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.
4:55 p.m.
Marie-Andrée Roy Parliamentary Counsel (Legislation), Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel
I would have to reread the content of that directive to provide you with any legal opinion.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Would you come to the table, please, and repeat that so we can all hear? Thank you.
Madame Roy is the chief legislative counsel. Is that right?
4:55 p.m.
Parliamentary Counsel (Legislation), Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel
Oh, I'm just a drafter.
I would appreciate reading the document before providing you with legal advice on the matter.
I would also like to consult the people in the library to see whether or not there would be a conflict in law.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
4:55 p.m.
Parliamentary Counsel (Legislation), Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel
Exactly.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
It seems obvious on its face, quite frankly, that it would be in conflict with other laws that govern cabinet. It would seem to me that it would be. Certainly it shouldn't be the work of this committee to move forward with something that would be in conflict with other laws, if indeed it is.
I think at the very least we should wait and hear some opinion on it before it's adopted.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Is there further debate on this amendment? No.
(Amendment negatived)
(Clause 11 as amended agreed to on division)
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Chair, do we want to deal with clause 10 now or deal at the end with all the clauses that were stood?
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
That seems like a reasonable approach.
It was Mr. Cullen who asked about this to begin with. Are you agreeable to that, Mr. Cullen?
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
It is appropriate now, if this has clarified what it is to remove or not to pass clause 10.
May 26th, 2008 / 4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
I'm going to ask if clause 10 shall carry. My understanding is that if you want to withdraw it--and the wishes of Mr. Godfrey and Mr. Warawa are that you say no--that clause would no longer be, because it has been replaced.
(Clause 10 negatived)
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
This is a tough, tough day for you.
(On clause 12--Performance-based contracts)
First we have amendment L-18, which is on page 36 of the main package.
We'll have Mr. Godfrey.
5 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I wanted to say to Mr. Cullen that there was some ambiguity about the phrase in the original bill, which said, “Performance-based contracts with the Government of Canada”. It could be understood to be one of two things. It could be a contract with an employee or it could be a contract with a construction company, or something, anytime there was a performance-based contract with an outside operator.
To clarify that language, we have used the phrase “Performance agreements of senior officials in departments and Crown corporations shall include provisions”. If I may be allowed to, I want to delete “and Crown corporations”, because we now understand crown corporations to be covered by departmental responsibility. So I am proposing that it say “Performance agreements of senior officials in departments shall include provisions”.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
I think what you're saying, Mr. Godfrey, is that you're moving that Bill C-474 in clause 12 be amended by replacing lines 17 and 18 on page 7 with the following in clause 12: “Performance agreements of senior officials in departments shall include provisions”.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Just procedurally, before we deal with Mr. Godfrey's motion, which I believe comes after ours.... You are on line 20.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Are we ready for the question on Mr. Godfrey's amendment?
Mr. Cullen, and then Mr. Warawa.
5 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
This is appreciated. If I understand Mr. Godfrey.... There's been some conflict on this in the past with crown corporations, particularly under the Auditor General--what the AG is able to go after and what the commissioner can look at and what they can't. l just want to get some assurance that in fact that has been looked at. In saying that the performance agreements will stretch far enough to include...because if we make that mistake at this point it will open up a whole raft of unaccountability further down the road.
I guess I'm just looking for a little more assurance to make sure that—
5 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Because we understand that federal sustainable development strategies now apply to departments, and through departments to crown corporations, we've struck out references to crown corporations earlier on. So this is simply consistent with that. But the understanding of the reach of a minister is that it goes down to a crown corporation, and I think by logic, any official in a crown corporation who would be ignoring a departmental directive would be doing so at his or her peril.