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
Since no one else wants to speak, we will put amendment BQ‑1 to a vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2)
The amendment is defeated, which brings us to amendment NDP-3.
Ms. Collins, go ahead.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Maybe since it's such a short amendment, I will just read it out:
Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to openness, transparency and accountability in respect of the protection of the environment and human health;
This is just explicitly stating some core principles that I hope will have unanimous support around the table.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Are there any other interventions?
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
Amendment NDP-3 is adopted. We now go to amendment CPC-1.
Go ahead, Mr. Kurek.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
In the interest of trying to keep things short, I think this amendment just ensures that the government stays committed to implementing that risk-based approach to the assessment and management of chemical substances. I hope the committee will support this and the clarification it provides.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Shall we go to a vote?
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Shall the committee pass clause 2 as amended?
(Clause 2 as amended is agreed to on division.)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We have a proposed amendment for clause 5 of the bill, amendment G‑6. If amendment G‑6 passes, amendments PV‑6, BQ‑3, NDP‑10 and CPC‑2 cannot be moved, because all five amendments modify the same line of the bill.
Who wants to move amendment G‑6?
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Mr. Chair, on a point of order, would you mind just repeating all of the amendments you just said would be—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Yes. They are amendments PV-6, BQ-3, CPC-2—those ones. We'd end up at amendment NDP-8.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
So none of amendments NDP-8, NDP-9, NDP-10 or NDP-11 are impacted by this?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I'm sorry; only amendment NDP-10 is affected.
Okay, who's...?
Mr. Weiler, go ahead.
Liberal
Patrick Weiler Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll be moving amendment G-6. This amendment makes important changes to the implementation framework of this bill, which is under clause 5.1.
This amendment is a fairly long amendment. It really seeks to do a few things with the implementation framework. It ensures how ministers must deal with a right to a healthy environment through the implementation framework. It creates some important reference to air quality within the substance of the right to a healthy environment and it impacts the time frame of the act as well.
Already within the preamble of Bill S-5, we recognize that every individual in Canada has a right to a healthy environment as provided under the act. We've expanded that in this act with the definition that a healthy environment is clean, healthy and sustainable.
In clause 7 of this bill, we've also affirmed the duty, under section 44 of the act, of ministers to conduct research, studies and monitoring activities in support of protecting the right to a healthy environment. The clause we're dealing with right now determines how that's going to be actioned in the bill.
Currently in the way the bill is written, it says:
Ministers shall, within two years after the day on which this section comes into force, develop an implementation framework to set out how the right to a healthy environment will be considered in the administration of this Act.
What I'm proposing here is that we change this to “protected in the administration of this Act”. I think this is really important, because when we are talking about rights, we want to protect those rights, not simply “consider” them. It would also result in consistency throughout the act, because when we talk about the right to a healthy environment in other areas, we talk about protecting that right.
Furthermore, clause 2.1 makes specific reference to air quality. We know that in Canada about 15,000 people die every year simply from poor air quality, which also costs the government and our society billons of dollars in economic losses as well.
Lastly, I have proposed to change the time frame in which to develop the implementation framework from two years down to 18 months. Subsequent to this amendment originally being put together, we've had testimony in this committee that has made it clear that we actually do need 24 months rather than 18 months in order to effectively consult and develop this implementation framework.
With that, I would suggest to any of my colleagues around the table here who might be interested in proposing a friendly amendment that it be to revert it back to 24 months.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Would I make a subamendment now if I wanted to revert it back to 24 months?
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Okay. I move that subamendment then. Instead of 18 months, I move that it be 24 months, as was originally proposed.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Would anyone like to speak to the subamendment?
Ms. Collins, would you like...?
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I'm sorry, but no. We can vote on the subamendment and then we can....
Liberal
Terry Duguid Liberal Winnipeg South, MB
Can I just make something clear?
The subamendment essentially encapsulates the original language of CEPA. Is that correct?
It does. Okay. Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay. Shall we vote on the subamendment to change the 18 months to 24 months?
Go ahead, Madame Pauzé.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Before we move on to a vote, can the people with us today tell us if this amendment changes what’s proposed in Bill S‑5?
I find this amendment, as written, somewhat unpalatable. I wonder if some things could be good and others not as good.
Furthermore, towards the end of the amendment, it reads "in any given geographical area". Does it mean that, once again, the federal government will have the right to intervene in any given geographical area, or must it do so with the agreement of the relevant province or territory?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Are there any other comments or questions?
Ms. Collins, you have the floor.