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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
Conservative
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.
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?
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.
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?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Is anyone opposed?
Let's then take a look at clause 16.
(On clause 16)
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.
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.
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?