Environment Committee on Dec. 13th, 2022

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I have a very quick comment.

It's so unfortunate that the government didn't open up section 22. This is such a critical piece of the bill in terms of enforcing the right to a healthy environment. Also, the chair knows that enforcement in CEPA is one of my interests. I think it is a critical issue, and I hope the government will tackle this as soon as possible.

I want to thank Ms. May for putting this forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That's noted. Thank you.

We go to PV-8.

Ms. May.

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

I would assume it would also be beyond the scope, because it is a tidying up and deletion of a section replaced by the amendment you've just ruled out of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Indeed, that would be the ruling from the chair.

The amendment seeks to amend sections 29 to 33 of CEPA. Again, “an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.”

It's going directly to try to amend CEPA where, as I understand it, this issue is not mentioned in Bill S-5.

Yes, unfortunately it's out of scope, as I see it.

We now go to PV-9.

Ms. May.

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

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I'm just mourning the last passages.

Let me get to PV-9.

Again, it proposes to repeal a short section of the act at the existing section 38. The rationale for that, as briefly as I can, is to ensure that the framework introduced in the previous amendment would make this part inconsistent, so I think it falls subject to the same ruling as before.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It does.

The amendment seeks to amend section 38 of CEPA. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 771, “an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.”

Since section 38 of CEPA is not being amended by Bill S-5, it is therefore my opinion that the amendment is inadmissible.

Now we are at NDP-11.

Ms. Collins, would you like to move the amendment?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The amendment, again, is looking at paragraph 22(2)(b). As Ms. May articulated, I think it is essential that we address the enforcement mechanisms in CEPA. The fact that no one has ever used the citizen enforcement is, in my opinion, egregious. I sincerely hope that the government will address this in short order. I'm incredibly disappointed that it was not included in the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay. Thank you.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I have a question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Well, I have to rule on this before we open debate. There's no debate because of the ruling, but we haven't gotten to the ruling yet, so....

We have a very good legislative clerk. He's way ahead of me.

The amendment seeks to amend sections 22 and 29 of CEPA. Again, “an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statue that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.”

Since sections 22 and 29 of CEPA are not being amended by Bill S-5, it is therefore my opinion that the amendment is inadmissible.

We go now to clause 7.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Chair, as this is my first time going through clause-by-clause on a government bill—and with the utmost respect for your chairing—if I were to challenge the chair, the process would be that everyone would vote on it. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes. There's no debate.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Yes, and again with the utmost respect, I would just like the committee to be on record about not opening up this section.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll go to the vote, to challenge the ruling.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 9; nays 2)

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Weiler, do you want to say something?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

I do, just very briefly.

I think these are some very important amendments that were brought up. Obviously they are out of scope at this time, but these are things that have come up quite a bit with witnesses in the course of our meetings. Therefore, as the Senate did when it was concluding its study, I would recommend that these issues be addressed in a future bill or in a future action by government.

I would suggest that maybe our committee consider doing the same thing, so that we could have an official government response on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Unfortunately, that's not debatable.

I was even remiss in allowing you to address it, because there's no debate on that at this point, but I thought you were going to talk about something else. That's why I gave you the floor.

Yes, Mr. Duguid.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Chair, because we are moving to a new clause, I was going to suggest that we adjourn and come back with fresh eyes and renewed vigour.

I would move adjournment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You mean in 2023.

Before we adjourn, I want to thank our clerk, the analysts, our legislative clerk, the interpreters, the technicians and everyone who makes these meetings possible.

I wish everyone the very best for the holidays, merry Christmas and a very happy new year.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

We didn't vote, Mr. Chair. I don't think we'll get any objections.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I know. I don't think we'll get any objections, but I just wanted to get that in before we decided to adjourn.

It looks as though it's unanimous, Mr. Duguid.

We'll adjourn.