Evidence of meeting #12 for Natural Resources in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendments.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:50 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I would, Mr. Chair, but I do have a question. I thank you very much, and I thank the clerk for lending us his iPad so we could read the letter, and I thank the ministry staff for providing us with the letter.
But it's dated May 29th, which is prior to the tabling of the legislation, so I guess my question is to Mr. Trost. Why did it take him so long to catch something that was communicated by the Nova Scotia government back in May?
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
I do my best. I will remind everyone, on all these amendments, the headline out of today is “NDP agrees with Trost again” every time you vote for one of these, so be careful how you spin it.
Joking aside, I guess I'll turn this question over to the people who actually know what I'm supposedly talking about.
9:50 a.m.
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Department of Natural Resources
I'd say it's the delicate balance of the three governments working together to put forth a very technical bill that has an exceptionally large number of pages. Nova Scotia wrote to us in late May, just before they introduced their bill, to identify this particular error.
At that point in time, we had already gone to the printing stages of this bill. We think this bill was originally introduced on May 2nd, so we had already introduced the bill into the federal House, and then the government rose. We returned to the table today.
We introduced first; Nova Scotia introduced next. They had identified the error with us. By then the House had already risen, and we had the amendment as the next occasion to deal with the error.
The bill was originally introduced in the last session of Parliament.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Is there any further discussion on government amendment 4?
Ms. Duncan.
9:50 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Just to clarify, the bill was tabled afresh this past fall. Right? So it could have been caught then. It just slipped through. Is that the answer?
9:50 a.m.
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Department of Natural Resources
Correct. At second reading.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Is government amendment 4 to clause 84 carried?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 84 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 120)
We also stood government amendment 10 to clause 120. We've had some discussion on that. I don't know if there's any further discussion.
Ms. Duncan.
9:55 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
With all due respect to the witnesses, Mr. Chair, I don't consider adding “administrative proceedings” to be minor. That's actually quite substantive. But I'm trying to figure out what the implications of this provision are in terms of the decision-making by the minister that will now be excluded in terms of his having to speak to or give testimony on.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.
It is my understanding, if we go back to the rationale that was provided when this motion was made, that the full text of this motion includes changes that are necessary to coordinate with amendments that were made to the Canada Labour Code. Those changes have already been placed into the Canada Labour Code, which was included in the economic action plan. So in fact, what we're doing is mirroring those amendments that were made in the Canada Labour Code.
It's already in the Canada Labour Code, and we want to reflect the same in this act.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
9:55 a.m.
NDP
9:55 a.m.
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Department of Natural Resources
We could read the exact language that's in Bill C-4, which has already passed. We could read the exact clauses, or show them on the iPad, if someone wants to see them, to demonstrate that this is a mirror of that and that it is being imported into this particular piece of legislation for consistency purposes.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
9:55 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Chair, I need clarification, because when I asked before, I was told—and it is a coordinating amendment—that this actually amends the labour code, but now I'm being told it simply mirrors changes made to the labour code.
Now I'm left confused.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
9:55 a.m.
Acting Director General, Workplace Directorate, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
As with the previous amendment, these consequential amendments to the labour code were put forward in the last session of Parliament. Since then, Bill C-4 has come forward and made some changes to the Canada Labour Code. The amendment we're making here is to include “administrative proceedings”. That is the consequential amendment to the Canada Labour Code that's being made here under Bill C-5. But in addition, because Bill C-4 passed and made some adjustments, this also requires a coordination with the wording under Bill C-4.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
I have a couple of things, Mr. Chair.
First of all, has Bill C-4 not already passed both the House and the Senate, and has it not already received royal assent?
9:55 a.m.
Acting Director General, Workplace Directorate, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
Yes.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
So in spite of the fact that it's already received royal assent, it's still necessary to have this section talk about “if” it receives royal assent. Does that make sense? In other words, it's saying that these will apply “if” it receives royal assent.
It has already received royal assent.