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.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
I'm just curious about Mr. Amos's amendment and why he wants to delete subsection 9(2). Subsection 9(2) talks about setting out federal sustainable development goals and targets, and subsection 9(4)—which I agree with—says this is how we will report on those targets.
I don't think there's a need to eliminate subsection 9(2), because it says that we set the targets out and subsection 9(4) says this is how we'll report on the targets.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I want a clarification.
We just heard a discussion from Ms. Duncan. Was she referencing both of her amendments, or the first one—
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I wish she would have clarified that. Maybe she did and I missed it.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I said we're going to give her a chance to bring a subamendment, and she said, “Let's just have a discussion on it to see where it goes”, and then she might bring a subamendment that we would then vote on to amend what the Liberals are trying to do.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I don't see anything objectionable—unless I've missed something—in the proposal that she's made in NDP-5.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Those are clarifications as to what has to be submitted to the commissioner. Is that correct?
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
The commissioner would have more material in front of her to make an assessment.
9:40 a.m.
NDP
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Quite frankly, the more direction the minister provides the commissioner, the less likely it is that we're going to find ourselves in a situation of the commissioner coming back with these fall reports that are not that flattering to the government, because there will have been more consultation between the minister and the commissioner and everybody will know what the expectations are.
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Can I speak to this again, now that I look at what was drafted?
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I'm seeing the Liberals have taken out subsection 9(1). It probably makes sense, because why reference the precautionary principle again? We're just singling out one of the many principles that were at the front, so it probably does make sense to take that one away. However, subsection 9(2), which they want to take out, they didn't then put back in again. Subsection 9(2), which they want to take away, sets out the goals and targets and identifies responsibility. My amendment puts that all together in one clause. If they want to take out subsection 9(2), they need to put it back in. They've said “measurable and include timelines”, but they've taken out the targets, as I recall.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
No, they have targets. Making it clear, subsections 9(1) and 9(2) of the act are replaced by this section, this proposed subsection 9(4), as written here.