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
It means it's improved.
Who's going to speak to this?
Go ahead, Ms. Thompson.
Liberal
Joanne Thompson Liberal St. John's East, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The government supports this motion because it respects the Senate amendment and ensures that a report on the indigenous peoples is included in the CEPA annual report. In addition, the motion clarifies the scope of the findings and recommendations that must be included in the report.
Liberal
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
I would like to make a comment, Mr. Chair.
When I saw amendment G‑16 in its original form, I thought to myself that this could not possibly be and that it was a mistake, since it was blatantly leaving out anything that had to do with dealing with indigenous peoples. I intend to vote in favour of the “new” G‑16.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I have a very similar comment.
I'm glad to see explicit reference now to section 35 of the Constitution Act and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. I think it's really important that we ensure that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act is actually changing all of our legislation as we move forward.
This is incredibly important work, and I'm glad to see this new version of G-16.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Chair, I'll seek some expert opinion on this from our officials. Section 35 is mentioned in what's being deleted here, and it's not.... Oh, it is mentioned as well in the....
Can we get clarity on this from our officials, please? What's the substantive difference, if you will, between the original writing of the bill and the amendment that we're talking about here?
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
Sure.
The main difference is that the Senate amendment required a report every five years, but this reporting requirement is now going to be part of the annual report.
Also, I think the Senate amendment talked about reporting on details on measures implemented to ensure that the act is administered in a way that complies with section 35, which is about the principle of the honour of the Crown and Canada's treaty relationships and fiduciary obligations to aboriginal peoples. That wording has been.... Instead of using those concepts, it says that the reporting must include measures taken to advance reconciliation as reflected in section 35 and in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.
Then I would say that otherwise the Senate amendment also wanted to include a report on any evaluations or findings or recommendations in respect of the administration of the act as it relates to the aboriginal peoples of Canada, and subsection (c) of the proposed amendment sort of said that in a different way. It refers to findings or recommendations of any report made under an act of Parliament in respect of the administration of the act. It's just defining it in a way that makes it more inclusive.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
I'm not sure there's an expert at the table on this, but are you worried there might be some non-overlap between section 35 rights and the rights as defined by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? If that happens, what will be the outcome?
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
The references in this amendment are to section 35 of the Constitution and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. That's a federal act, so the act should comply with the Constitution. Strictly speaking, one doesn't need to mention the Constitution in the statute. We're all bound by it, so they should all align.
I think the point is to reference those in relation to reconciliation, and the point is to have a report that requires people to think through their decisions in respect of that objective and to report on it. It's to consolidate all the work that's going on and report on it.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
This will change a five-year reporting requirement, which the Senate put in here, to an annual reporting requirement.
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment
Yes.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay. Shall we go to a vote?
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 57 as amended agreed to on division)
(Clauses 59 to 62 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 63)
That brings us to clause 63 and amendment PV-24.
Go ahead, Ms. May.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This begins a different thread of my amendments. It stands on its own. It's worth passing—please.
It deals with where we are. If you go to page 46 of Bill S-5, under “Regulations”, you see clause 63. Currently Bill S-5 proposes to repeal the virtual elimination list and to repeal regulations adding perfluorooctane sulfonate and its salts. If you're wondering what that is—and I hope you've thought about it—it's basically Scotchgard. It also proposes to repeal the regulations that added this to the virtual elimination list.
We wouldn't need to do this if we kept the virtual elimination list and allowed my amendment. Now PV-24 would be “Minister of Health and the Minister of Environment may, by regulation, add a substance to the Virtual Elimination List.”
Then they can go forward and include other substances that we really need to see virtually eliminated, including, obviously, the named substances perfluorooctane sulfonate and its salts, but there will be others.
I urge the committee to rethink repealing the virtual elimination list. It's an important part of the scheme of legislation to deal with toxic substances.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you.
Are there any comments or questions?
Shall we go to a vote?
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Shall clause 63 carry?
(Clause 63 agreed to on division)
(Clauses 64 and 65 agreed to on division)
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We just adopted clause 66 on division. The amendment is on subclause 67.1, I guess.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Yes. It's on clause 67.1. We were on a roll, so I just wanted to put the brakes on.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Go ahead, Mr. Longfield. Do you want to propose your amendment?
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Yes. Thank you, Chair.
I'd like to vote against including clause 67.1. It's an anomalous provision that was added by the Senate. It doesn't modify CEPA and it doesn't relate to either of the ministers responsible for CEPA . It's a stand-alone requirement stipulating that the Minister of Industry prepare a report within one year. It should be removed from Bill S-5.
Additionally, this provision also looks to contradict the best-placed act—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Mr. Longfield, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but we don't have the amendment.