Evidence of meeting #35 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 amendments.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Let's get started. We're going to start with new clause 13.1.
There is an amendment, which is found on page 40, and that's amendment L-20.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I'm just waiting for my book. There are some last-minute negotiations going on over there, so they have my book.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Mr. Chairman, you will be interested to know that you missed quite a few last-minute negotiations. The rest of us are hoping these are briefer than some of the previous ones last week.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
While we're waiting, I would just warn that we need unanimous consent to return to two clauses that we've already considered.
In one of them, clause 11, we inadvertently missed a “not” in the text, which I will refer to. As well, we have to return to clause 15, because we had proposed a new clause 15.1, which was known as amendment L-21. Originally our legislative counsel thought—there were an awful lot of things happening—that this section, which dealt with transition measures, wasn't needed, but then she reflected on it, and she's here to explain exactly why we need to return to that clause, because we do need it. We can get Madame Roy to explain that. Those will require two unanimous decisions.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Let's begin, though. I believe you were in debate on amendment L-20. If you just complete your consultation there, we'll begin.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
No. Let's finish with new clause 13.1. We'll go to amendment L-20 on page 40. I understand that debate was going on, so we need to finish that first.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
This has to do with clause 13.1. Let me just double-check that we have the right language here for clause 13.1. We're having a problem with the enumeration, because we thought that.... It was originally an amendment to clause 14, right? It's now become new clause 13.1.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
But as was explained to me, this didn't relate to clause 14, so we introduced a new clause 13.1, which would then encapsulate your amendment L-20.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Okay. I thought we had already withdrawn this. Was it amendment 19.1?
You made reference to something called L-20.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Right, but now that is being referred to as amendment L-19.1 on this sheet?
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
In that case, I'm withdrawing L-20, because the content will now be found in a government amendment that is coming further along.
So we are doing two things here. We are withdrawing L-20 or L-19.1. Then I think we need to vote against clause 14 as well.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Can I just clarify? So we are not proceeding with new clause 13.1. We need consent to withdraw it. Does anybody have problems with that?
Mr. Cullen, are you okay with our juggling here?
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I was with the clerk trying to see if there's a current version of the status of the bill. I appreciate all the work Mr. Godfrey and his staff and Mr. Warawa and his staff have put into this. But the struggle I'm having is that we're now removing clauses that were introduced to replace other clauses that have since been taken out of the bill, so we're two or three iterations down the road. I'm trying to fully grasp where the bill is right now, what portions are being taken out and what portions are being maintained.
I will act with some level of trust about Mr. Godfrey's and Mr. Warawa's intentions here. But as a legislator it is difficult for everyone involved--and particularly for those outside of the negotiation process--to understand exactly what we're voting for and against, which makes me uncomfortable.
I wouldn't mind a little recap of the intention of the thing. That would be helpful.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Why don't we have Mr. Godfrey and Mr. Warawa explain what the process is with this point here.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
We're withdrawing L-20--or, if you prefer, L-19.1--because the commissioner's monitoring and reporting duties that were outlined in here have been integrated into a new government amendment that will insert a new clause after clause 17 in the consequential amendments section dealing with the Auditor General Act.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
It was given to the clerk. It's not in both official languages, so it hasn't been distributed.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
So because clause 18 has been adopted, we will need unanimous consent to reopen it to put in the clause being proposed.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I am following it. So the substance of it is simply regarding the petitions process. Before voting on this, I need to see the language of its replacement.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
If you look at what L-20 was—on page 40 of the first section of amendments—what we're doing is saying that the commissioner has to comment on the fairness of the information contained in the federal sustainable development strategy, prepare a report, and do all of that stuff. All of those functions outlined in L-20 will now be incorporated into a change we're making to the Auditor General Act in clause 18. So there'll be an expanded version of clause 18 to incorporate this.
To return to the point, what we were trying to capture was that the commissioner has two functions. One is to assess the fairness of the overall federal sustainable development strategy for the government, and that's what this refers to. The second function is to examine how individual departments do, from a sustainable development strategy point of view, in relation to the big plan, and that's captured as well in section 18. So it outlines both of those functions: assessing the overall strategy and seeing how individual departments relate to that strategy.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I just have a question on text then. What Mr. Warawa is going to present, or has presented, but not in two languages, or has not presented....
All I need to know is if it is verbatim from what was then on page 40 of our first iteration of amendment packages that is to be put into clause 18. Is that what we'll be voting on?
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
That's where it's going, yes.
We've checked the language with the commissioner and the Auditor General's office to make sure that, because we're amending the Auditor General Act in clause 18, all of the language lines up.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
What you're telling us then is that L-20, in both official languages, is the one whereby we're going to be reopening clause 18—with permission—and adding as a special clause?
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
3:45 p.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Chairman, the parties were initially supposed to present a series of amendments to Bill C-474. We had agreed that when we began our clause-by-clause study, these amendments would be tabled. That's not a problem. However, I get the feeling that we are being asked to make decisions that will impact the amendments Mr. Warawa has in hand, but has yet to put forward.
If there are any additional amendments to be tabled, that is amendments that will be considered today, then I invite all political parties to table them immediately. That way, we'll be able to see how the outcome of the vote on certain amendments may affect other amendments. That's the least we can do, especially as we have only one more meeting scheduled to discuss Bill C-474.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I have two comments to make. First, it appears that there was a misunderstanding between us and the government. Each side thought that the other was going to present that amendment last Friday. As it happens, neither side did. We have the English version. Is there unanimous consent to allow that version to be tabled, so that each member has a copy in hand? I don't know if that's proper procedure. Can we do that?
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Well, I do have a French and English version, but the French had to be changed slightly. So I've asked for photocopies of that to be made, so we will be able to provide it in both English and French.
Procedurally, on the issue of trust, maybe the proper way to go would be to stand clause 14, where we are; get unanimous consent to go back to clause 18; introduce this and change clause 18; and then go back to clause 14. It's the same message; it's the same requirement of reporting, but it's in the Auditor General Act, which was the more appropriate place for this clause to be. That's the logic.
You should have access to that. We discussed it numerous times and provided copies of it to the members of the Bloc and the NDP; unfortunately, each thought the other was doing that. So we will have it for you in just a moment.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
What I might suggest, while we're waiting for that, is that if we move on, we could do clauses 16 and 17. By then, everybody will have a copy of the amendment for clause 18. We could deal with clause 18, and then we could decide whether we're going to drop clause 13.1 or clause 14, or whatever the number. How does that sound?
Do we have unanimous consent to do what I just proposed?
3:45 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Is anyone opposed?
Let's then take a look at clause 16.
(On clause 16)
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
On clause 16 we have amendment L-22.1.
Once again, there has been a lot of discussion with the Auditor General's office, as is mentioned in the first point of amendment L-22.1, on whether we needed to repeal the definition of “sustainable development strategy” in the Auditor General Act.
Our latest understanding is that we do not need to do that. We can allow the sustainable development strategy definition to stand. Therefore, on amendment L-22.1, we should strike out the first point, which is to repeal the definition, and retain the second point, which is to change the definition of “category I department” in the Auditor General Act as we have outlined it here under subclause 16(2).
The only other change is a reference under paragraph 16(2)(b) that says “any department in respect of which a direction has been made under subsection 11(2) of the Federal Sustainable Development Act”. It should read “subsection 11(1) of the Federal Sustainable Development Act”, because of a government amendment that was presented on the floor. Paragraph 16(2)(c) stands.
So what you have, then, is amendment L-22.1, minus the first point, the definition, which we do not have to repeal. We retain subclause 16(2)—which I guess will become new subclause 16(1)—that the definition “category I department” is as follows, except under paragraph 16(2)(b), “made under subsection 11(1) of the Federal Sustainable Development Act”. And paragraph 16(2)(c) stands.
Those are the changes.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Is everybody following? We're on page 42.1, Liberal amendment L-22.1, in regard to clause 16.
Mr. Cullen.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
This is a question I had. I'm not sure if it has been asked already.
Can I understand what the original intention was? As regards striking to try to remove the definition of “sustainable development” from the Auditor General Act, why was this originally the intention, and what has since changed the argument to have it left in?
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
This was one of those points where the argument could have gone either way. We're talking about the fact that in the Auditor General Act there is a generic definition of “sustainable development strategy” in reference to individual departments. Given the work we have done in other parts of this act, the definition that was there previously is not out of sync with what we are doing in this bill. So we don't need to rejig that definition again. This is one of those questions where the government lawyers talked to the Auditor General's lawyers, and apparently, if we just leave it alone, it will be okay.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
As clarification, through you, Chair, to Mr. Godfrey, we are going with option A. Is that correct? Between options A and B, we're going with option A.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Yes, and then we have to amend paragraph 16(2)(b) to refer to subsection 11(1), to reflect work that you've done previously.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Are there any questions?
Those in favour amendment 22.1?
Oh, I'm sorry.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Maybe Mr. Warawa can explain.
Is there some later information that we must repeal the...?
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
When we met last week, my understanding from the notes I made was that we were scratching out subclause 16(1). That would be gone, so subclause 16(2) would become subclause 16(1). That's from the notes I made for myself. Then under the notes from you, we had options A and B.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Don't worry about numbering. That will all be done in the edit.
Could we get back to explain this?
Mr. Harvey.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC
Since when have members been consulting with David Suzuki's lobby organization on such matters? I'm trying to get my head around this. Do it make any sense? Is this normal?
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
I believe that members can consult whomever they like in making amendments and changes. I believe that's customary.
Mr. Godfrey.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
So we're now back to L-22.1. The latest, and I hope the last, point is that we will in fact go with subclause 16(1) as delivered here, because this will apparently be replaced by the definition in the new bill. So that's okay. And we will go with subclause 16(2) as it was, and the numbering will be sorted out by the drafters.
So we can actually go with this amendment pretty much as written.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Yes, L-22.1 as written, with subclauses 16(1) and 16(2), and the latter will have paragraphs 16(2)(a), and (b), and (c).
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
And the only correction is that paragraph 16(2)(b) will refer to subsection 11(1) rather than 11(2).
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I'm sure this can be lined up subsequently by the drafters, yes.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Okay. Those in favour? Those opposed, if any?
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 16 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 17)
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
We're concerned about some renumbering that would have to occur in light of what we've done. But if the renumbering happens automatically.... Is that correct?
We put “and under the Commissioner's reports”, under subsection 23(2) and 2.2. We don't need to worry about that?
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
We have an amendment that you are aware of. I just want to see which line is coming first, ours or yours.
4 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Well, I guess the issue is whether this new amendment stands as a separate clause, as opposed to—
4 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
No, it's in addition to subsection 21(1) of the Auditor General Act under clause 17. In the fourth line, after the word “following”, there will be inserted two and a half lines.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
The clause here, or yours over there. It's one or the other.
This is crazy.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
It's fine by me, if it speeds this process up.
Okay. I think we're on clause 17 with no amendments. Clause 17, as written, is what we're now voting on.
Yes, Mr. Bigras.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Chairman, I thought that an amendment to clause 17 had been proposed by the government. Is that in fact the case?
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
There's going to be amendment 17.1, which will follow clause 17. Once we have passed clause 17—
4 p.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
That's not what I was asking. I would appreciate it if the legislative clerk could enlighten me about the following point. The rules of procedure state that amendments must be tabled. Correct? It was my understanding that an amendment would be put forward. However, I thought I made myself clear earlier when I asked the political parties to table any amendments they had immediately.
You did not respond to my request. Instead, you turned the floor over to the Liberals. It would appear that two parties are working together here. May I remind you that the members of the other two parties would also like to know where matters stand. For that, they need to know exactly what amendments are being proposed. I'm not very pleased with how things are going right now. I wouldn't want any precedents to be set.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Mr. Bigras, I agree with you totally, and I certainly didn't mean to not give the instructions. I understood there was an amendment that was going to be introduced in clause 18. I was not aware that there was another amendment that was being circulated. Now I am. I think it is only fair that you have those amendments ahead of time and have the opportunity to look at them.
So I would ask all parties, if there are other amendments, to table them. I am now aware of 17.1 as an amendment, and there's going to be another section to 18, which is going to come.
What we could do, if you like, while we get all of this printed and circulated, is go on to the 15 minutes of future business that was scheduled for the end of our meeting, instead of waiting until the end.
I was as unaware as you were.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Is it helpful for the parties to sit down for that 10 or 15 minutes to work this out? If so, then maybe future business is inappropriate conversation.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
If that's the will of the committee, certainly if you need 15 minutes, let's take it, and then we can probably move fairly quickly.
We'll suspend then so you can get this sorted out as quickly as you can and get copies to everyone, to all four parties. You're trying to get copies of every amendment that's going to come forward, as Mr. Bigras requested. Let's be a little bit flexible, but I'd rather they do it as quickly as possible.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Excuse me, Mr. Bigras. Do you have copies now of the government amendments?
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Okay, we're all set. Is everybody ready?
We were on clause 17, and we have no amendments to clause 17. Is that correct?
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
So what we have to do is vote.... I'm not sure what sequence we do this in.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
We're going to vote on clause 17 and then we're going to add a clause 17.1.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
We're getting rid of clause 17 and we're adding new clause 17.1--unless they choose to vote for clause 17 and it passes. Everybody should have clause 17.1.
Those are the instructions from the chair.
Shall clause 17 carry?
(Clause 17 negatived)
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
This is amendment G-15.1, which now becomes new clause 17.1
Go ahead, Mr. Warawa.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
This is all housekeeping, so it fits in the appropriate place. There has been a bit of wordsmithing, but it again brings clarity to the bill. It's basically housekeeping.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
What it does is it amends the Auditor General Act to take into account this bill. What it's going to be taking into account will be seen when we get to the next amendment, but it basically lines up, so it's good.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Shall amendment G-15.1, which introduces new clause 17.1, carry?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
We now need to get permission to reopen clause 18. We then have a new amendment, which is G-15.2, if we have permission. So first of all, I need unanimous consent to reopen clause 18.
Mr. Cullen.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Okay, we're reopening clause 18.
(On clause 18)
So then for us to look at amendment G-15.2, the committee would have to agree to remove amendment G-16, which was carried earlier.
4:25 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
So we have removed amendment G-16 and we are now looking at G-15.2.
Mr. Warawa.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
So moved, Chair, and again, it is further housekeeping to clarify the reporting of the commissioner.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
This amends the Auditor General Act to incorporate in one section and cover off the two functions we talked about previously. First is how various departments will report out their targets and objectives, and how they tie into the federal sustainable development act. Then under proposed subsection 23(3), it refers to how the commissioner will assess the fairness of the information contained about the whole federal development strategy.
So it deals with two different functions that are located now in one section of the Auditor General Act and in one section of this bill. It's what we did previously under number 14. We now do it all in one place.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'm not sure if I missed this before. I have not seen the clause around fairness--“to assess the fairness of the information contained”. Is it an accuracy clause? Maybe I'm not familiar with it.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
You may recall from the discussion of the bill when Mr. Thompson was here that “fairness” has a very specific auditing sense, which is that information that is presented fairly represents the data that has been collected and allows you to draw reasonable conclusions from it. It's not fairness in the sense of natural justice, but fairness in an auditing sense. It is an auditing term that we've discussed in the committee.
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
I have a question concerning the French version that we received of amendment G-15.2. Handwritten notes suggest that “réalisation des cibles” be replaced by “atteindre des cibles“, and that “fiabilité“ be substituted for “fidélité”. Are these handwritten changes part of the version that we would adopt? Or must we adopt the previous version containing no such changes?
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
My understanding is that it would be the handwritten amendments we would be voting on. Am I correct, Mr. Warawa?
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
So it would be the as-corrected version of the French version.
Are there any other comments on amendment G-15.2?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
We now need to come back to clause 18 as amended.
(Clause 18 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
I don't think we sought unanimous consent to go back to clause 11. There was a “not” that has to go into that one. If you could seek that, it's another item we could check off.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
We have a correction, as I understand it, to clause 11. Do we have permission to go back and reopen clause 11?
4:30 p.m.
Some hon. members
Yes.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
(On clause 11--Departmental Sustainable Development Strategies)
Go ahead on clause 11, Mr. Warawa.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In clause 3, after the word “agency”, there should be inserted the word “not”. After “To the Financial Administration Act, or agency”, insert “not”. “Not” needs to be inserted.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
This is in clause 3 in the third line, after the word “agency”. In between “agency” and “named”, insert “not”.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Is everyone following that? This is an amendment.
Subclause 11(3) would read as follows:
The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of a minister presiding over a department not named in Schedule 1 to the Financial Administration Act, or agency not named in Schedule 2 of this Act
So we're simply adding a “not” to “named in Schedule 2 of this Act”. Then it would continue:
direct that the requirements of subsections (1) and (2) apply in respect of the department or agencies.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
I think maybe some of the confusion occurred because I was saying “clause 3”. It's actually subclause 11(3). That may be where some confusion was. Did everybody find that?
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Looking at clause 11 and the amendments that were brought before, I have subclauses 11(1) and 11(2). Maybe Mr. Warawa can point to a subclause 11(3) in the amendments, just so we're working from the same text.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
I have a copy of that in which I have it listed as amendment 14.1. The clerk just explained that this was introduced.
4:30 p.m.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
What is the number of the amendment to which the parliamentary secretary is referring? Has an amendment been tabled, yes or no?
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
It's a Conservative government amendment. Does it have a number?
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Apparently they weren't all distributed. We're going to get copies made right now to see where that “not” goes.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I found an old version of this in English. I've given it to the Bloc. I see the text we're working from now, so I don't need the time.
Perhaps my colleagues from the Bloc—
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
I think it's only fair to Mr. Bigras that he has it in front of him. So let's get copies.
Next is amendment L-21.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
We need unanimous consent to reopen this. I think it was withdrawn originally.
4:35 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
We're now on amendment L-21, introducing new clause 15.1.
Mr. Godfrey.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Because this bill amends the Auditor General Act, one of the questions was on how to deal with the transition from one act to the other.
We originally thought we needed this transitional provision. Madam Roy believed for a while we did not. Maybe she can explain why we need it.
June 2nd, 2008 / 4:35 p.m.
Marie-Andrée Roy Parliamentary Counsel (Legislation), Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel
Yes, of course. There has been a slight error. In view of the amendments tabled by Mr. Warawa, I did not have a chance to read either clause 11, as drafted, or the proposed changes to the definition of a “category I department”. The proposed changes are fairly complex. The proposed new clause 15.1 is necessary. It would maintain in effect directions made under subsection 24(3) of the Auditor General and clarifies that these directions are deemed to have been made under subsection 11(3) of Bill C-474. Persons responsible for formulating sustainable development strategies will continue to have that responsibility pursuant to Bill C-474.
I won't quibble over the subsections. I believe that subsection 11(3) set outs the directions and requirements for departments. In any event, the provisions will be renumbered.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
I have a clarification on L-21. We support this, but the last line showing subsection 11(2) should be subsection 11(3), I believe.
4:35 p.m.
Parliamentary Counsel (Legislation), Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel
As a matter of fact, it should be 11(3).
It should be 11(3).
4:35 p.m.
Parliamentary Counsel (Legislation), Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel
Yes, under the new numbering system.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Are there any questions on amendment L-21?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 11--Departmental Sustainable Development Strategies)
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Do we have a copy of clause 11? It's coming.
Mr. Bigras, do you need that?
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
So we're going back to clause 11. That was simply for the addition of a “not”.
There are copies coming, which you will have. If everyone is following, shall clause 11 as amended carry?
(Clause 11 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 2--Definitions)
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
There are a number of amendments to clause 2.
I believe our first one is amendment L-2, which is found on page 4.
Mr. Godfrey.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I'm just getting my ducks lined up here. I move that clause 2 be amended by replacing line 10 on page 1 with the following:
appointed under subsection 15.1(1) of the Auditor General Act.
We needed to do this since the bill, when it was originally drawn up, anticipated that there would be an independent commissioner. That's not being created, so we have to refer to the commissioner's appointment under the Auditor General Act. That's what that does. It removes the reference to “independent”.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
We're talking about amendment L-2 on page 4. Shall amendment L-2 carry?
(Amendment agreed to)
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Is that the same as what you have under amendment G-2.1? So lines 11 and 12 simply refer to the interpretation section referring to corporations. Since we don't deal with corporations, I guess we're getting rid of the reference.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Okay.
Are there any questions about amendment L-3? Shall amendment L-3 carry?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Before we go on to L-4, we're now on to the new package, right?
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Mr. Godfrey, your amendments came in first, so we would have to deal with your two amendments.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Okay. Then I will withdraw amendment L-4 in order to allow Mr. Warawa to make a motion on deleting.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
The clerk advises me you don't need paragraph (a). We just did that.
So everyone has amendment G-2.1? That's new. You just got it today.
Mr. Warawa.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
It's pretty much housekeeping. Are there any questions?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
This amendment deletes lines 23...because we don't need the definition of “petitioner”, as the term is no longer used in Bill C-474.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Are there any questions? Shall amendment L-5 carry?
(Amendment agreed to)
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
You can speak to either amendment G-3 or amendment G-4. They both deal with the same lines.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
This deals with the definition of the precautionary principle, which is now in harmony with that in CEPA 1999.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Are there any questions? Shall amendment G-4 carry?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 2 as amended agreed to)
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Now we go to the schedule, which is at the back of the bill on page 11.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
We voted that the schedule be repealed, and then we had the new schedule.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
I understand you're going to add an amendment to add a new schedule--
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
The first thing we need to do is.... Do we need to re-repeal the schedule?
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
The committee voted to appeal a schedule that's in the Auditor General Act.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
We're going to repeal that. We have L-23.1 on page 46.1, which simply says, “The schedule to the Act is repealed.”
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
That's the Auditor General Act. The schedule we have in the act as printed is what we're voting on.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
We need to vote to get rid of this schedule and then we need a new amendment to add the new schedule, which is L-25. So we're voting to remove the printed schedule.
(Schedule negatived)
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Now we will introduce L-25 on page 49. It's a new schedule 2. I think everybody has a copy of that.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
These are the various agencies that were identified by orders in council, after the passage of the Auditor General Act, as being subject to sustainable development strategy reports.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 1--Short title)
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
If I remember correctly, this is to change the name of the act from “National” to “Federal”, to be consistent with the rest of the bill.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Does everybody follow that? We used the term “Federal” throughout the other parts of the bill.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 1 as amended agreed to)
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
We have G-1.1 and G-1. They're different. We have today's version, which I like.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Mr. Warawa, for the long title you have amendment G-1.1. That's new today.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
I think it's consistent.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Shall the long title carry as amended?
4:50 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Did we finish L-20, Mr. Godfrey? That was withdrawn.
I think we have clause 14 left. There was no amendment to clause 14.
(Clause 14 negatived)
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
The rest should be straightforward.
Shall the bill carry as amended?
4:55 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Congratulations. That was fun.
Just for Mr. Godfrey's information, I hope to report that on Wednesday.
We'll now go to a closed committee meeting to decide on future business.
[Proceedings continue in camera]
