Evidence of meeting #19 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:25 a.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Having heard from the officials, I'll accept that as a friendly amendment.
10:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Ms. Duncan, could you repeat the friendly amendment for the clerk, please?
10:25 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
The amendment would be to both proposed subsections (1) and (2). In place of the word “may”, we'll use “is entitled to” in both (1) and (2).
10:25 a.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Through you to Mr. Woodworth, Chair, he suggested—and I'm surprised, I'm not sure—when we heard the testimony from the international shipowners and from the Canadian Maritime Law Association, there was never an acknowledgment by any expert.... Sorry, there were points made that I think many of us were trying to help elucidate about the conflict between international treaty obligations and domestic law. At no time, if I recall the testimony and comments and questions, was there a consensus here that there was a conflict. Now in the submission of amendment G-3.1, I understand from Mr. Woodworth that this is to correct conflicts between treaty law implemented in Canada and domestic legislation. Is that right?
10:25 a.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
There were two potential conflicts addressed by the witnesses. One had to do with the possible liability for a prison term by foreign vessels and the conflict with UNCLOS. In my view, that is resolved by the prosecutorial policy not to seek prison in such cases. The second potential conflict is in relation to this issue of liability for compensation. In my questioning of the witnesses, in fact, I asked at least one of them whether they would be satisfied if our act did provide exactly this exemption. I don't think the witnesses were aware of this amendment, so I brought to their attention the possibility of such a thing. I recall that the evidence was that it would satisfy them.
I certainly never suggested that there wasn't a prima facie issue there. I was only suggesting to the witnesses that it could be resolved by exempting those cases where the Marine Liability Act applied from our compensation provisions in Bill C-16, and they seemed to say that that would solve their problem on that issue.
10:25 a.m.
Liberal
10:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Let's call the question on amendment G-3.1 as amended.
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 28 as amended agreed to)
(Clause 29 agreed to)
(On clause 30)
Now we're at clause 30. We have BQ-4, but that's been adopted.
(Clause 30 as amended agreed to)
(Clauses 31 to 37 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 38)
Now we get to clause 38.
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
The amendment was defeated, so it's clause 38 as is.
(Clause 38 agreed to)
(On clause 39)
10:30 a.m.
Liberal
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I believe that duplicates amendment G-2, which has been carried.
10:30 a.m.
NDP
10:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Could Mr. Woodworth maybe just explain what amendment G-4 is?
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Yes. Amendment G-4 is exactly the same as amendment G-2, apart from the fact, of course, that amendments G-4 and G-2 have been subject to friendly amendments. Since we passed amendment G-2 with that friendly amendment, I suggest that would apply to amendment G-4 and subsequent iterations of amendment G-2.
10:30 a.m.
Liberal
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
No, I think what I'm saying is that the vote on amendment G-2 should apply to amendment G-4 as well as amendments G-15 and G-17. I think amendment G-11 may be a little bit different, so I'm not going to include that.
10:30 a.m.
Procedural Clerk
Could I get some clarification, please?
The amendment to G-2 was to remove the words “in a community near” and replace them with “related to”, and in French, the addition of the word “notamment” after “d'argent” in the second paragraph. I don't have any difficulty with the word “notamment” in the second paragraph, but I'm not sure we can strictly just insert the words “related to”. Is it “in a community in or near”?
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I think the corresponding amendment would make it read “their work related to the park”. I do admit that rather than a marine conservation area, we're talking about a park.
10:30 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Can I make a friendly suggestion, even though we passed the amendment before? That is a problem because we're stuck with the word “marine”. It would be exactly the same wording. We could have made it consistent throughout, and I should have thought of that in foresight. We could have simply said the “marine park”, but in this case, it would say the same word. Just take out “marine”.
In that case, it makes sense for all of the others, I think.
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, I'll move this. It's G-4, in it's entirety, with that friendly amendment suggested to make it read “their work related to the park”, and also, with Mr. Bigras' friendly amendment in what appears as proposed paragraph 30.(1)(r) in G-4, to read “educational institution including for scholarships”. So I will move G-4 with those two friendly amendments.