Environment Committee on Feb. 2nd, 2023

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Wonderful.

I guess my comments are that I would love to have my amendment stay, as planned, “every five years”. That said, especially given the previous vote on Madame Pauzé's five-year suggestion, my guess is that there may be support for eight years and not for five years, so I will be supporting the subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Longfield.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Would the officials mind just repeating it one more time for me, please? I'm trying to follow along and I want to make sure I have it right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You would like the legislative clerk to read it again.

[Philippe Méla]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You need to be at page 15 of the bill, line 25 to start with.

It would be that the amendment be amended by, first, adding on line 25, page 15, after the words “a plan”, the words “including timelines”. That would be the first change. The second change would be that the amendment be amended by adding 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”. The third change is deleting paragraph (a) of the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Does that clarify it, Mr. Longfield?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Yes, I think I had that.

You made the comment that there was a technical reason there was another change, or did I miss that we're back to the original subamendment?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Could the clerks perhaps explain the problem we were trying to solve?

I think that's the honourable member's question.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thanks, Terry. Put it into Winnipeg language.

[Philippe Méla]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Madame Pauzé had proposed an amendment earlier on page 15, line 29, that replaced the words, in English, “may specify” with the word “specifies”. That was right in the middle of the amendment that was proposed by the government, so it would preclude the amendment from the government.

I've basically redrafted the government amendment to split it in two and keep the middle as it was, so Ms. Pauzé's amendment would be integrated within it.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

It's so it's consistent.

Very good. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, Ms. Taylor Roy.

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

Mr. Chair, I just have one other question.

The amendment that was put forward by Ms. Collins had a part (b) and (c). I'm assuming those are no longer in the amendment.

[Philippe Méla]

They are, unless you want them removed.

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

Part (b) says, “The Ministers shall review the plan within five years after it is published and every five years after that.” I thought that was being changed to the eight years. I'm not sure how it's consistent if we have both of those things in there. I'm a little confused.

I think that the amendment Ms. Collins put forward was changing it in a different way. She was just deleting lines 1 and 2 and adding a new section.

What Mr. Duguid's subamendment did was to instead add the time frame onto line 2 on page 16, which would then negate the need for “adding after line 30 on page 16 the following”, section (7.1).

[Philippe Méla]

I'm not sure because the amendment proposed by the government doesn't address what's in the amendment. It looks more like an amendment rather than a subamendment.

It would probably be easier to deal with amendment, NDP-18, first. If you wanted to propose your new amendment, as I explained earlier, you would get rid of NDP-18, because that's what seems to be happening anyway, and then propose this one, which would incorporate the way I said it earlier, as a new amendment.

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

Can I make another suggestion that might be simpler since we have this one on the table?

The subamendment could change the amendment by, in point (b), where it says, “by adding after line 30 on page 16 the following: (7.1),” making it eight years and, after that, eight years. We can just change the time in that section as opposed to making the change in point two.

It's either way, but I just think that way we can at least work with this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Monsieur Deltell.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Our concern is about the timeline change from five years to eight years. We do agree with eight years, but we have big concerns with five years.

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

Right, so I'm suggesting to change the five.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

This is where we stand. To tell you the truth, I love the track—all of those amendments, subamendments and everything—but if we keep it, and you reassure us that we keep the eight, we do agree.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'll ask the legislative clerks what's the most efficient way to get what we want.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Chair, while the clerks are deliberating here, I'm just going to ask for another short pause. We have it anyway with the clerks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes. We'll suspend.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

I must admit, I'm not able to consult with our NDP colleague and I did not go across the room to consult Madame Pauzé, but there does seem to be some agreement that there is some confusion and some complexity that we need to sort out.

I would move that we stand this clause down, and that requires unanimous consent, as you know, Mr. Chair.