Evidence of meeting #44 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was definition.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Wonderful.
Instead of “include”, the amendment would be to put “may include”. The intention behind this is to provide greater clarity and to address some of the concerns Mr. Moffet raised around some indigenous individuals who wouldn't necessarily want to be included in this list.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Do we need to debate that, or can we go to a vote on this new subamendment?
We'll go to a vote.
(Subamendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The subamendment is not carried. Are we ready to vote on the amendment?
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
PV-4 is negatived. We now move on to PV-5. It is deemed moved.
Ms. May, would you like to give a brief explanation?
4:45 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Yes. The principles that are put forward in PV-5 are already in the act in various places. This is to provide a definition. Definitions are included in PV-5 for “intergenerational equity”, “non-regression” and “polluter pays”; where “non-regression” is not in the act, it is useful to have the definitions in place, as scientific advances may mean that the government continues to want to amend the act in future. Thank you.
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
PV-5 is negatived.
(Clause 4 agreed to on division)
(On clause 5)
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We're now at G‑6, and I must advise you that if it's adopted, PV‑6, BQ‑3 and NDP‑10 cannot be moved, since all four amendments amend the same line of the bill.
Does any member of the government want to move G‑6?
Go ahead, Mr. Weiler.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Patrick Weiler Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Mr. Chair, given that there are some active discussions happening among the parties with respect to this clause, I'm going to move to have this clause be stood and for us to return to it after we have gone through some of the other clauses.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Is everybody in agreement with Mr. Weiler's motion to stand G-6?
I'm told it's the whole thing. Mr. Weiler wants to stand clause 5. Apparently, you have to stand the whole clause. The legislative clerk says it's the whole thing.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Are we back in business?
Are you moving that we allow clause 5 to stand?
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Patrick Weiler Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
I moved that.
(Amendment allowed to stand)
(Clause 5 allowed to stand)
4:55 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Chair, I'm sorry. Does that mean that amendment PV-6 is stood before being heard at all, and that we'll come back to it later?
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Yes.
(On clause 5.1)
Now we have amendment G-7. Who would like to move that?
5 p.m.
Liberal
Terry Duguid Liberal Winnipeg South, MB
I think it's straightforward, Mr. Chair. I would open the floor to commentary, but then I'd be doing your job. Someday maybe....
5 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
The French version says “Contenu du Registre", while the English version says “Contents of Environmental Registry”. So the French version should be “Contenu du Registre environnemental".
Does this require a subamendment or can we simply correct this oversight?
5 p.m.
Liberal
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Maybe Mr. Moffet can tell us.
Mr. Moffet, in the French version, do we need to add the adjective “environnemental” so that it's “Registre environnemental”, or is it intentional that it says only “Registre”?
December 13th, 2022 / 5 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
The registry has been in the act since 1999. I can't tell you why, but it has been referred to in this way since then as “Registre” only in French and “Environmental Registry” in English, so this is just retaining that inconsistent approach.
I don't think it creates a problem, but I appreciate that the wording is different in French and English.