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.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I apologize for this slight diversion.
Mr. Woodworth, you're still speaking on this issue.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I had asked whether adding a comma after the word “regulation” would cause any undue havoc to the section.
Executive Director, Legislative Governance, Department of the Environment
Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. I was having a little difficulty following, but I understand that we are back to the wording as proposed in the bill and that we are not studying the wording as proposed in the motion.
Executive Director, Legislative Governance, Department of the Environment
Adding a comma there, no, would not create any issue, I don't think.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Chair, I have a second suggestion, which I am hopeful will resolve it. What if we added an “and” between “human health” and “administrative law”?
Conservative
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I'm not sure what the intent of the provision is. It needs help.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I would not accept that. It would then make these things conjunctive, and even Ms. Duncan's amendment didn't do that. It made them disjunctive with the word “or”. So I'm going to stick with the compromise that a comma after the word “regulation” will make it clear that traditional aboriginal ecological knowledge is still a disjunctive qualification in the section.
I'm moving an amendment to the government clause 68 to put a comma after the word “regulation”, and I'm hoping that will satisfy Ms. Duncan's concern.
Liberal
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Chair, I need the government to explain to me what they are intending by this provision, because I am trying to follow what it says; it's not telling me clearly what things the person has to be and what things might be optional. I'm not understanding what the provision is telling me.
Liberal
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
When anybody examines the realities of truth table, when you have “ands” or conjunctives, they must all be satisfied. When you have an “or”, only one side of the equation must be satisfied for something to be true.
So my interpretation of this is that the conservation and protection of the Canadian environment must be satisfied; that the section that deals with environmental and human health must be satisfied; and either the administrative law as it relates to environmental regulation or traditional aboriginal ecological knowledge must be satisfied.
I hope that points to some clarification for Ms. Duncan.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I am not convinced that's what the provision says. That's my concern.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Do the officials have anything to add to this that could help us?
Executive Director, Legislative Governance, Department of the Environment
Mr. Chairman, certainly, I think it is accurate to say it is conjunctive in the phrase “environmental and human health”.
Apart from that, there are four main rubrics and those are disjunctive from one another. The intention is to be able to pull people from that variety of backgrounds, the four types of areas, to create a roster and then be able to deal with cases as they come forward and have the appropriate expertise on the roster.
Liberal
Justin Trudeau Liberal Papineau, QC
That's exactly it. So what we want for review officers is for each one of them to be expert in at least one of the four areas.
Executive Director, Legislative Governance, Department of the Environment
That's correct, Mr. Chairman.
Liberal
Liberal