Evidence of meeting #50 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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
The subamendment was rejected, so we're going back to your amendment, item (b) of amendment BQ‑12.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
This amendment clarifies the nature of public participation in the assessment. The intent of this amendment is to make sure that we do things in order. We'll start with consultation, then a notice will be sent out and then people will have a meaningful way to react. That's the purpose of BQ‑12, which I urge members to support.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Would anyone else like to speak?
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We will now go to amendment PV‑21, which it is deemed to have been introduced.
Ms. May, you have the floor.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Green Party moves amendment PV‑21.
No previous amendments of mine that were defeated make this one make less sense. This one makes total sense.
If you see where it fits in Bill S-5, it's following a reference to what would be public participation. It clarifies and describes that when we speak of participation and “meaningful participation”, that includes—and I am reading from the amendment, which is very clear:
the full participation of the public, including vulnerable populations, in the assessment under this Act of whether a substance is toxic or capable of being toxic and in the management of risks posed by a substance to the environment and human health.
I am hoping that this amendment will be accepted as seamlessly following the current proposed new subsection 108(1.1) in that spot on page 32.
Green
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
All right.
We'd like changes to improve and strengthen the language around the importance of consultation when it comes to indigenous communities. We've heard from AFN that consultation wasn't done in their communities properly, and from other first nations leaders when it came to the genetically modified salmon.
The subamendment would read as follows—and again, I believe you all have the language—that Bill S-5, in clause 39.1, be amended by adding, after proposed new subsections 108(1.1) and 108(1.2) the following...and then in the amendment to (1.3), taking out “meaningfully in relation to participating” and replacing that with “consultation”.
I hope that makes sense.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Is there debate?
Seeing none, we can go to a vote.
(Subamendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The subamendment is defeated, which brings us back to the amendment.
Yes, Ms. May.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I have a small comment to my friends.
You could have voted for the subamendment to defeat my main amendment later, so that I could have had a pyrrhic victory—one moment out of many days.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay, so is there debate on PV-21, or do we go straight to a vote?
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 39.1 as amended agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clauses 40 to 44 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 44.1)
That brings us to clause 44.1 and NDP-36.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
I apologize. As everybody has the language, I believe I just move it into the record.
Now I speak to it, do I?
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
I'm sorry, but I also haven't done a ton of clause-by-clause, so I appreciate everybody's understanding.
We have asked that lines be deleted, because we believe that ultimately taking away some of the public participation is at stake here.
Liberal
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
We will vote in favour of amendment NDP‑36, because section 44.1 of the Senate bill prescribes the public participation process.
So the goal is always to be more transparent with the public. NDP‑36 goes very much in the same direction that the Senate was aiming for, and goes even further. That's why we will be voting for it.
Liberal
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
I have a technical question about amendment NDP‑36, which I have in front of me.
The French version of the amendment states: “44.1 (1) Le paragraphe 114(1) de la même loi est mo-”. I understand “mo-” to mean “modifié” based on the French wording in line 20 of the bill. Where does that leave us? It talks about paragraph (g.1), then it goes to the new paragraph (h.1). Does that mean that we leave “difié par adjonction, après l’alinéa g), de ce qui” as is until the end of subparagraph (ii)?
It's a very technical question. Because I'm voting against the amendment, I would like an answer. It may simply be a typographical error. As was said the other day, if we're going to vote on something, it might as well be written correctly.
