Evidence of meeting #45 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:30 a.m.
Legislative Clerk
This provision should be allowed to stand, and we can come back to it at the end.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I think it's worth it, but can we verify this in the meantime?
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay.
Since we've already let two amendments stand for the end, we'll add NDP‑13.
In addition, and I stand to be corrected, the fate of the amendment that Ms. Pauzé intended to move depends on the decision that will be made on NDP‑13. If NDP‑13 is allowed to stand, it follows that we will also have to postpone the presentation of Ms. Pauzé's amendment. So we'll come back to it at the end, which will give us an opportunity to check whether there was an oversight, although it seems pretty obvious.
Mr. Longfield, you have the floor.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
To clarify, if we're setting that aside, would we not set the whole section aside as we did before?
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I think so. Yes.
Basically, clause 10 is stood. I don't know if that's the proper term.
We're going to take a quick pause so I can check something.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We're resuming the meeting.
We've cleared up the question concerning clause 10 of the bill.
I have the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in front of me, and subsection 56(4) is similar to what is proposed in NDP‑13; it seems to be missing a piece of text, but it isn't. It seems odd when you compare the length of the paragraphs in English and French, but if you read carefully, you'll see that the two paragraphs say the same thing. The French version is simply more succinct, which isn't normally the case.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Yes, that's what caught our attention. The French version is more succinct. While the English version of proposed subclause (4) refers specifically and in more detail to the granting of an extension, the French version refers only to a “nouveau délai”, which amounts to the same thing. Did I explain that correctly?
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
I understand, but why does the English text provide details that are summarized in two words in the French text?
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I couldn't answer that, but this wording has been around for many years, and no one has raised any objections.
11:35 a.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
May I remind you of our discussion on the “precautionary principle”? Mr. Deltell raises things that we could change, just as we previously changed the “principe de prudence” to the “principe de précaution”.
I would prefer that we wait, and I suggest that the committee have the translation checked.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
So I'm going to ask the committee members what they think about that and whether they want to wait. Personally, I understand your proposal, Ms. Pauzé, and I accept it, but it's up to the committee members to decide if they want to postpone consideration of this matter to a later date.
Do I have the committee's unanimous consent to proceed in this manner?
11:35 a.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We'll now proceed to clause 11 and Ms. May's amendment, PV‑12.
11:35 a.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
If I could interject, Mr. Chair, Ms. May's amendments are so important and so detailed that I would like us to give her the time to present them properly.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I do my best within the rules that are imposed on us. I must say that Ms. May summed up her ideas superbly, and I encourage all members to do the same.
Ms. May, you have the floor to propose PV‑12.
11:40 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Again, this is a detailed amendment. I should have credited the expert work of the lawyers at the Canadian Environmental Law Association, particularly senior counsel Joseph Castrilli, for assistance in the drafting of these amendments.
By the way, of course we all know how much the legislative clerks help us. You can imagine that when I ask them for amendments, they're four and five pages long, and they deliver them on time. I'm very grateful. This one is four and a half pages to replace a single paragraph.
What you have in Bill S-5 is subclause 60(1), which has the requirement to submit certain plans. What amendment PV-12 does is ensure that we have content for the components that a pollution prevention plan should consider.
Even though my previous amendment making such work mandatory has been defeated, this would still be very helpful in setting out, in those cases when the minister requires a pollution prevention plan, what the content of that plan should be.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you.
Who would like to speak to this?
Go ahead, Ms. Collins.
11:40 a.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I just want to thank Ms. May for putting this amendment forward. The principle of moving from prevention abatement to pollution prevention is an important one. I thank her for putting it forward.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Is there anyone else?
Shall we go to the vote?
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
The amendment being defeated, we will now vote on clause 11 of the bill itself.
(Clause 11 agreed to: yeas 12; nays 0)
(Clause 12)
This brings us to clause 12 of the bill, and Ms. May's amendment, PV‑13.
11:40 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I guess for the purposes of people watching these proceedings, it needs to be said that my amendment replaces one line here, but that one line is highly significant.
We worked hard in the environmental movement—I wasn't in the Green Party then—in the first of many overhauls of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to include the concept of “virtual elimination” so that substances that were extremely toxic on the list of toxic substances could be scheduled for virtual elimination.
That was a hard-won achievement, and in one fell swoop, in clause 12 of Bill S-5, there's a repeal of that virtual elimination process and the list. I don't think this is justified. I think it weakens the act, as I think overall the Liberal efforts on Bill S-5 weaken what was put in place in 1988 under Brian Mulroney.
This is just to say that my amendment restores the virtual elimination list from the acts of repeal and further clarifies how it can be used in future.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.