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

11 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Shannon Miedema

I call this meeting to order.

It's a pleasure to be here with you for meeting number 42 of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. This is a public meeting.

This is a reminder of headset safety for those here in person.

Bill C-241, an act to establish a national strategy respecting flood and drought forecasting, is undergoing clause-by-clause consideration today. I'd like to provide members of the committee with a few comments on how committees proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of a bill. Many of our committee members will be doing this for the first time today, so hopefully this will be helpful to everybody.

This is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I'll call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and to a vote. If there are amendments to the clause in question, I'll recognize the member proposing it, who can explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on.

Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the package each member received from the clerk. Amendments have been given a number in the top right corner to indicate which party submitted them. During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments.

In addition to having to be properly drafted in a legal sense, amendments must also be procedurally admissible. The chair may be called upon to rule amendments inadmissible if they go against the principle of the bill or beyond the scope of the bill—both of which were adopted by the House when it agreed to the bill at second reading—or if they offend the financial prerogative of the Crown.

If you wish to eliminate a clause of the bill altogether, the proper course of action is to vote against that clause when the time comes, not to propose an amendment to delete it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and the bill itself, and an order to reprint the bill may be required if amendments are adopted, so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage.

Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report contains only the text of any adopted amendments, as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

I thank the members for their attention and wish everyone a productive clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-241.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the short title, and of the preamble are postponed.

I am now calling clause 2.

(Clause 2 agreed to)

(On clause 3)

We have some proposed amendments to clause 3. Is there a member who would like to move their amendment?

Monsieur St-Pierre, go ahead.

11 a.m.

Liberal

Eric St-Pierre Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC

Thank you.

I had initially proposed amendment number one in the preamble, I believe, clarifying language of adding territories, but I'd like to withdraw that amendment, please.

The Chair Liberal Shannon Miedema

Monsieur St-Pierre, we've paused the discussion on the preamble. We vote on that at the end. We're actually talking about clause 3 and LIB-3. I think you're saying that you do not wish to move that proposed amendment. Is that correct?

Eric St-Pierre Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC

Just to clarify, is that in clause 3 on line 20?

The Chair Liberal Shannon Miedema

Yes, that's correct.

Eric St-Pierre Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC

Yes, I would like to withdraw this amendment.

A voice

You should just ask him why.

The Chair Liberal Shannon Miedema

Would you like to give the reason you're not moving the amendment, Mr. St-Pierre?

Eric St-Pierre Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC

I had initially proposed this amendment but then realized that it was a bit redundant, because it's also in the Interpretation Act. The Interpretation Act already includes the use of territories, so it was a bit redundant or unnecessary.

The Chair Liberal Shannon Miedema

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Mr. Grant.

Wade Grant Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

I would like to move my amendment to clause 3.

I have a couple of amendments in there, but the first one is to paragraph 3(3)(b), which begins with “an assessment of the need for modelling that”. My amendment would strike out “would identify properties and infrastructure at risk from floods” and replace that with:

would support flood and drought forecasting

To the beginning of paragraph (d), it would add:

measures that the Government of Canada may take in response to the assessments referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c), including

That would be followed by “the preparation of a proposal” and so on.

There's also a correction at the end, where it says, “and system based on the federal-provincial distributed model of the National Hydrological Service.” Instead, the last two words should be “Hydrometric Program.”

The Chair Liberal Shannon Miedema

Go ahead, Mr. Leslie.

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have many questions about this one, Mr. Grant.

We've sat here, and we've talked about floods and droughts a lot lately. We just finished a study on extreme weather events. We've recently had the environment commissioner here. I'm curious: If floods and droughts are becoming more serious, why on earth are the Liberals weakening such important language within this bill?

Wade Grant Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

As currently written, paragraph 3(3)(b) would mean the strategy would have to include an assessment of the need for modelling that would identify properties and infrastructure at risk for floods.

This amendment would change the provision to instead require the strategy to include assessment of the need for modelling more generally that could support effective flood and drought forecasting. This is better aligned with the proposed bill, which intends to enhance coordination.

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

Do you believe that monitoring water levels is the same as flood forecasting? That's ultimately what this will lead to.

Wade Grant Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

Do I believe it?

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

This is your government, as the parliament secretary, I suppose.

Wade Grant Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

Monitoring water levels is always important for predictions of flood forecasting and whatnot, including in my area of Vancouver Quadra, at the mouth of Fraser River, where we've seen the fluctuation in the water levels not only on the Fraser River but in the tributaries surrounding there.

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

If the national forecasting service remains only something the government may consider, why do we believe that will actually happen? Why not put stronger language in the bill?

Wade Grant Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

For me, I think that saying that and making sure that we follow up on that is something that we will continue to do. I believe that we will make concerted efforts to do that, for sure.

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

I appreciate that you hope that they might, but that's why there's different language used in legislation—“shall” or “must” or “may”. It's a very deliberate choice.

Why not just say that the minister must develop a proposal for improved national “flood and drought forecasting”?

Wade Grant Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

I don't want to be prescriptive always. I think there's always an opening for interpretation, so that's why I feel this is the strongest way to move forward.

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

This is a government member's piece of legislation that has gone through the House of Commons once before, unamended.

I'm curious now. If this legislation is so meaningful and this amendment is so important, what exactly will Canadians see, receive or benefit from that they do not have today through making this alteration with this amendment?

Wade Grant Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

I think that the purpose of the bill is to provide the most latitude possible for the development of a strategy moving forward.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

Are officials available to talk about this issue?