Environment Committee on March 9th, 2023

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Ms. Farquharson, I thought that what the Senate wanted was to identify the users, makers and importers of certain substances, and ask them for certain information. The minister would have the power to publish a notice requiring the people in question “to prepare and implement a pollution prevention plan”.

[Laura Farquharson]

The amendment would remove the part about the information, but that's already covered in section 71 of the act. It's not necessary.

The way the amendment is drafted could suggest that it's a prerequisite to using the tool. Since the minister has the power to request or require the information elsewhere in the act, it's not necessary.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

It still disregards prevention.

[Laura Farquharson]

I think the importance of prevention is still there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Collins, go ahead.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I was just going back to the language of the bill.

For Madame Pauzé, it's line 26 on page 6. I don't think that's the part you are concerned about. My guess is that it's about lines 28 to 35 on page 7. If you look at the language in the bill, it says “the Minister may waive the requirement”, so I don't think this changes substantially. My understanding is that it's strengthening this portion of the act because we are including that new.... Hopefully this is a change in direction for the government, whereby we're ensuring that safer and more sustainable alternatives are going to be used.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Shall we go to a vote?

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

I have some prepared remarks on this. I think the clerks raised this issue earlier, but I would like to raise a point of order and ask the committee for unanimous consent to fix two technical errors in the sections on pollution prevention planning. One, there are incorrect references to paragraph 56(1)(b). It should be subsection 56(1) in clause 10.1. In clause 11.1 there are two versions of proposed section 60 that were adopted—one in clause 11 and one in clause 11.1.

I can explain in more detail, Mr. Chair, but if colleagues are agreeable, this, as I understand it, is for cleanup and consistency purposes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

This is in reference to amendment NDP-15.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Have we announced the voting result on that?

[A voice]

We voted on amendment NDP-13.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay. We announced the result. That's fine.

We have to vote on clause 10.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

We're on clause 10 right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

This has to do with clause 10. Okay. Can you tell us where exactly?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

It's clauses 10.1 and 11.1.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

These are technical amendments, really.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

That's correct. I can go on with a further explanation if colleagues desire, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Would you be able to tell us in a nutshell what we're changing?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Do the clerks want to? Are you familiar...?

[Philippe Méla, Legislative Clerk]

No, we don't know where you are.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Okay. Let me go on, Mr. Chair.

On January 30, the committee stood clause 10, but proceeded with voting for clauses 10.1, 11 and 11.1 on division.

Clause 10.1 deals with proposed section 58, which requires people to submit a declaration that they have prepared and are implementing a pollution prevention plan in accordance with the notice published under “paragraph 56(1)(b)”. The other place changed this reference from 56(1) to 56(1)(b) to reflect other changes they made, but the reference is no longer correct. There is no 56(1)(b) in the French version because of the drafting conventions that we previously discussed. The same error is repeated in clause 11.1.

As well, in adopting clause 11 and clause 11.1, the committee adopted two versions of proposed section 60: the “Requirement to submit certain plans”. Therefore, Mr. Chair, if there is unanimous consent, I recommend that we recall the vote on clauses 10.1 and 11.1, and I would suggest we not let these clauses carry. That would fix the errors.

I think it is important to fix these errors in the bill before reporting it back to the House. I don't know if officials.... I think we've been getting advice from officials and—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Basically, all we're doing is striking 10.1 and 11.

When you distill it, what are we doing?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

I'll defer to officials.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It sounds like we're striking 10.1 and 11—