Evidence of meeting #46 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.

proposed subsectionamendmentsubamendmentchairanyone else

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Laura Farquharson  Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
Jacqueline Gonçalves  Director General, Science and Risk Assessment, Science and Technology Branch, Department of the Environment
Greg Carreau  Director General, Safe Environments Directorate, Department of Health
Philippe Méla  Legislative Clerk

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Is it long? Is it something that—

As spoken

Terry Duguid Liberal Winnipeg South, MB

It is long.

As spoken

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Could you send it in writing to the clerk?

As spoken

Terry Duguid Liberal Winnipeg South, MB

Mr. Chair, could we just take a quick pause—would that be all right?—so members can partake of some of the food that I ordered on your behalf.

As spoken

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Which you ordered well.

Yes, we'll do that.

As spoken

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

The meeting is resuming.

As spoken

Terry Duguid Liberal Winnipeg South, MB

These are relatively minor changes to the honourable member's amendment. I will highlight where the changes are.

Under the proposed subsection:

Plan — priorities 73 (1) The Ministers shall, within two years after the day on which this section receives royal assent, develop and publish a plan

add the words “including timelines”, and it would continue:

(a) that specifies the substances to which the Ministers are satisfied priority should be given in assessing whether they are toxic or capable of becoming toxic;

As spoken

Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON

It's all the same as what's there. The only changes are in proposed subsection 73(1), where we're just adding “including timelines”.

As spoken

Terry Duguid Liberal Winnipeg South, MB

Yes, in proposed subsection 73(1), we add the words “including timelines”.

Then in proposed subsection 73(2) we add.... I'll read the whole sentence. It currently says:

(2) The plan shall also include the period after which the Ministers will review the plan.

We would add to that line “The period must be no longer than eight years.”

As spoken

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

A written version was sent.

As spoken

Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB

Terry, the only change is that last sentence there. Is that right?

As spoken

Terry Duguid Liberal Winnipeg South, MB

There's also a change to proposed subsection 73(1), in the first sentence, that would add “including timelines”.

As spoken

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

We don't have it yet.

Okay. We'll just wait for the written version.

We now have the subamendment, but it is only in English. However, we can reread it.

Partially translated

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

It's very short.

Translated

Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC

Don't we have it in French?

Translated

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

The clerk received the subamendment only in English, so he cannot distribute it, but it will be reread.

Can you reread it, Mr. Duguid?

Translated

Terry Duguid Liberal Winnipeg South, MB

The first line of the proposed subsection reads:

73(1) The Ministers shall, within two years after the day on which this section receives royal assent, develop and publish a plan

Then we add the words “including timelines”.

Proposed subsection 73(2) will now read, “The plan shall also include the period after which the Ministers will review the plan. That period must be no longer than eight years.”

The NDP amendment suggested five years. We've changed that to eight.

As spoken

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just to clarify.... The subamendment changes it from a proposed five-year review but also adds a timeline for when the plan has to be published. Effectively, you're clarifying how long the minister has to release the report and then extending...making it say, effectively.... Eight years after the report is released is the new timeline being proposed in the subamendment.

As spoken

Terry Duguid Liberal Winnipeg South, MB

That's my understanding, unless [Technical difficulty—Editor].

As spoken

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

There's a bit of confusion. We're going to suspend for a minute.

As spoken

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

It's important to understand what is happening with the subamendment, so I invite the legislative clerk to explain it to us.

Translated

Philippe Méla Legislative Clerk

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to try to explain what the government amendment and the NDP amendment do at the same time. I would propose different writing for those, so that it reads like this, since it's a subamendment.

It is that the amendment be amended by, (a) adding on line 25, page 15, after the words “a plan”, the words “including timelines”; (b) that Bill S-5 be amended by adding on line 2, page 16, after the word “plan”, the words “That period must be no longer than eight years”; and (c) by deleting paragraph (a) of the amendment.

That paragraph deletes lines 1 and 2 on page 16 that the subamendment intends to amend. You can't have it removed and amend it afterwards, so we should remove that last part, which is paragraph (a) of the amendment. That will solve that problem and it will also solve the problem of Ms. Pauzé's amendment.

As spoken

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

I didn't know there was a problem with the amendment by Ms. Pauzé.

Is that pretty clear to everyone? Is there any debate on the subamendment?

I have Ms. Collins and Mr. Longfield.

Ms. Collins.

As spoken

Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC

Maybe just to start, I just want to confirm that the additions to this will not impact future amendments.

As spoken

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

The answer is no.

As spoken