the word “may” in there significantly changes the original, which was saying “that includes”. I'm not trying to split hairs, but I just don't think there's that much of a difference—or I should say that I don't think we should try to split hairs on it.

[An hon. member]

That—

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Hold on. We have a speaking order.

Do you want to respond?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

He can go first, and then I'll go.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Mr. Eglinski.