Evidence of meeting #52 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 41st 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.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
I'm assuming all the discussions have taken place. I think we had fulsome discussions on both NDP-1 and NDP-2, so if there's no more discussion, I'll call the question on NDP-2.
(Amendment negatived)
(Clause 3 agreed to)
(On clause 4)
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
We'll move to clause 4 on which we have a proposed amendment by the Conservatives in the form of G-1. If everyone would turn to G-1, I'd like someone from the government side to make that proposal and we'll go from there.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
This is the definition. This is clause 13. Are we on clause 13, Mr. Chair, just to make sure I have my notes correct?
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Section 13 of the act. We're asking to add to the opening provision a subsection 13(0.1) with the wording:
The purpose of this section is to prevent the risk of environmental harm resulting from bulk removal.
The rest of the wording would remain the same. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the purpose of the entire legislation, and the reason it's being dealt with here and it's not a matter of trade law, is it's about environmental protection in the international realm. This is why the bill is before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.
The purpose of this bill is to ensure that very large amounts of water are not removed to the extent that they would cause environmental harm. In our view, that would make it less likely for this legislation. If someone were to be charged with failing to comply with this act and was facing a criminal or quasi-criminal penalty under the act, in our view, putting this language into the bill would make it more impervious to that kind of a challenge. Therefore, those enforcement mechanisms would stand, and the bill would have some real teeth.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Thank you very much.
Is there any other discussion on this?
Go ahead, Mr. Dewar.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Dechert, for that.
Do we have expert witnesses or advice on this to open it up a bit more? The fact is this is a private member's bill, and Mr. Miller didn't bring this forward. That's fair enough because it's somewhat technical. I'm just wondering if any of our witnesses would care to comment, or is this something that is outside their purview?
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
I just wanted to clarify that Mr. Miller did state, when he was here last Thursday, that he was in agreement with these amendments.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
October 30th, 2012 / 9:20 a.m.
Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Environment
I'll just emphasize what Mr. Dechert said. The amendment would clarify the reason for the prohibition, which is to focus on avoiding risks to environmental harm resulting from permanent loss of water from Canadian ecosystems. It's just a clarification that would influence any interpretation of any of the prohibition, or anything that has to do with the prohibition.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, I am glad to see that the government is considering things with respect to being charter-proof. That's welcome behaviour. It doesn't always happen.
I also want to note that there's a schedule at the end of the legislation as to what water waste we are speaking of. I encourage the government to continue down this path of protecting as many waterways as they can for the environment. As we know, there has been a departure from that in domestic policy with the amendments we are looking at in the budget implementation bill. If this is indeed what the intent is, to ensure there is protection environmentally of our waterways according to schedules that are fulsome, I would encourage they follow this behaviour. I would encourage them to amend their own budget implementation bill with respect to the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
That may be a little out of scope of what we are talking about now.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Are there any other comments on G-1? I will call the question, then.
(Amendment agreed to)
Thank you very much. I will move on.
Shall clause 4 carry as amended?
(Clause 4 as amended agreed to)
I will move to clause 5.
Shall clause 5 carry? All those in favour? Those opposed?
(Clause 5 agreed to)
Thank you very much. We're going to move to clause—
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Mr. Chair, if I could just a question. Did we vote on the amendment to clause 13 which deals with section 2 of the International River Improvements Act?
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Because there are no changes to clauses 6 through 9, I would just group those together.
(Clauses 6 to 9 inclusive agreed to)
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
We're now going to move to clause 10. I believe we have an amendment, which is NDP-3, if you would like to turn to it.
I will get Mr. Dewar to propose this amendment and then speak to it before we vote.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
You will be happy to note, Mr. Chair, that this doesn't require a long explanation. It is simply to amend the legislation so that there will be a review within five years. This is common practice.
In light of the fact that there are so many changes happening environmentally, there's a lot of concern around any legislation that has to do with environmental impact, as Mr. Dechert has mentioned. In keeping with the kind of accountability that is required in legislation, there should be a review in five years, so that we can look at all the things we discussed in committee around potential loopholes or not and ways in which this could be strengthened, if need be, by government.
Simply put, it's in keeping with a process of accountability to have a look at it in five years, which is reasonable. I've certainly been on committees where we've passed legislation that's reviewed in three years. It's a change to the act, so that it would be reviewed in five years.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Mr. Chair, unfortunately, once again the NDP amendment is inconsistent. It's inconsistent with other environmental legislation. My understanding is that the 10-year review of the enforcement provisions of the act is consistent with the review requirement which was added by the Environmental Enforcement Act to nine environmental statutes, including the International River Improvements Act.
If we were to make this amendment, we'd have a situation where the environmental provisions only of the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act and the International Rivers Improvements Act would be subject to a five-year review, but other aspects of those two statutes would be subject to a 10-year review. Then, of course, the Department of the Environment, which is responsible for doing that review, would have this one standing alone as an outlier with a five-year review period, and nine other statutes would have a 10-year review period.
It just doesn't make sense from a standpoint of consistency. If that's the NDP policy, they should bring forward some kind of private member's bill to amend all similar legislation to ensure there is a consistent review period. On that basis, I would suggest that the committee should oppose this amendment.
9:25 a.m.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
I'm actually not sure what Mr. Dechert is referring to in terms of the environmental overview here. We're actually talking about an issue of national security when we're talking about water. Absolutely, we're at the foreign affairs committee and there's a reason that this bill was brought to the foreign affairs committee. If it was solely environmental, I believe it would be before another committee. If that's the case, is Mr. Dechert suggesting that the government is not willing to have oversight and accountability on new legislation, as is often the practice in this place and certainly in the House of Commons when we're bringing in new legislation to see if it's working or not?
As to how this would affect other agreements and statutes, with respect, I don't think that's relevant. If the government wishes to, we can review any legislation. For Mr. Dechert to try and cover by way of circuitous rhetoric, I think is unfortunate. The government is really saying they're not willing to be accountable to review things on the environment front and that's unfortunate.