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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We now move on to amendment NDP‑38.
Hold on a moment.
Okay, I'm of the opinion, or I've been told, that the committee would in a sense be contradicting itself if we went ahead with it, and we can't allow that, so we'll have to skip over NDP-38, but I don't see any objection on the part of Ms. Collins.
So we will go to amendment PV‑23.
Ms. May, the floor is yours.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is another amendment that is part of my efforts to correct a flaw in this bill, which eliminates the single list of toxic substances.
The schedule has always been a list of toxic substances in one schedule. This law—Bill S-5—weakens the whole scheme of the legislation by creating two lists.
My amendment here would not make sense at this point. Were I a member of the committee, I would ask to withdraw it, but I'm here, as you'll all recall, due to the motion you passed, which—I hope you understand—I really hate. I wish that I weren't subjected to this instead of being allowed to have my rights and present amendments at report stage.
That said, I expect this amendment to be defeated.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you, Ms. May.
Is there debate on this amendment, or do we just go to a vote?
Go ahead, Madam Pauzé.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
I would like to ask a question instead, Mr. Chair.
I didn't quite understand what the leader of the Green Party said. Am I to understand that, because the committee voted against all the other Green Party amendments, this amendment is no longer valid because the list no longer exists?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I think it's because we voted against keeping the list of toxic substances. While we agree with the way the lists in Bill S‑5 are presented, we cannot agree to go back to the list of toxic substances.
I think I got that right, Ms. May.
Ms. Collins, you have the floor.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I was just going to say that this amendment no longer makes sense since the rest of the amendments were voted down. I'll be voting in favour of it because I voted in favour of the other amendments. I support the spirit of this, but I also expect it to be defeated.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We need to be more positive in this committee, I think. We'll go to the vote, I guess.
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The amendment is defeated. That brings us to G-14.4.
Who is presenting that?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Yes, maybe it was sent.... It wasn't in the original package.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
It was...?
Okay. We have G-14.1. We have G-14.2, and yes, it's at page 120.1 in your package.
Who's presenting that?
Liberal
Terry Duguid Liberal Winnipeg South, MB
Mr. Chair, I'm getting some advice that we've already passed this amendment. Is that correct? Was it on February 16?
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We have one more amendment, G-14.4, and then we'll go to whether we pass clause 53.
Mr. Duguid, go ahead.
Liberal
Terry Duguid Liberal Winnipeg South, MB
Mr. Chair, there seems to be some uncertainty here, so why don't we pass it again?
Liberal
Terry Duguid Liberal Winnipeg South, MB
I'll move G-14.4. I think everyone has the language, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
It's self-evident. Okay.
Is there anyone else? Would anyone else like to speak to this?
Go ahead, Mr. Kurek.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Thanks, Chair.
This is adding additional reporting or is clarifying, I think, reporting requirements. I'm wondering if the officials could weigh in on the addition of proposed section 317.3, just to expand as to whether there are additional reporting requirements or if it complements current reporting requirements, to determine where this is at.
Thank you.
Liberal
Laura Farquharson Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
Yes. Thank you for clarifying what the amendment is.
It's the addition of a proposed section 317.3 and a requirement to include in the annual report a report about the names of substances or living organisms that have been unmasked. The discretionary power—and now the partial requirement—to unmask names is new. That was added by Bill S-5. This would be just an explicit new reporting requirement.
