Environment Committee on Nov. 4th, 2022

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

I would reference back to subclause 3(2) again, just for connectivity with the whole bill. I'll read from clause 5:

Within five years after the report referred to in section 4 has been tabled in both Houses of Parliament, and every five years after that, the Minister must, in consultation with the parties referred to in subsection 3(2)

I would go back to subclause 3(2), which is what we're talking about. Is the minister, whoever that may be at that point in time, going to have to refer back to any and all of the parties who made submissions on the original report? Are they going to have to go back and reintroduce the findings to them, be they—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is that a question for Ms. May?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

She's here right now.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Yes, I am. Thanks for the question.

It's very routine. The term “consulting” with interested parties is used in many pieces of Canadian legislation. Even just dealing with Environment and Climate Change Canada, they put out on a website on a routine basis “here's an opportunity to comment”. People have that opportunity to comment. Then the minister reports.

The only mandatory portion of what the minister must do is to table the report and prepare the report in consultation with those groups. It's not an in-person event. It doesn't mean that the minister has to sit down and have tea with everybody who has written to him or her or them, by that point.

This is pretty boilerplate. I'm sure Environment Canada can confirm. I don't know how many consultations Environment and Climate Change Canada does. Just trying to keep up with them and write back myself is exhausting. I think I see on the order of one or two a month of consulting with the public at large and individual interest groups, etc.

That is the intention, but I don't think it's onerous.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Ms. May.

Does that answer your question, Mr. McLean?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Yes, it does.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

(Clause 5 agreed to on division)

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Now we get into the preamble and that takes us to BQ-4.

Ms. Pauzé, would you like to say something about your amendment?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Yes, of course. In fact, I'm going to take my right to speak to discuss both our amendments to the preamble and our amendments to the title. We are actually proposing amendments to the title, so we're going to present them all at once.

Again, we believe that the rights as well as the policies that will flow from the bill should be universal, that all should enjoy them regardless of their differences. The sections of the bill as we have just passed them do not provide us with powerful legal tools to counter inequities and discrimination, such as those based on origin, language, cultural background or socio-economic conditions.

I add a small comment about our amendment on money transfers, which was rejected earlier. It still boggles my mind that while the bill provides for “compensation for individuals or communities”, the committee is denying federal transfers to Quebec and the provinces to help them do the work that needs to be done under the bill. I am surprised by this.

That said, I'm done and I'm not arguing about it anymore.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Since amendment BQ‑1 was defeated, amendment BQ‑4 is out of order, as we have not adopted any amendment to the bill that would justify changing the preamble.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Chair, do you mean amendment BQ‑5?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

No, I am talking about amendment BQ‑4.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Ah yes, excuse me. This is the preamble, you are right.

Actually, no, you are not right. I challenge your ruling that the amendment is out of order and I ask for a vote on it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Very well. There is a challenge to the chair's ruling, so we have to vote on that.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, some of our members lost connection.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Who lost connection?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

I'm told Mr. Benzen did.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is he still off-screen?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

He is. I'm just touching base with him.

On that same point of order, Mr. Chair, it seems there have been some persistent challenges across a number of committees. There seem to be some Zoom issues.

Mr. Benzen is working with IT to get reconnected as soon as possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I don't think that's a point of order that was raised by Mr. Kurek.

We should go right to the vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'm sorry. Can you speak louder?

[An hon. member]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Hold on for just a second. I'm listening to Mr. Fragiskatos here.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I don't believe that was a point of order.

I'm substituting today, so I'm an associate member who is on deck, so to speak.

With great respect, I don't think that was a point of order and we should vote.