Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 30 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.
Results: 1 - 30 of 5901 | Page: 1 of 197

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

For more data options, please see Open Data