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.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you. My apologies.
I guess my recommendation would be to maybe stand clause 20 as well. That way we could move forward and get as much as we could done today and have the language sent to the committee so we could go over it.
Conservative
Liberal
Terry Duguid Liberal Winnipeg South, MB
We're in agreement with your intent. We're just trying to find the language.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Can we just pause for a moment, Chair? Can we suspend for a moment?
Liberal
Terry Duguid Liberal Winnipeg South, MB
Mr. Chair, I would suggest seeking unanimous consent to stand this item and come back with language that is acceptable to all parties.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay. Is there unanimous consent?
Yes, there seems to be. We'll stand clause 20 as well.
(Clause 20 allowed to stand)
We did start a bit late, but my understanding is that Madame Pauzé has to leave us at 5:30, so if everyone is all right with—
Bloc
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay. Let's say we'll continue until 5:40. Is everyone good with that?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay. We're stopping at 5:30. We have nine minutes.
(On clause 21)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Now we're on clause 21. We're on amendment PV-16.
Ms. May, go ahead.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm in your hands on this. This amendment is premised on the continuation of the virtual elimination list”. I think it is possible to continue with this amendment, even though my efforts to retrieve the virtual elimination list from being repealed.... The phrase “if applicable, the Virtual Elimination List” is the only part that is totally premised on the virtual elimination list.
That's the question. I can't amend my own amendment. I've put forward this amendment. As far as I know, the clerk hasn't determined that it can't be put forward because of the earlier rejection of my amendments to ensure that the virtual elimination list continue. As you'll recall the conversation, my amendment would have repaired the part of the virtual elimination list that the officials said was the problem, but the fact that I'd solved the problem didn't seem to disturb anybody's argument that it just should be gotten rid of, even if it were fixed.
I'm not certain at this point if this amendment will be considered in order. I suppose I should check with the clerk. If it's in order, I would suggest that someone else, other than me, amend it, because I'm not allowed to amend my own amendments. I hope that at some point someone watching all of this will tell the Prime Minister's Office to stop making committees pass this motion, which demands that people in my position show up at committee and then try to work through all the sticky tape that occurs.
I look to you for guidance on this one, Mr. Chair.
February 2nd, 2023 / 5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Your question is on whether your amendment PV-16 is in order. That's your first question.
Apparently, it is in order.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Okay. In which case, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the minister add a substance to the list if it's “determined to be toxic” and the minister is satisfied that it's “persistent and bioaccumulative”; that it's “present in the environment primarily as a result of human activity”; that it is “not a naturally occurring radionuclide”; and, that it “poses an unacceptable risk in accordance with the regulations”.
In that sense, it's in order and stands as yet another attempt to ensure that toxic chemicals and the treatment of toxic chemicals move from a rather discretionary formula to one that requires action when these multiple aspects of toxicity and threat to human health have been ascertained.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Mr. Chair, I have a quick comment.
The Green Party has been working on considerably tightening up a piece of legislation that is over 20 years old and that did require a lot of reworking.
I just want to say that I will vote in favour of the amendment, as it helps improve human and environmental health.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
That's great.
Would anyone else like to comment before we go to the vote?
Ms. Collins, go ahead.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I don't think this amendment makes sense given that the other amendments on virtual elimination didn't pass. I won't try a subamendment because I don't think we have support for the amendment as a whole, but I will be voting in favour because I am in favour of the spirit of this motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Should we go to a vote?
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We'll go to NDP-25.
I should mention that if NDP-25 is adopted, BQ-7 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.
Ms. Collins, would you like to move NDP-25?
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Yes, I do want to move NDP-25.
Just for reassurance for folks, and especially for Madame Pauzé's reassurance, while BQ-7 is longer, there is an NDP-26, which is a kind of second half of BQ-7. For some reason, my amendments were split in half, and Madame Pauzé's amendment is right between the two amendments. Really, NDP-25 and NDP-26 together are pretty much the same as BQ-7.
The amendment itself is talking about timelines again. It adds a requirement: “within one year after publication of the statement referred to in subsection (1)”. It's really just creating a one-year timeline, ensuring that we have speedy processes.
Again, my apologies that this amendment was split into two, and we have BQ-7 in the middle.
