Evidence of meeting #34 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Mr. Chair, I'm a little mystified. I just said a few minutes ago that the commissioner essentially approved this in response to a question I asked her two days ago, so if Mr. Warawa needs something in writing, I would suggest that he visit the blues.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
In fact, Mr. Scarpaleggia, if I'm not mistaken, when you asked her the question, initially she nodded, and you said, “I'd like to put it on the record that it's a yes”, if I haven't been mistaken on the nature of the conversation. We can examine the blues, which might be of help. We will also attempt to get or may be able to get some written documentation to make the point further, but we did ask her, I think, in the presence of most of the people present in the room.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
Well, I think that was a response to a different question.
But I think it's clearly irregular, Mr. Godfrey, as I think you know, to lay out the roles and responsibilities of these auditors and officers and so on almost on the fly in a bill like this, as my colleague has said. You do it in a more proper fashion. You spell out the role. It's a job description, if you will. It's not done by just tagging it onto a piece of legislation, as we have before us. I think it's certainly an irregular way of doing it. To write it up in the manner that's being done here is not the appropriate way of doing it. You get that role, that responsibility, that mandate for the commissioner in a separate piece, and not in the manner that you guys have done it.
Conservative
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I will just make the point that ever since the Auditor General sent her letter on October 23 raising these issues, we have worked--“we” being members of the opposition--with our advisers, both within our own shop and within the non-governmental organizations, to answer the challenge.
The two sets of amendments you have before you represent the fruit and the results of that consultation. At our meeting on Tuesday it was confirmed in testimony, which is retrievable, that these amendments were acceptable.
So this is not a slapdash, on-the-fly process. This represents a long period of discussion with many people, including the Auditor General's office and the Commissioner of the Environment's office. I think it's a mischaracterization of the effort that has gone into responding in an appropriate and responsible way to the Auditor General's letter.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
When did the clerk's office receive this amendment? It is a substantial amendment, a new clause. When did the clerk's office receive it?
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
So we're talking less than 24 hours ago. This substantial clause, a new clause added to Bill C-288, was introduced less than 24 hours ago, and Mr. Godfrey is trying to convince this committee that it was well thought out, wasn't on the fly, and was presented here with great thought in great time.
Mr. Chair, I think the facts show quite the contrary. This is very much on the fly and very inappropriate.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Are there any other comments on the amendment?
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 11--Offences)
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Thank you.
Are there any other comments on clause 11?
Monsieur Harvey.
Conservative
Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC
Mr. Chairman, with reference to clause 11 of the bill, I would like Mr. Rodriguez to explain to me how these powers will be exercised and how all of this will be implemented. It's all well and good to draft regulations, but you then have to be able to say who is doing what. And as far as I am concerned, the “who” is not clear. Neither is the “what”. All this clause does is define penalties. But everything else also has to be defined. We talked about the fact that this is being done on the fly. And that continues to be the case. Somebody drafted this bill on the back of a napkin and put in the figure of -6 per cent GHG emissions, and now that's what we've got here.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'm just seeking some clarity. I understand the use of fines and penalties to persons, and I think it also articulates companies, but I'm looking to see who the officer is who would conduct this. Or is that purely left to the hands of government?
Secondly, unless I've missed it here, where does the money go? If it goes into general revenues, that seems to me an inappropriate use of an environmental penalty. I don't know if the mover of the bill has any ideas or concepts here. It may be articulated in other places and I've just missed it.
