Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 100 of 5901
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
The meeting is called to order.
Obviously, we're going to have to play it by ear today, but we have with us the sponsor of the bill, Ms. Lenore Zann, MP for Cumberland—Colchester. As well, from the department, we have Laura Farquharson, Silke Neve and Pascal Roberge. We're here to do clause-by-clause on Bill C-230.
I don't think I need to read out the rules of how we conduct ourselves in a committee, especially in a virtual format. I think everyone is familiar with that.
It seems like just yesterday we were doing clause-by-clause. We will start with the fact that we're doing this pursuant to Standing Order 75(1). Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the short title, and the preamble is postponed. For obvious reasons, we've gone through this before on Bill C-12.
I call clause 2. I would like to see if we can adopt clause 2.
View Lloyd Longfield Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Lloyd Longfield Profile
2021-06-21 16:06
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I'm pleased to introduce a motion to amend clause 3. The amendment does a few things. It adds a reference to the concept of environmental justice, which is something that's also included in the heading, as you said, but we can go back to that.
It's in line with the amendment we've discussed at committee. We'd ensure that the national strategy promotes efforts to prevent, assess and address environmental racism, and we would provide flexibility to the minister to cooperate or consult with a wide variety of interested stakeholders. The amendment would also provide the government with flexibility in developing the strategy and avoid pre-empting or prejudging the outcome of the work that would be undertaken in the development of the national strategy.
It also removes references to measures that could infringe on provincial jurisdiction or be more appropriately taken up by the provinces. This includes removing the requirement to “assess the administration and enforcement of environmental laws in each province”, as we recognize that jurisdiction over protection of the environment is a shared jurisdiction among the different levels of government.
That's the rationale for the amendments in LIB-2.
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you. I believe this has been emailed, in both official languages, to the clerk. Hopefully, that's been distributed to committee members.
I would move that after the words “who are interested” we insert the following, “and ensures that it is consistent with the framework for the Government of Canada's implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”.
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
I see Ms. Zann's hand as well, but Mr. Chair, just to provide due warning, I have another very simple subamendment that I would like to raise under the same section. Perhaps I could move my second subamendment after we deal with this one.
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
It is to the same clause. I've been led to believe that I could do it as two separate subamendments, but I'm happy to cluster them if that's better.
View Brad Redekopp Profile
CPC (SK)
Mr. Chair, while we're waiting, I see Philippe Méla on the line. I'm going to wave and say “Hello.” He was my orientation volunteer when I first started in the House in what seems like forever ago.
Hi, Philippe. Thanks for all your help. I'm still here. I actually figured it out, so thanks.
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
Ideally, we would like both of the subamendments to carry, but barring a majority vote on both of them, we'd want one or the other to carry, so I think doing them separately is probably our preference.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Chair, I am referring to the clause under discussion, not to Mr. Bachrach's amendments. Perhaps we should finish the discussion on those amendments, and then I will speak to the Liberal Party amendment.
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Chair, I feel that the subamendment is fairly self-explanatory. It's simply to reference the important work being done on indigenous rights.
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
The other one is very simple. Under paragraph 3(3)(a), the wording in the proposed amendment is “a study that may include”. My subamendment would be to change the word “may” to the word “must”.
It would read, “a study that must include”.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
It seems to me that during our training on clause‑by‑clause consideration, we learned that we were not allowed two amendments, but only one.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
You can't make a subamendment to a subamendment. In this case, it's two subamendments to the same clause. That boils down to one subamendment, as I understand it.
The legislative clerk has assured me that it is possible to move both of Mr. Bachrach's subamendments. As I understand it, we are not subamending a subamendment. They are two subamendments that deal with two different parts of the same article. If I understand correctly, that is the logic to follow.
I will come back to you on this in a moment.
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Chair, I'd be happy to do that.
The subamendment is to replace, in paragraph 3(3)(a), the word “may” with “must”, so that paragraph 3(3)(a) would read “a study that must include”.
View Lenore Zann Profile
Lib. (NS)
Thank you.
As the sponsor of the bill, I would just say that I strongly suggest and support this subamendment of the NDP. Thank you.
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I'm happy to read it again.
This is in clause 3, paragraph 3(3)(a), which in the proposed Liberal amendment read “a study that may include”. Our subamendment is to change the word “may” to the word “must”, so that it would read “a study that must include”.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
I'm sorry, I'm wrong. We are voting on amendment LIB‑2, as subamended twice by the committee.
Yes, Ms. Pauzé?
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
The Bloc Québécois is very happy to see amendment LIB‑2. We will be voting in favour of it. You know how important the jurisdictions of each party, whether Quebec, the provinces or the federal government, are to us. In fact, when we saw the bill, we did not understand how we could submit such an amendment, because there are so many eloquent examples where the federal legislation is much weaker than the Quebec legislation, in our opinion.
I think our witness, Mr. Gaudreault, also talked about this and gave us some examples.
I just want to say that we will be voting in favour of amendment LIB‑2, because, as a priority, Canada needs to look at protecting people from climate change, pollution issues, health impacts, and all of the inequities that characterize its environmental work. But it's not Canada's job to examine what the provinces are doing. The wording of clause 3(3)(d), “assess the administration and enforcement” was exaggerated.
So we are very pleased and will vote in favour of amendment LIB‑2.
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There are two things I noticed in the amendments that have been proposed, and since we have Ms. Zann with us, I thought I would just ask for her reflections on them as the sponsor of the bill.
The first one is the addition of the concept of environmental justice.
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
Yes. We're talking about the amendment to clause 3, which covers a lot of ground. I'll make some general comments and then try to be quiet for the rest of the vote.
The first one was the addition of the concept of environmental justice, which I understand is more parallel to the legislation in the United States and the work they've done. I'm keen for Ms. Zann's reflections on that, seeing as this is her bill.
The second one was the change to the word “redress”, which featured prominently in the original drafting of the bill. I note that this amendment brings in the wording “to assess, prevent and address environmental racism”, which has a slightly different feel but perhaps captures the spirit of what Ms. Zann originally intended.
If it's in order, I'd love to hear from the sponsor.
View Lenore Zann Profile
Lib. (NS)
Thank you so much.
I definitely believe including environmental justice is so important. That is at the heart of this bill, but I also think it's so important to use the words “environmental racism”, because that's what it's also about. I think this ties in nicely with changes to CEPA, and it's a perspective that we now need to use when looking at decisions that will impact people and their health.
Therefore, I'm very happy about that, and I was very firm that addressing environmental racism needs to come first, before environmental justice, in that order.
In regard to the other question, my original bill in Nova Scotia, which I tried to get passed four times, was an act addressing environmental racism. I think this title includes all the things that need to be included, and it has a forward-looking view to make sure that, from now on, we don't continue down the same old path we've followed for too many years.
I'm actually quite satisfied with it. Thank you for asking.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Before we vote on LIB-2, as amended twice, I would like to say the following: If LIB-2 is adopted, NDP-1 cannot be moved, due to a line conflict.
Second, if amendment LIB‑2 is adopted, amendments LIB‑1, LIB‑4 and LIB‑5 are also adopted, since they are consequential.
If amendment LIB‑2 is defeated, LIB‑1, LIB‑3, LIB‑4, and LIB‑5 are also defeated, since they are consequential. I just wanted to inform you of the consequences in both cases.
We can now proceed to the vote.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
It seems to me that Bill C‑15 states that the laws will automatically be consistent with the United Nations Declaration. So is there any point in adopting Mr. Bachrach's amendment, and will we have to bring his amendment back to the table on a regular basis, since it seems to me that Bill C‑15 covers all of that?
I wonder whether this amendment is necessary.
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Chair, if I understand Ms. Pauzé correctly, she is asking whether, because C-15 references all other Canadian statutes, it is really necessary to go both directions and have new statutes reference the framework on C-15.
My sense is that, given where C-15 is, and because the co-formation of that framework hasn't taken place yet, it's important in this new legislation that we have a reference to that so that it doesn't get missed.
While it may seem duplicative, I think indigenous rights are important enough that we should make sure that when we're passing legislation we include reference to them, especially a piece of legislation aimed specifically at environmental racism, which affects so many indigenous people.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
That means NDP-1 is now inadmissible due to a line conflict, and Liberal amendments one, four, and five were also adopted with LIB-2.
Shall clause 3 carry as amended?
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
We're into the preamble now. Is that correct?
On LIB-3, Ms. Saks, did you want to speak to that?
View Ya'ara Saks Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ya'ara Saks Profile
2021-06-21 16:28
Thank you, Mr. Chair, but Ms. Pauzé has had her hand up, and I'd like to make sure before we continue that she does speak.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Once again, I want to emphasize that the Bloc Québécois is very happy to see all these amendments proposed by the Liberal Party, because they allow us to enlarge the lens through which we will see this when we talk about, for example, “members of an Indigenous or racialized community”. So we are including marginalized populations that might simply be disadvantaged, regardless of their colour or race, just disadvantaged.
For us, that's important. We therefore feel that we have been heard.
So we're going to vote in favour of that amendment as well.
View Ya'ara Saks Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ya'ara Saks Profile
2021-06-21 16:29
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, colleagues.
I'd like to acknowledge MP Zann and her work on this. It's in the spirit of her work and what's been amended thus far that I present the amendments to the preamble.
The new paragraph acknowledges the need to advance environmental justice and to continue to work to end racism and racial discrimination in all of its forms. In doing so, it's part of a strategy that would allow for a broader national conversation to take place on the ways in which we address environmental inequities that are encountered by communities that face marginalization, including those from racialized or indigenous backgrounds, as well as acknowledging those of certain socio-economic status or gender, and recognizing that these perspectives are often intersectional and overlapping.
The amendment to paragraph 3 acknowledges that environmental policy-making requires an inclusive approach that's non-discriminatory and also must have meaningful engagement and participation of all Canadians, especially communities that are facing marginalization.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Chair, I'd like to call for a recorded vote on the bill as amended.
(Bill C-230 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
Shall the committee order a reprint of the bill, as amended, for the use of the House at report stage?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: On division? Okay.
Congratulations, Ms. Zann, on getting your bill through committee. That's wonderful.
Ms. Lenore Zann: Thank you.
The Chair: I have a question. Is it possible that we can get the reprint done such that I can table it tomorrow in the House?
Philippe Méla
View Philippe Méla Profile
Philippe Méla
2021-06-21 16:33
It's a good question, Mr. Chair.
It's 4:30 already, and the routine proceedings are at 10 tomorrow morning. We'll do our best, but I can't speak on behalf of my colleagues doing the reprint.
We'll try our best.
View Lenore Zann Profile
Lib. (NS)
Mr. Chair, could I just say a very quick thank you to everybody who supported the bill? To the Bloq Québécois, to the NDP and to all of my Liberal comrades, I want to say thank you so much. This is an historic day on National Indigenous Peoples Day.
Thank you.
View Cathy McLeod Profile
CPC (BC)
Thank you, Chair.
As you are aware, we started to debate the motion that I presented in the last meeting about unanimous consent to table the plastics report as written. I think some of my colleagues felt that they needed the weekend to review and look at the report in more detail. As we know, the House rises Wednesday, so if we want to be respectful of the witnesses.... I know it is unusual. There are some minor changes that I might have made, but I think we should all agree that the report was very well done.
View Cathy McLeod Profile
CPC (BC)
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Of course, we know we're coming to the end of our term, and we have a lot of work that's been done on a plastics study, so I'm looking to see if we could perhaps have unanimous consent to table the study as it is written.
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
I'd caution you not to talk about any motion that was discussed in camera.
What you could do—this is what the clerk has told me—is ask that the committee now start discussing the topic of the plastics report. We could vote on that. There would be no debate. It would be a vote.
If for some reason it were accepted that we should start talking about the plastics study, then the next step would be to move a substantive motion. I think what you have in mind is to say, “Let's adopt the report.”
The first step, I'm told—
View Francis Scarpaleggia Profile
Lib. (QC)
We'll vote on Mrs. McLeod's motion to adjourn.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: Thank you very much. The meeting is adjourned.
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I call this meeting to order.
Welcome to meeting number 33 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-19.
The meeting will be webcast on the House of Commons website. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of January 25, 2021. Therefore, members can attend either in person or remotely using the Zoom application. I'd like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that taking screenshots or photos of your screen is prohibited.
Since I don't see anybody attending in the room, I will just remind everyone who's participating virtually to select your language of interpretation at the bottom of your screen. Ensure that you are on gallery view so that you can see the entirety of the committee. As well, you will have to mute and unmute yourselves throughout the meeting. Please raise your hand on the toolbar below if you wish to speak to an amendment.
(On clause 10)
The Chair: At our last meeting, we left off with CPC-17.
Ms. Vecchio, maybe we can have you reintroduce it. I know that you already moved CPC-17. If you wish, you can speak to it again, just to give the committee a refresher on that amendment.
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (ON)
Thanks so much, Ruby. I'm happy to do so.
This amendment would limit the Chief Electoral Officer's ability to accelerate the implementation of the provisions, which would be enacted by clauses 2 through 5, to prevent those provisions from coming into effect prior to September 20, 2021, which is the first scheduled sitting day of the House this autumn. In other words, if the Prime Minister wants to call a summer election, it would be under the current rules that are there.
I have just a couple of things. I'll be honest; I know that some members, specifically Daniel, would really like to see this go through—not necessarily this amendment, but this bill—because he recognizes that there's a good chance the Prime Minister will pull the plug. Let's be honest. The only way he can pull the plug is if there's a non-confidence vote, and we have not seen a non-confidence vote that was lost in this House of Commons.
Since we already had a motion indicating unanimously that we do not want an election, this is something that we thought about. Let's get back to work in September and do the job that Canadians are expecting of us.
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (ON)
I really appreciate that, Ruby. Thanks so much.
As I was saying yesterday, about 15 million Canadians will be voting in this next election. The fact is that this is all about our democracy. We want to ensure that there is safety, but at the same time, we talked about the fact that, if we're in a pandemic, we know that voter turnout might be a question. There's a variety of things that way. Those things are really important.
That said, there is a good chance that this amendment will go through. I wanted to speak to Ms. Lawson or Michel or Andrew about the bottom line here, about going into this election without this legislation. We heard from the Chief Electoral Officer that he would be able to hold an election during the pandemic currently under this legislation. I just want to confirm that this is the case.
Michel Roussel
View Michel Roussel Profile
Michel Roussel
2021-06-18 13:08
Thank you, Madam Chair, for the question.
I wish to reassure the members that Elections Canada is prepared to deliver a safe election under the current existing legislation.
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (ON)
Excellent.
I think those are some of the things we need to highlight here. The biggest concern we have, of course, is that we don't want a pandemic election. That is what we'll continue to indicate. Any sort of barrier that we can put up for the Prime Minister, for perhaps the safety....
I'm never wanting to use “the safety of Canadians”. That's not where I'm going with this one, but any time there is something the Prime Minister may have to question himself on—i.e., “Is this going to be good for Canadians?”—we don't want him to be opportunistic. That is why we're looking at this.
Thanks very much.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
Mr. Roussel, can you confirm for the committee that when you're talking about Bill C-19—Elections Canada obviously and rightly has an important public health focus—that you don't consider turnout to be part of your mandate? When you comment on C-19, you're not providing comment on whether turnout would be likely to be better under a C-19 regime versus the existing regime.
Michel Roussel
View Michel Roussel Profile
Michel Roussel
2021-06-18 13:10
Thank you for your question.
Through the measures that we put in place, we wish to ensure that there's a minimum level of barriers, administrative or otherwise, to voting for the electors. You're correct. We don't measure our success by the level of turnout.
View Peter Kent Profile
CPC (ON)
I wonder if Mr. Roussel would reaffirm the comment that I believe he made at the last meeting, that to fully implement all of the provisions of Bill C-19, Elections Canada would require the full 90 days.
Michel Roussel
View Michel Roussel Profile
Michel Roussel
2021-06-18 13:11
Thank you.
I am pleased to reaffirm that. I would add, Madam Chair, that the Chief Electoral Officer had once indicated that it might take at least 120 days to fully and properly implement Bill C-19, so it will certainly be at least 90 days, to reassure the members.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
Along that same line, in the event that Bill C-19 did not pass Parliament before the summer, and passed, let's say, sometime in September or October, it would then likely take 90 to 120 days from that point in order to implement the provisions of C-19, or would you expect that these provisions would be implemented by September, whether the bill passes or not?
Michel Roussel
View Michel Roussel Profile
Michel Roussel
2021-06-18 13:12
We will do whatever is possible to implement the provisions of the bill within the deadline that will have been set by law. I cannot speculate on where we will be in September, as you can understand.
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
This is a question from me.
In the past, with election legislation, I know that your office has worked toward figuring out how to implement certain things before the legislation has passed. Is that something you would be looking at doing? Would you be figuring out what would need to be in place if the legislation was to pass ahead of time?
Have you already been doing some of that work?
Michel Roussel
View Michel Roussel Profile
Michel Roussel
2021-06-18 13:12
As you may know, in the context of the current legislation, there are things that the Chief Electoral Officer can do to adapt the current provisions of the act to effect a certain number of adaptations to the procedures. These would probably be put in operation—might be ready—before the 90-day deadline, and I would expect that. However, some of the more fundamental provisions.... When you talk about three-day voting, it is clearly at least 90 days' worth of work to put that in place.
View Ginette Petitpas Taylor Profile
Lib. (NB)
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Also, thank you to the officials for being here.
Monsieur Roussel, I have a question for you. I come from the province of New Brunswick and we had an election last year. Again, the government of the day was in a minority legislature and we didn't really know when an election was going to arise. I spoke to the New Brunswick chief electoral officer, who indicated that they had to be ready at any time for a potential election regardless of whether there was a pandemic or not.
I'm just wondering, because we are in a minority Parliament setting and knowing how efficient that you guys always are with respect to putting things in place, whether we would be prepared for an election should one arise at this point in time.
Let's be clear. None of us wants an election. I always say we are certainly not the ones voting against our government right now, so our voting record shows that we don't want a pandemic election. However, I'm just wondering if we would be prepared if one was to arise.
Michel Roussel
View Michel Roussel Profile
Michel Roussel
2021-06-18 13:14
Thank you for your question and your kind words.
I wish to reassure you that we would be prepared to hold an election should one happen.
View Ginette Petitpas Taylor Profile
Lib. (NB)
Michel Roussel
View Michel Roussel Profile
Michel Roussel
2021-06-18 13:15
Yes, we would have an election run safely. We are prepared for that.
View Ryan Turnbull Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ryan Turnbull Profile
2021-06-18 13:15
I just want to also clarify that there are powers. The adaptation powers and measures around long-term care facilities come into effect upon royal assent for Bill C-19. I know that those must be extremely important for moving forward. I know this amendment doesn't explicitly deal with that, but the challenge I have with this amendment is that it seems to go contrary to the CEO's ability to actually prepare for an election, which is the whole intent of this legislation, to be as prepared as possible for a pandemic-context election, should one arise. That's my challenge with this.
Maybe I'll ask Mr. Roussel. How important is it to have those powers in place immediately?
As to the other part of my question, my understanding is that you don't have to wait three months. If you can make things happen sooner, you would do that. Would you not? I think it's incumbent upon Elections Canada, within their mandate, to be ready at any time to do this as quickly as possible.
Regarding the timeline of putting this into the bill, it seems very counter to the intentions of the bill. It seems counter to even the mandate of Elections Canada. Would you not agree?
Michel Roussel
View Michel Roussel Profile
Michel Roussel
2021-06-18 13:17
What I would say on this is that the Chief Electoral Officer is prepared to adapt the Canada Elections Act in the event of an election so that provisions respecting voting in long-term care facilities could be enforced. We have already instructed our returning officers to get in contact with administrations of care facilities and examine the ways in which there can be more flexibility to the voting process as is contemplated in Bill C-19. I am confident that under the current legislation we would make that happen.
View Ryan Turnbull Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ryan Turnbull Profile
2021-06-18 13:18
I'm sorry. I have to clarify, though, that this amendment makes it so that you can't do certain things until after September 20. That is my understanding.
You're saying both that you're in the process of doing things to get ready now and also that the added powers and amendments to the Canada Elections Act within Bill C-19 are enabling you to do those things.
If an election were to arise at a point before September 20, I guess you would have your hands tied, because you wouldn't actually be able to do certain things until that time. Is that right?
Anne Lawson
View Anne Lawson Profile
Anne Lawson
2021-06-18 13:19
Thank you, Madam Chair.
As was pointed out, there are certain provisions of the Canada Elections Act that come into effect on royal assent, and one of those would be around specific measures in the act that would permit the CEO to take certain actions with respect to long-term care. Another one would be the gentle expansion, if you like, of the adaptation power that would allow the CEO to take certain adaptations to protect the health and safety of electors.
I think Mr. Roussel was saying that those provisions would either come into force on royal assent, or in the case of the long-term care changes that are proposed in Bill C-19, we have taken some steps because we believe those changes can be implemented already under the adaptation power in the Canada Elections Act. If those changes were needed in a pandemic, they would be facilitating voting on the part of long-term residents according to the terms of the current act. We have taken some steps to discuss those opportunities in the field in order to be able to deliver them in an election without Bill C-19 being in force. That's one piece.
The other part that Mr. Roussel was talking about, which the CEO has also talked about, has to do in particular with the three-day voting, but there are other aspects as well, which would only come into force after 90 days, and rightly so, because we would need the 90 days to bring those provisions into force. We would not expect to be able to deliver three-day voting in any election that took place before the 90 days had expired.
I hope that's helpful.
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (ON)
Thanks very much.
The thing is, even when this gets royal assent.... First of all, when we're looking at this, most of Bill C‑19 could be brought into force by the CEO between zero and 90 days after royal assent is received, so if this receives royal assent, it can go there. That doesn't change with this amendment. It just says that it can't bring them into force before September 20.
We're focusing on what this actually looks like, and we're saying that when we come back, the opportunity.... We can go to voting, and C‑19 could be implemented if there was an election. I think the most important thing is whether we could have a safe election. That's the most important thing that we want to look at. I am very grateful to hear from Mr. Roussel that this is what the focus is. I think what we're recommending here.... Let's not forget that we're talking about whether there should be a summer election versus actually getting back to work and doing our work in the House of Commons.
If, at that time something happens to the government, and the government does fall in a non-confidence vote, these provisions would be in place. We're saying that we do not believe that there should be a summer election, and that would be at the turning of the Prime Minister. That is one of our greatest concerns.
Thank you.
View Ryan Turnbull Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ryan Turnbull Profile
2021-06-18 13:22
I just have one more comment to make about this, and I'm sorry to belabour it. When I read this, this explicitly ties the hands of the CEO around two specific things: three-day voting and the mail-in ballots. I realize that you're saying it's going to take time to get ready for those things, but if you should be able to accomplish those earlier, and within a pandemic context, and an election happens to be called, I guess the point I don't understand is that this would essentially limit you from being able to do those things before that date. That's the problem I have with it. It just doesn't seem to make sense.
You're still going to do the preparations you need to do within that 90 days, and obviously, in my view, Elections Canada—I'm putting myself in your shoes now—would be doing it as expeditiously as possible to get ready. We all trust that you would do that.
I guess this just doesn't make sense to me. If you happen to be able to accomplish it early, then this essentially ties your hands so that you're not able to actually implement the three-day voting and mail-in ballots, because you happened to get it done earlier than September 20.
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (ON)
This truly comes down to whether we're back in the chamber, we're in the House of Commons, where there would be a non-confidence vote, or whether this would be a decision of the Prime Minister, where he unilaterally decides, just like he did with prorogation, that we would be going into an election.
This is where the government would not be held to account due to a non-confidence vote where the majority of the opposition parties disagree. Those are things like that.
This is about letting us get back to Parliament and letting the government do its work, or try to do its work, but this is just the situation and us saying that we do not need a summer election. The only person who can call it—because none of us will be able to go to the Governor General after Wednesday, June 23—would be the Prime Minister. He would be the only one who could trigger an election. I think that's what is extremely important here.
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (ON)
I would like a recorded vote, Mr. Clerk.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 10 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
(On clause 11)
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (ON)
Finally, this amendment would add a firm sunset date of December 31, 2022, for the provisions that will be enacted by clauses 1 through 5.
I think one of the most important things is that, as we're looking at this, there is not a sunset clause in the legislation. There has been stuff in the preamble, but there has not been a full dictation on how things go here. There needs to be something we can fall back on. Let's say we go into a 5th or the 6th.... That's not what we're expecting here in Canada.
We do need to have an end date to this. This gives it lots and lots of time, a year and a half, to be in effect. I believe we've already talked about what would happen if there was a pandemic and it ended earlier what could we do. I know that's been discussed as well.
We think there needs to be a firm date at the very end, and we just wanted to put that in there.
Thanks very much.
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (ON)
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (ON)
Why don't we do a recorded vote and then it's happy joyful, if that's okay. It will take 10 seconds.
(Bill C-19 as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you very much. I appreciate everyone's co-operation.
Shall the chair report the bill as amended to the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Shall the committee order a reprint of the bill as amended for the use of the House at report stage?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: We've completed our study of Bill C-19. It will be reported back to the House at the earliest convenience.
I'll work with the legislative clerk and his team to figure out how long it will take to have a reprint of this bill. It all depends on the number of amendments we have now passed. The more amendments, the longer it can sometimes take. Hopefully, I'll be in a position to report it back on Monday or Tuesday. We'll see.
Thank you, Mr. Méla, for being here and helping us through this process.
Mr. Blaikie.
View Pat Finnigan Profile
Lib. (NB)
I call the meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 40 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, March 10, 2021, and the motion adopted by the committee on May 11, 2021, the committee is commencing the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-205, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act.
Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of January 25, 2021. Therefore, members may be attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. So you are aware, the webcast will always show the person speaking rather than the entirety of the committee.
I will take this opportunity to remind all participants in this meeting that taking screenshots or photos of your screen is not permitted.
To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to outline a few rules to follow.
Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are on the video conference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute your mike. For those in the room, your microphone will be controlled as normal by the proceedings and verification officer. Just a reminder that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair. When you are not speaking, your mike should be on mute.
For the clause-by-clause consideration, we have some people from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency for assistance if we need them. We will have them as resources if we have questions.
We have Dr. Jaspinder Komal, vice-president, science branch, chief veterinary officer and World Organisation for Animal Health delegate for Canada.
Welcome, Dr. Komal.
Also, we have Jane Dudley, senior counsel, agriculture and food inspection legal services.
Ms. Dudley, thank you for joining us.
With that, we shall start the clause-by-clause consideration.
(On clause 1)
View Alistair MacGregor Profile
NDP (BC)
Yes, Chair. Thank you so much. I formally move NDP-1 as an amendment to Bill C-205.
It's a relatively simple amendment to the first clause of the bill, whereby we are replacing line 6 on page 1 so that it would read “No person shall”. It's essentially removing the words “without lawful authority or excuse”.
The reason I am moving this amendment to Bill C-205 is that I've been struggling throughout the proceedings on this bill between the terms “trespass” and “biosecurity”. We've heard witnesses at one point or another say this bill is meant to address trespassing on farms. Others have said no, it's meant to address biosecurity. We've had some witnesses say that it does both.
I want to make it very clear that I think any intrusion on private property needs to be condemned. We know the ill effects it has on farmers and the ill effects it has on animals, but I want this bill to stay in its federal lane. It has to stay in its federal lane.
The federal government has very clear jurisdiction through the federal criminal law power in addressing biosecurity, but it does not have the jurisdiction to address crimes against property. Under our Constitution, that is very clearly a provincial power. Under Canadian law, animals are considered property, so any crimes against animals are considered a property matter. Trespass on property is a provincial matter.
We cannot intrude on the constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces. It's very clearly laid out under section 92.13 that property and civil rights are under the domain of provincial legislatures.
The reason I am proposing this amendment is to make Bill C-205 apply to everyone equally, so that if you are a farmer or farm employee, if you are a transport driver or if you are a protester, if you violate the biosecurity protocols in place on a farm, this law applies equally to you. That's the main essence of my putting it forward.
I'll direct committee members to the brief submitted by Dr. Jodi Lazare. She mentioned that the bill as originally written might run into some constitutional conundrums, but she did say that if we had a law that applied to everyone who enters a farm to those most likely to threaten biosecurity by transmitting disease amongst animals, that would be more likely to survive constitutional scrutiny, whereas in its current form this amendment might not survive a constitutional challenge in court.
The brief we received from Animal Justice went into a lot of detail on page 4 about how most of the risks to biosecurity have come from farm workers or from transports, from people who have gone from farm to farm. That's where most of the risk has actually come from, which has been properly documented. They did say that prudent regulatory measures to address biosecurity should focus on the gaps and failures within the sector, which again is another argument in favour of making this apply equally to everyone.
Also, Dr. Brian Evans, during his appearance before the committee on June 3, went into a lot of detail about how some of the more serious outbreaks in our country's history have been caused by workers who were not following the proper biosecurity concerns. That was the day I was having Internet connectivity issues, so I had to go back through the testimony as written in Hansard.
I'll wrap up there. This is really just my attempt to keep this bill within its federal lane and to not in any way intrude on provincial jurisdiction over trespass.
View Warren Steinley Profile
CPC (SK)
Thank you very much.
Mr. MacGregor, thank you for your well-thought-out amendment.
I have a couple of questions, and perhaps counsel can help.
I believe this bill has gone through legal counsel, and there haven't been any concerns about the constitutionality of it. Despite what Dr. Lazare would have said, I think this has gone through all of the proper channels, and there isn't a constitutional issue with it. That should alleviate one of your concerns, Mr. MacGregor.
We did have a lot of stakeholders liking this part of the amendment, saying that there are people who have the ability to come on and off the farms, and they go through the proper biosecurity, whether they be truck drivers or visitors. I know lots of the dairy farmers and the poultry farmers said they do have biosecurity measures in place when visitors do come. I think that has some sway where a lot of stakeholders did want “without lawful authority or excuse” in there.
The other reason that I think it should stay in is that there have been some concerns by CFIA and others that it is too broad. This amendment would make it an even broader statement of who can come and go on farms. I think having this part in there does narrow that definition a bit, and would make it easer to make sure that is properly enforceable.
Those would be some of my comments, but as always, I appreciate feedback from other members on the committee.
View Dave Epp Profile
CPC (ON)
This is just further to what MP Steinley was saying, and this goes back to the constitutionality of it. My understanding is that this phrase is not a made-up phrase by our colleague, but it is actually a phrase used in law and used in other federal acts, which backs up the case made that it is perhaps quite clear from a constitutional perspective. I wanted to add that point.
View Yves Perron Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
First, I have no objection to this amendment. That said, my party held several consultations before suggesting any changes. We considered some changes, but, each time, we were told that it could change how the Health of Animals Act is applied. We considered whether or not we should touch the proposed section 9.1. We were told that it was better to leave it as is, with the wording “without lawful authority or excuse.”
I'm not really opposed to the amendment, but I'm wondering, if those words are taken out, does that mean that someone who had the authority to do so could be charged later?
I'm sure my colleagues remember what we have heard from various witnesses who were concerned about there being no inspections. I'm thinking, for example, of inspectors from the Quebec ministry of agriculture, fisheries and food, who might have lawful authority or excuse.
My question is for Mr. MacGregor. Has his party dug into this aspect of the issue?
Based on the discussions and opinions that I have had, everyone said that the proposed wording should be left in place. So I would like my colleague to convince me that his amendment is appropriate.
Jane Dudley
View Jane Dudley Profile
Jane Dudley
2021-06-17 16:02
I've never done this before.
As you know, as a government lawyer I'm not permitted to speak to any legal advice that's been issued by the Department of Justice. Of course, you have your own counsel. I'm just pointing this out to say that I'm here to provide assistance to the committee in any way that I can, but there are real restraints on what I can say, and to provide a constitutional law interpretation is not something I'm permitted to do, unfortunately.
View Yves Perron Profile
BQ (QC)
Let me rephrase my concern more specifically.
Would removing this part of the proposed wording diminish the ability to enforce the act? Are you able to answer that question?
Results: 1 - 100 of 5901 | Page: 1 of 60

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data