Evidence of meeting #89 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was right.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:45 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Right, so it has the measurable and timeline elements, which are in (a), but what about (b) and (c)? Those are the things the commissioner said—
9:45 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I'm just trying to find out whether, in their amendment, they are interested in making sure that's clear in the act. If so, does their amendment deliver that? I don't think it does.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
Ours does not include that. Our position—and the commissioner made this clear yesterday—is that she can and will look at principles. We don't need to write that into the legislation. I don't mean “she”, but that the commissioner as an institution will have that opportunity.
9:45 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
It has nothing to do with principles; (b) and (c) have nothing to do with principles.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
It says, “whether the principles...are adequately considered....” That power to evaluate is there.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
I'm looking at your draft right now. I'm pointing out the reasons we're not in favour of the proposals here in paragraphs 9(4)(b) and 9(4)(c) around the likelihood of adequacy, which is (b), and the adequate consideration of principles, which is your (c). The reason we're not in favour of the first one is that it's just way too broad, and it really creates an unwieldy role for the commissioner.
As regards the consideration of the principles, we heard from her on this yesterday. She doesn't require that to be built into legislation. The commissioner will be able to do that anyway.
The key thing here is to really focus the role of the commissioner, and that's why we're focusing on timeboundness and measurability.
9:45 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
We heard the commissioner totally differently. Let me just give you the last example. She said, okay, you've got “polluter pays” as a principle. She said that's too vague. She wants the entity to tell her how they've taken into consideration that principle of polluter pays, and that's why that is there. That is why David Boyd recommended it. That's why she's recommended it, but if you don't want it there, that's fine. You've got the majority.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
We've had good discussion on it. We've heard all sides, and it's time we voted on LIB-2.
All those in favour—
9:50 a.m.
An hon. member
Hold on. Are we voting on NDP-5 at the same time as LIB-2?
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
With Gerretsen and Bossio gone, you had a chance of winning this.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
You had a chance to win this. You should have called the question.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
All those in favour of LIB-2, please signify.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we move on to the end. Just to be clear, NDP-5 is now off the table.
On NDP-4, go ahead, Linda.
9:50 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Again, my concern was the duty to consult the public. Ms. Brand has pointed out to me that there is some provision for that, but I stand by my amendment.
The reason I stand by my amendment is my amendment is saying that up front, when the minister is obligated to develop a federal sustainable development strategy, she shall do that “in consultation with the public”. As the act stands right now, after the fact, after she's already drafted it, they get a chance to look at it. Okay?
The reason I'm raising that is...while nobody knows what will happen with NAFTA, the environmental side agreement to NAFTA actually requires Canada to provide advance notice and opportunity for comment in the process of drafting any law, policy, procedure, etc.
I just think it should be right up front. This government has been very clear that they believe.... We have a principle of collaboration. There's no principle of public participation in there. I can only presume the principle of collaboration means to work with people in the development of the policy.
My preference is that the commitment to consult the public in developing the policy would be right up front. Without that, the only people on an ongoing basis who are at the front would be potentially the advisory council, if she asks them for advice.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
I strongly oppose this motion.
I'm kind of old-fashioned. I believe in the concept of ministerial responsibility. Ministers have to have the discretion, no matter who's in government, to make decisions that are ultimately answerable to the public, and this particular one is included in this act.
There will be endless litigation, because when is there enough consultation? Was it broad enough? Who is “the public”? The word “shall” is bad enough in and of itself.
Activists usually forget that ministers and the prime minister and all of us members of Parliament are answerable to the public at all times for everything that we say and do. To have such a prescriptive clause in the act will make it more unwieldy than it even is now.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Does anybody over there want to say anything?
Okay.
We're ready to vote on NDP-4.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I think we are done with clause 6.
Shall clause 6 carry as amended?