Evidence of meeting #42 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

Members speaking

Before the committee

Lane  Executive Director, Legislative Governance, Department of the Environment
Fortin  Director General, Policy, Planning and Partnerships Directorate, Department of the Environment

Patrick Bonin Bloc Repentigny, QC

We have done some work, after all. Can you tell me exactly where, in the current bill, you see anything that addresses duplication of work and the consideration of the territorial flood protection plan? If there are other provinces, I have no problem adding a reference to Quebec or any other province. I know that Quebec has a flood protection plan, but I don't know if that's the case for all the other provinces. Personally, I haven't seen that anywhere in the bill. There's a reason we worked with our legal experts to include this clarification. It complements what already exists by providing clarity and ensuring that concerns about the duplication of efforts or overlaps are taken into account, in the interest of efficiency within the federal government.

As we know, we are here and we are part of Canada, since we do not have our own country. This is a reality to which we want to contribute, while ensuring that there is no duplication. People don't want us to duplicate efforts and spend money twice for no reason. I think that's an important clarification. There is a plan; it is there, and it must be taken into account.

Tim Watchorn Liberal Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC

Indeed, I am very pleased that the province of Quebec is part of Canada. This is something very close to my heart, and I'm glad we're on the same page in this regard; perhaps we are not.

As for the strategy, I will defer to the experts. However, as I understand it, the bill contains an explicit requirement for the department to consult representatives of provincial governments and first nations communities before finalizing the strategy. Since the duty to consult is already provided for in the bill, the amendment is not necessary.

Patrick Bonin Bloc Repentigny, QC

There is still a difference. When we talk about consultation, for example, we can consult a first nation and still impose something on it. Consultation does not mean that we're required to take something into account or to ensure that there is no duplication of work.

I understand that the bill already provides for consultations, but our point goes beyond that: We are saying that consultations must be taken into account and duplication of effort must be avoided. I can consult you and not take your opinion into account. What we're trying to clarify is precisely the importance of taking things into account, ensuring that public funds are spent wisely and avoiding any duplication of work.

Eric St-Pierre Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC

Madam Chair, it's always a pleasure to hold a debate in French. I am very grateful to my Bloc Québécois colleague for his remarks, as well as to my colleague from the riding of Les Pays-d'en-Haut for his comments.

I move that we proceed to a vote on this amendment.

The Chair Liberal Shannon Miedema

Thank you very much, Mr. St‑Pierre.

We can take it to a vote.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 3 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 4)

We'll now move to clause 4. We have LIB-4 as a proposed amendment for clause 4.

Go ahead, Monsieur St-Pierre.

Eric St-Pierre Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC

Can you provide clarity on this clause and which amendment we're at, exactly?

The Chair Liberal Shannon Miedema

The reference number is 13856211. This is yours, Monsieur St-Pierre.

It is that Bill C-241, in clause 4, be amended by replacing line 24 on page 3 with the following:

ment of Canada website within 10 business days after the day on

The word “business” was added, instead of it just being “10 days”.

Eric St-Pierre Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC

Yes. Thank you.

This amendment is just trying to be specific. I was referring to “days”, and I thought “business days” would be a little more appropriate. I know the Interpretation Act covers Sundays, but it doesn't necessarily consider Saturdays. I thought it would be a bit more precise to say “business days”. Should this fall a few days before Christmas, we know, with holidays, that it might be challenging to get that in time, so I just want to be very specific in terms of the days.

I know it's a very minor amendment, but I thought I would be specific on that.

The Chair Liberal Shannon Miedema

Thank you, Mr. St‑Pierre.

All those in favour of amendment LIB-4, please indicate.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 4 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 5)

For clause 5, we have amendment LIB-5.

Eric St-Pierre Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC

Madam Chair, this is also with reference to business days, I believe. Is this reference number 13856212?

The Chair Liberal Shannon Miedema

That's correct.

Eric St-Pierre Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC

The rationale would be similar to the one I used previously.

The Chair Liberal Shannon Miedema

Thank you, Monsieur St-Pierre.

All those in favour of LIB-5, please indicate.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 5 as amended agreed to)

Now we move to the short title, clause 1. Shall clause 1 carry?

(Clause 1 agreed to)

Now we're on to the preamble. We have LIB-1 and LIB-2 for the preamble.

Go ahead, Monsieur St-Pierre.

Eric St-Pierre Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC

Thank you for giving me the moment.

I previously withdrew my amendment that was not on the preamble. I would also like to withdraw my amendment that is on the preamble. This is a request to withdraw.

The Chair Liberal Shannon Miedema

You do not wish to move LIB-1. Is that correct? Okay.

I think LIB-2 is different, is it not? It's also in the preamble, but it's different wording with “the United States”.

Monsieur St-Pierre, what about LIB-2?

Eric St-Pierre Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC

I'm happy to speak to this.

I think the original wording mentioned just “the United States”. I thought it would be a little clearer if we included “the United States of America” in full. In other legislation, such as CETA—the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement—that legislation could refer to the European Union as just “the EU”, but it would refer to the full pronunciation of “the European Union”, so I thought it would be a little clearer to pronounce “United States of America”.

Again, it's a very minor amendment. I don't think it's a big deal, but I go back to my lawyer days, when I was always double-checking every “i” in contracts. I'd just like to add the words “of America”.

The Chair Liberal Shannon Miedema

Thank you for your diligence, Mr. St-Pierre.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Shall the preamble as amended carry?

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The Chair Liberal Shannon Miedema

Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The Chair Liberal Shannon Miedema

Shall the bill as amended carry?

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The Chair Liberal Shannon Miedema

Shall the chair report the bill as amended to the House?

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The Chair Liberal Shannon Miedema

Shall the committee order a reprint of the bill as amended for the use of the House at report stage?