We had some discussion yesterday with the government to try to resolve this. I think some of the problems are in the drafting that occurred between too many parties. There were too many cooks in the kitchen. We may be able to resolve this simply with a comma added. I need to find the revisions proposed by the government.
The problem was in how they were to be read together, and there was some confusion about the balancing of the requirement to know administrative law and so forth and to know scientific knowledge versus aboriginal traditional knowledge. When we reviewed that, as I recall, Mr. Woodworth, did we not agree that perhaps simply adding a comma after “administrative law” might remedy that? As it reads right now, it remains confusing. I tried to come up, with the drafters, with an alternate version.
To be clear, on the record, I am very flexible about this. It was my preference that the most important thing for a person who is going to be a review officer to have, frankly, is some kind of administrative or tribunal background, because the role of the review officer is to make sure there is due process and that rights are protected. My understanding is that the government is of the view that it's equally important that the review officer have some background in conservation and the environment. I'm open to being convinced of that.
My bigger concern is that it is unclear, the way it reads, how you include.... For example, if you're wanting to appoint a first nations or Métis person, how do you give equal credence to their backgrounds? So I'm open to some revision that makes that clear or to being convinced that it's fine the way it is.
I'm not trying to make it complicated. I was just troubled by the wording.
