Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on March 26th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Perhaps we could turn to Mr. Bigras, who can explain his amendment.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

As far as amendment BQ-4 is concerned, I don't have a problem with it as such, but of course, it will depend on discussions that will take place a little later. Right now, it's hard to decide on the issue of an independent body that would negotiate with the province for the purpose of issuing a notice if, among other things, the territorial approach advocated by the Bloc is not adopted.

Therefore, I propose that amendment BQ-4 be allowed to stand.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Do we have agreement to stand that one?

Go ahead, Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I'm fine with our standing this, but we're going to come back to the debate. It just feels like we've got through this; we're looking at it right now. Obviously this is in order, but on the question of creating this independent body and as we go into the BQ-6 amendment and the questions around territoriality and jurisdiction, I'm curious if this wording in and of itself is enough to create this independent body—and if it is creating a new body, is it the act of Bill C-30 itself that does it, or is this going to have to refer back to some other act of Parliament in order to make the body exist? Can you simply move it this way?

I don't know if other committee members have any experience with this. This is some new territory for us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

It's proposing a new section in CEPA, I think, in effect.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Do you mean the body would be created through the Canadian Environmental Protection Act?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I'm sorry, I think Mr. Moffet has some advice on this.

[John Moffet, Acting Director General, Legislation and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

It's our reading that this provision does not create a new body—I'm reading the English—but this amendment would designate a body to do these functions. I think Mr. Cullen's questions were about creating a new body; it would be our advice that this provision does not provide the authority to create a body; it would provide the authority to designate. So you would find a body that exists and you would designate it, saying that's the body that has these powers.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Okay. This is interesting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we have stood this, so we can come back to it.

Mr. Jean, you're next on the list.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I'm just curious. I need some clarification, Mr. Chair.

We talked about an amendment brought forward by the Liberals, which quite frankly wasn't particularly that bad an amendment. However, it was found that it needed a royal recommendation. Then we had another one brought forward that required relevancy. What I'm looking for is confirmation. I'm not particularly saying this is a bad idea either, but where are we drawing the line on royal recommendation? Does it have to be a direct or indirect expenditure?

As for relevancy, this particular one is saying we're going to have a new body established by this. What does that have to do with Bill C-30 if it's outside Bill C-30?

I just want to make sure I have clarification from the chair as to what a royal recommendation is. Is it a direct or indirect expenditure, and what is the relevancy, for instance, in this particular case, which has nothing to do with Bill C-30 at all and has to do with CEPA?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I will ask Mr. Moffet to try to explain that again. It's not my understanding that it's establishing a new body, but negotiating with the provinces to use something that's already in existence.

Mr. Moffet, is that it?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Actually, Mr. Chair, I'm not speaking of the department at all on this; I'm in particular asking you what the standard is to have a royal recommendation passed—is it direct or indirect expenditure?—and the relevancy of the clause. This particular clause, for instance, is the best example, and the first one to come to us since the last one was ruled out of order. It is a clause that doesn't deal with Bill C-30; it deals with CEPA, so what's the relevancy of it?

I don't want to sit here and challenge everything that comes forward if it's a good idea, but at the same time, I want to make sure we're acting within the parameters that we have in the legislation and in Marleau and Montpetit. We have a book with rules and we have to follow those rules, and I think it would help all the committee members to know what those rules are and what particular ones you're going to rule out of order, and why.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Just give me a moment. The amendment has not in fact been moved, but your point is taken.

The royal recommendation aspect of it is Marleau and Montpetit, page 711: “Bills which authorize new charges for purposes not anticipated in the Estimates” would be inadmissible. Depending on how you looked at this, you could decide that it does or it doesn't. It talks about designating, not establishing; it doesn't talk about paying for anything, and it has not been moved in any event.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I'm not asking to exclude this particular amendment. I'm not asking that at all. I'm just asking what the parameters are that we move in.

I've heard it before, but new charges not anticipated—

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

In the estimates.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

How would this not require a royal recommendation? It requires a new body, new expenditures of money.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Again, I would be guided by Mr. Moffet's words before that it doesn't establish a new body; it designates an independent body that may already exist.

As for the outcome of the negotiations, I don't know how those negotiations would wind up. It commits the Government of Canada to “negotiate—for the purpose of designating an independent body responsible for”, etc. Those negotiations may or may not end up designating that body.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I think the taxpayers would be pleased to know that the government's not going to spend any money on doing this, but I would suggest that, on the contrary, it would require expenditure to do this. That's why I'm wondering where the line is, because there is no way this body is going to be set up without some sort of expenditure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

That would depend on the outcome of those negotiations. All this does—and Monsieur Bigras, you can jump in here because it's your amendment—is commit the government to negotiate.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I asked that this clause be allowed to stand for the time being. I think it's possible to do that and move on. I'd like us to move on to BQ-6, which may settle the matter of BQ-4.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Is that acceptable to members, that we stand that one until we get—

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Like Mr. Jean, I'm a little confused here.

This is not said in any hostile way, but if there is an implication that there is spending, which process happens first? Do you pronounce on its acceptability on the royal recommendation issue, or do you not consider it because you've stood it aside and you don't come back and worry about that until you actually look at it? What's the sequence of events? If it turned out that it needed a royal recommendation, then it would be stood aside forever, so to speak, wouldn't it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

The Speaker, of course, always has the option of ruling on something like this too.

The suggestion has been that it be stood because there will be some discussion of amendments BQ-6 and BQ-15 that may wind up being relevant.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I'd also like some clarification as to what is considered an expenditure. I know the Liberals have moved some amendments that could involve expenditures. I'd like some advice as to what is considered to be in the nature of an expenditure and I'd like to know if the amendments that have been moved thus far will be swept under the rug.

I'm concerned because we have introduced several amendments, as have the Liberals. Is there not a danger here that three-quarters of the amendments that have been introduced and debated will be ruled out of order?