Evidence of meeting #51 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 subamendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I call the meeting to order.
Good morning, everyone. I hope you all had a good two-week constituency break and got a lot of things done in your ridings.
We'll pick up where we left off.
Unless I'm mistaken, we were at amendment BQ‑13. After that, we will talk about amendment NDP‑37.1. I would like to mention that these two amendments are almost identical.
Ms. Pauzé, you have the floor on amendment BQ‑13.
11 a.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Mr. Chair, are you sure it's my turn to speak? I thought we were first supposed to discuss amendment NDP‑37.1.
11 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
No, as we only received it this morning. So you have the honour of speaking first.
11 a.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Okay.
Substantively, amendment BQ‑13 aims to replace the presumption of confidentiality with the presumption of the public's right to know. So the idea is to tighten up the language of this subsection; otherwise we will regress, in our view. To do this, we will rely on what is happening elsewhere, in countries similar to ours.
The U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act requires that confidentiality claims for commercial information be accompanied by a justifying statement. This means that, if a person wants the information to remain confidential, they will have to explain why. It is the same in Europe: if a person wants to submit information they want to keep confidential, they must prove that its disclosure could harm their commercial interests.
By means of amendment BQ‑13, we want to put in place conditions on confidentiality. If a piece of information shouldn't be made public, the notifier must justify it. This could help avoid a situation where a substance is put on the market, analyzed and, some time later, discovered to be a carcinogen, which was not realized because the required information was not available.
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay, thank you.
As no other committee members want to take the floor, we will go to a vote on amendment BQ‑13.
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We are now continuing with amendment NDP‑37.1.
Ms. Collins, go ahead.
11:05 a.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I won't speak too much to this, because Madam Pauzé has already explained a number of the reasons that we're putting this amendment forward.
It does have slight word changes that I hope will garner support from the rest of the committee.
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Is there any debate on this? Apparently not, so we'll go to the vote.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Shall clause 50 as amended carry?
11:05 a.m.
An hon. member
On division.
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
(Clause 50 as amended agreed to on division)
Shall clause 51 carry?
11:05 a.m.
An hon. member
On division.
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
11:05 a.m.
An hon. member
On division.
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
(Clause 52 agreed to on division)
(On clause 53)
Now we have clause 53 and BQ-14.
Since amendments BQ‑14 and NDP‑38 are identical, amendment NDP‑38 cannot be moved if amendment BQ‑14 is—
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Just a moment.
I am being told that, since amendment BQ‑14 has already been proposed, amendment NDP‑38 cannot be proposed.
Go ahead, Ms. Collins.
11:05 a.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
My understanding is that there was an email sent out this morning with a change to BQ-14. Is that correct? Was there an email sent out this morning with a change to BQ-14?
Am I looking at the wrong one?
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Oh, I'm advised that there was. I'm sorry.
There's a change to BQ-14, so that means they're not identical. Is that correct?
We'll pause for a moment, please.
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Yes, there was a subamendment submitted for BQ-14. Who submitted it?
11:10 a.m.
Lloyd Longfield
I did, Mr. Chair.
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay, Mr. Longfield.
Mr. Longfield has submitted a subamendment to BQ-14. Has everyone received the subamendment in writing? Do we all have it in writing?
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
