Evidence of meeting #33 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
It might be simpler going forward. I hope it will abbreviate the process as we go on.
Mr. Godfrey and Mr. Warawa, would you please provide that walk-through of what's happening here, as best you can?
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
We are functioning from two different stacks of amendments here.
If clause 11 goes through, clause 12 will bring some minor amendments, but this is to do with performance agreements of senior officials in departments, and that would remain the same. I'm going off the original text here.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Yes, we're talking about amendment L-18, and we're going to be subamending that a little bit.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
We're going to be losing the crown corporations there.
We then lose altogether clause 13. Clause 13 was written with the idea that there would be an independent environment commissioner, so all of that was set up about how they would be selected and petitions and everything else. So all of clause 13 goes.
That brings us to clause 14. This is where we replace all of clause 14 with the way in which the commissioner will be examining the sustainable development report to assess the fairness of the information contained therein and the progress in implementing the national sustainable development strategy. This is all about the commissioner's role. It sets out that he will report every three years the results--
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Yes, I mean amendment L-20 from the original package.
So clause 14 tells you what the commissioner does.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
No, it ceases to be, as it is in the original text, about petitions, and it becomes all about.... If you look at amendment L-20 from the original package on page 40, that describes the activities of a commissioner once the report is received.
Clause 15 stands. It's the regulations of the original document.
Clause 16 is dealt with in amendment L--
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Yes, that's L-22.1.
So amendment L-22.1 in the new package.... These are amendments to the Auditor General Act, so this lines up what we're doing in this act with what has to happen in the Auditor General Act, and this definition section lines up with these various ways in which we'll define who gets audited. “Category I department” means A, B, or C. It means either they're named in schedule 1 of the Financial Administration Act--we've decided afterwards we're going to do something about them and they get put in, and we've done that in clause 11--or they're in the schedule already.
So there are three ways, three kinds of agencies and departments that get done: the Financial Administration Act, the ones on schedule 2, and ones the government may wish to add later. That's what the new clause 16 is all about. It just makes that clear.
Clause 17, I think, stands as far as we know; we don't need the old clause 17 in the original draft.
Then clause 18 is the old G-16 in the original package on page 43, and it's all fine, isn't it? I think we decided that was all good, because having repealed sections of the Auditor General Act, these are the replacements. This just aligns the two acts to make them consistent, and that's it.
4:45 p.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
I would like an opinion from the clerk. These are not cosmetic amendments, they are major amendments that sometimes change whole clauses. Can amendments like that be made? It seems to me that we are rewriting the bill from beginning to end. Are we allowed to proceed like that?
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
The committee has to consider each of the clauses, and the amendments should relate to the clauses. The clerk is suggesting we examine the amendments in each clause that relate to that clause and then consider the clause as a whole. Of course, sometimes we'll be amending the clauses in their entirety, as you say.
For example, clause 13 is about the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. Amendment L-19, which is the amendment Mr. Godfrey proposed, is about the Sustainable Development Secretariat, so it's a different thing. But the clerk has advised me that if we're proceeding with amendment L-19, it should be proposed as a new clause with a separate decision on clause 13.
It is the same for clause 14.
That's the way we would proceed on this.
Does that answer Mr. Bigras' question? Good.
Let us move on.
Is there any further discussion on the amendment Mr. Warawa has proposed to clause 11?
(Amendment agreed to)
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Now we are ready for the Bloc amendment, BQ-1, on page 34. First of all, we'll let Mr. Bigras propose it. It is a new subclause in clause 11.
Monsieur Bigras.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Chair, before I bring forward my amendment, I would like to know where it would go in. Would it be at the end? Then it would become clause 1.5. So we would be adding a new point to the two-headed Conservative-Liberal amendment.
It would add the following:
(1.1) When developing the departmental sustainable development strategy, the responsible minister shall comply with The Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of Policy, Plan and Program Proposals, as amended from time to time, published by the Privy Council Office and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
The aim of the amendment is to make sure that the directive from the Prime Minister's Office, which is almost 25 years old, is required by law. In broad terms, it requires departments to conduct an environmental assessment of their policies, plans and programs.
On several occasions, Canada's commissioner for the environment has indicated that a number of departments are not observing this directive. In one report, the commissioner indicated that the Department of Finance was dragging its feet on conducting the environmental assessment. This amendment is intended to make sure that the cabinet directive on strategic environmental assessment is followed.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Thank you very much, Mr. Bigras.
Are there any other comments on this amendment?
Mr. Warawa.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The government does not support the amendment.
I appreciate the intent, but the cabinet directive constitutes direct instructions to both ministers and departmental officials that policy, plan, and program proposals must be assessed when important environmental effects, positive or negative, are expected. As such, the directive already would apply to departmental strategies submitted to the ministers for a decision. There's no need to include a legislative requirement to apply to cabinet directive; it's not a legal instrument.
So we will not be supporting the amendment.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
May 26th, 2008 / 4:55 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Through you, Chair, I just want to understand the parliamentary secretary. Is he suggesting that this is already happening and doesn't need to be written in, or that such a writing into the bill would have no legal authority and is opposed that way?
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
I'm suggesting that it's not appropriate to have jurisdictional oversight over cabinet and the decisions of cabinet. Cabinet needs that discretion and accountability. I don't believe it is proper to legislate a requirement of cabinet directive.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Thank you.
I'm wondering if the clerk could identify whether there would be a conflict of laws in relation to this particular section. If it were indeed adopted, would there would be a conflict of laws relating to other legislation, or to a cabinet directive generally?
It seems it might be beyond the jurisdiction of the....
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Right. That's perhaps where we go to the....
Can someone give us an answer to that? That would really require a legal opinion. We have two lawyers here, but you're not sure of the answer to that.
I wonder if we could ask Madame Roy, who was kind enough to come today, if she can tell us the answer to that question.