Evidence of meeting #47 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 chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Let's get back to it.
We were going to hold a vote.
I will now advise the clerk that we are ready to vote.
Liberal
Terry Duguid Liberal Winnipeg South, MB
Mr. Chair, I would like to provide some clarification to the committee. We're talking about an amendment, and the clerks have asked me to do this, so that we don't become confused. It's E021-020-34a. I just want to put that in the record.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
It's a reference number. That's how it's named in your email if you got the attachment.
We'll go to a vote.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
It's pretty clear that's adopted, which brings us to PV-17.
Ms. May, please go ahead.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This amendment will not surprise anyone here. It's part of a series of amendments. All of my amendments so far, if anyone is keeping score, it's everybody else whatever, Greens zero. You can be quite certain that none of my amendments have carried, and this is consistent with those in order to ensure we do not split the list of toxic substances, thus imperilling the whole scheme of the act.
I give it to you and urge you to surprise me.
Liberal
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank Ms. May for putting this forward. I do think, given that the other ones haven't passed, this doesn't totally make sense without the previous ones, but I will be supporting it because I support the spirit of this amendment. I supported the amendments before. I want to thank her for putting it forward.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you. We'll go to the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
The amendment is negatived.
We now have CPC‑5.
Mr. Kurek, you have the floor.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
It's a pleasure to move CPC-5. This amendment is meant to drive as much precision as possible into the route of exposure, the form, the use or any specific marker related to the list of toxic substances. This would ensure that the substance that is risk managed under the act is limited to that which has an unacceptable risk of exposure. This precision is all the more important for schedule 1, part 1, substances, where the proposed risk management outcome is the prohibition of that substance.
The intent behind this committee is to drive as much precision and to have as much clarity as possible in the regulations to ensure that, especially when something is being banned or prohibited, both industry and Canadians know exactly what that means and that there's as much detail as possible surrounding that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Are there any other comments?
We'll go to a vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
The amendment is negatived.
I will now call the question:
Shall Clause 21 as amended carry?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
(Clause 21 as amended agreed to on division) [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We now go to NDP‑27, which concerns clause 22 of Bill S‑5.
Before Ms. Collins presents her amendment, I would like to tell you that if the amendment is carried, it will not be possible to present BQ‑8, because both amendments pertain to the same lines in the bill.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Mr. Chair, you are right to say that BQ‑8 does seek to bring an amendment by replacing part of paragraph (a). However, we are proposing to amend paragraph (b) with an addition after line 27.
The two paragraphs do not pertain to the same lines of the bill. In that case, how should we proceed?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
In that case, you will only be able to present the part of the amendment that concerns paragraph (b).
Ms. Collins.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Yes, this is yet another time where two of my amendments are split into two different parts. You'll see that NDP-27 and NDP-28 are very similar to BQ-8. They have a similar spirit.
This first half is the one that is about requiring the minister to set out timelines for all measures identified in the risk management plan. I hope the committee will support it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I don't see any hands. Do we go to a vote?
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Ms. Pauzé, as NDP-27 was negatived, you may present your amendment in full.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
I am sure it's going to be carried.
Instead of presenting the amendment, I'm going to ask my colleagues a question.
Why are they scared of setting deadlines? The deadlines that we are proposing aren't unreasonable.
Amendment BQ‑8 proposes that clause 22 of Bill S‑5 be amended by an addition after line 27. It states that the deadline “shall [...] not exceed two years”. I repeat that the deadline can be extended. I don't understand why some of my colleagues seem so reticent.
I would like to know why my colleagues voted against any amendment that sought to tighten up deadlines.
Liberal
Bloc
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay.
Committee members may answer your question if they so wish, but they are not obliged to. This is not question period. Even during question period, we are not obliged to answer questions.
