Evidence of meeting #23 for Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was products.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
What's the process? I don't think we can deviate from that process.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
All those in favour of clause 30, please so signify.
(Clause 30 negatived on division)
(Clause 31 agreed to)
(On clause 32)
Moving on to clause 32, with respect to this clause, amendment NDP-25 was overtaken by events, so that one would be withdrawn, and we have amendment L-24.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Amendment L-24, which is in the name of Mr. McGuinty, needs a friendly amendment because of the amendment to L-21.1, the big thing we did yesterday. What it simply means is that the location of the regulations-making power was shifted from what was proposed subsection 103.07(6) to a proposed paragraph 103.07(2)(b).
What we're simply trying to do through the friendly amendment is reconcile what we did yesterday. It has met with the approval of those who can do the counting.
Conservative
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
It was on the table, moved. I'm making a friendly amendment to it, to do that thing we decided not to do in committee of the whole yesterday, which was to try to reconcile the numbers.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Yes, and I assume the mover accepts this as a friendly amendment.
Is there any debate?
Mr. Jean, you appear to have a question.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
If I do, it will be just because I've been overruled in the past when I've tried to do my amendments to our own amendment. My understanding is we can't. I don't want to be in a procedural rut, but I'm just learning in this process. It's been three years now, and I'd like to make sure I get it right so that I'm not overruled in the future.
Can, indeed, a friendly amendment be made by the amender to an amendment that is proposed?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
I'm advised, and it makes perfect sense to me, as it normally does, that the amendments here are proposed amendments. They're not actually amendments until they're moved. When an amendment is moved, it can be modified appropriately in the process of moving it.
Is there any further debate on that?
All those in favour of amendment L-24 as moved—with the friendly amendment?
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
(Clause 32 as amended agreed to)
Acting Director General, Legislation and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Department of the Environment
Mr. Chairman, would it be possible to confirm the wording, just for those of us trying to keep track?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
To my understanding, it's that Bill C-30, in clause 32, be amended by replacing line 29 on page 28 with the following:
subsection 93(1), subsection 103.05(2) or paragraph 103.07(2)(b) or section 118 or
So clause 32 has carried as amended.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
I don't believe you called for “those opposed”. If you did, then I raised my hand, but I don't know whether you recognized it.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
I call clause 33.
We have the same situation with amendment NDP-26 as with NDP-25, so amendment NDP-26 would be withdrawn.
The next amendment would be amendment L-25.
Mr. Godfrey.
(On clause 33)
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
It's simply a consequential amendment, following with everything we've done. So it says “subsection 93(1) or section 118”.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Is there any debate on that?
Again, it's just consequential numbering.
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
(Clause 33 as amended agreed to)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
Now we have a new clause 33.1. We're in the same situation with amendment NDP-28.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Laurie Hawn
NDP-28 is withdrawn, so clause 33.1 is withdrawn.
NDP-27 and NDP-28 are withdrawn, yes.
I'll call clause 34, and there are three amendments there.
NDP-29 once again is in the same quote and is withdrawn or not moved.
On L-26, first of all.
Mr. Godfrey.
(On clause 34)
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
One more time, Mr. Chair. It is a consequential amendment because it refers to sections. It would have been created in the government's original version of clause 18 in Bill C-30, so the references don't make sense. This amendment and the next one—and we'll get to that—change those references to point to equivalent pieces in the amended clause 18 that resulted from L-21.1. What we're doing with L-26 is consequential.
Conservative
Liberal
