Environment Committee on June 2nd, 2008

[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.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

That was the legal interpretation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Are there any other questions?

Mr. Warawa.

[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.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Option A?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

We are striking subclause 16(1).

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Correct.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Subclause 16(2) will become subclause 16(1).

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

And paragraph 16(2)(c) stands.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Correct.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Are there any questions?

Those in favour amendment 22.1?

Oh, I'm sorry.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Maybe Mr. Warawa can explain.

Is there some later information that we must repeal the...?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

So L-22.1 will be considered as written.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

As written.

[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).

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Correct.

[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).

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I'm sure this can be lined up subsequently by the drafters, yes.