Environment Committee on Dec. 15th, 2010

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, then I'm speaking to the motion, not to the point of order. But if there are other, future points of order—and there likely will be—coming from the coalition members, Chair, I hope there will be an opportunity to hear from both sides of the table so that you can make a good decision.

I'm not questioning your decision, Chair; you're greatly respected here.

So Chair, specific to the amendment that “registered Canadian-controlled” be added before “entities,” the analyst has said she can't give advice on that. The logical conclusion, then, is to set it aside.

The committee does not want to do that. They want to move forward without knowing the consequences of that amendment; therefore we would have to vote against it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Ms. Duncan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The consequences are no consequences, in my opinion. I just thought that it might be redundant. I'm not opposed to the amendment. It was merely a suggestion: I thought our analyst might be able to help.

I'm back again to our legislative clerk. This issue has come up over and over again in the bill. I've been sitting waiting for constructive amendments from those who have raised it. Regrettably, this is the first time there's been a constructive amendment. It's regrettable that a constructive amendment wasn't made earlier. Because the same issue has been raised and was raised previously, it seems to me to be the will of the committee to want to limit the provision to Canadian-registered and potentially -controlled entities. That would include NGOs and would include associations and corporations.

If that is the case, it seems logical to me that the first category of allowed changes—to the interpretation—would be the logical way to do it, because at this stage we can't go back to make the whole bill consistent.

I guess I will be pursuing that further. It's regrettable that we have this convoluted process, which I've never run into before, for reaching consensus on important legislation, but we are stuck with the convoluted process we have. This is one aspect I really don't fully understand, and so I would like to find out more about that first category, concerning when you can change the interpretation clause, if it is important to the—I forget the way you described it—clarification of the provision. To me, if the majority so voted, or have an intent to want to change this clause, then it would make sense for consistency throughout the bill to have it the same, and that's our intent. Certainly, I would be happy to have that intent.

The most sensible and logical way to do that is to define “entity” so that it is consistent throughout. But I'm at your will as to what is possible within the system. I would rather that we don't pass this amendment if that then constrained us such that we can't define “entity” because we have already defined it in one clause. I'm trying to avoid that situation. If we're going to just keep saying the same phrase again, and we would like it to apply to the previous provision, and you can't go back....

I guess I'm seeking your counsel.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I think it comes back to the basis that “entity”, as it's written now in the interpretation and the way it appears currently in the bill.... If we don't touch it here, we can't touch it in the interpretation. So we have to change or tighten up the wording around the term so that we can go back and work on the interpretation. That is my understanding.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

So we could change part and then embellish in the definition?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Yes, exactly.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Then maybe we have to throw out the amendment or amend the amendment further so that we can then define it.

We're running out of time anyway. Maybe we can pursue this—

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Let's complete this clause.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Calkins has the floor.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

How much time is left for the Conservatives?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

You have three minutes and fifteen seconds.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Okay. I won't use all that.

I just want to say thank you to Francis for trying to put this amendment forward.

Could you read it again? I think he said three words that were added.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

They are “registered Canadian-controlled”.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Okay. I'm not sure that's the right thing, but I think it's a step in the right direction.

So thank you, Francis, for putting it forward.

Unfortunately, this goes back to what I said. I tried to reason with colleagues on the committee that because the legislative process we follow here—and Linda, you're quite right—goes clause by clause, we don't understand until clause 12 that we should have added something in the definitions clause, and there's no mechanism to go back to it.

So this exercise is actually quite useful, in the sense that if this bill doesn't pass...and I don't believe it should, because it's going to look like a Frankenbill. That's unfortunate, but it is what the process makes happen.

What I would recommend is that we should go through this. We've had the debate. It's helpful and useful to have these debates. Ideally what I would like to see is the definition of an entity done in the first part of the bill, in the definitions clause, so that it would apply equally to all the clauses and we could simply refer to it equitably throughout the bill. I just don't see a mechanism whereby we can do that, which is why my original recommendation, in my original motion, was to just set this bill aside completely, take into consideration the testimony that came from everybody, and rewrite it so that we can come back.

It's so hard to start with a bill that's poorly crafted and get something useful out of it at the end—because of the process, not because of anybody's intentions here at the committee; not because of any good or ill will, or any objective. It's really frustrating.

Mr. Chair, I'm not going to use up any more time. I'm just trying to remind colleagues that had we gone back, and if somebody else were to have brought forward this bill after the testimony.... But my sincere hope is that this bill, because it's going to be a hodgepodge at the end, is going to be deferred or dismissed or set aside.

Then, Linda, if one of your colleagues or anybody who feels inclined to bring back a private member's bill to deal with this particular issue takes into consideration all of the testimony that we've heard here....

Unfortunately, this is all in camera, which is going to be very difficult to--

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

No, it's all in public.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Are we in public? Oh, that's even better. I thought we were in camera. I stayed up late last night

So that information will at least be helpful if we get an opportunity for a do-over.

With that, Mr. Chair, I don't want to use up any more time. I see we're already past. I would hope that we just get to the question on the amendment.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I'll hear Ms. Duncan on a point of order.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I apologize that I had forgotten: we have already defined “entity”. This issue is already resolved.

If people return to the definition of entity, if they can see anything there that allows for a foreign corporation that is not registered to carry on business in Canada, or has an office in Canada....

We had better make sure that we're not putting through an amendment that's not already—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

That's not a point of order, but I was going to draw to everyone's attention that the definition actually does say that it's registered in Canada.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

I think we're going to support him on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I have on the list Mr. Scarpaleggia and then Ms.—

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

That's a good point that Ms. Duncan brought up, but the point I'm trying to get across is that I think, based on other situations, it's possible to have an office in Canada and be duly incorporated in Canada but still be foreign-controlled. There might be some situations....

For example, in the Broadcasting Act, it's not enough to be incorporated. There are rules about how much of the voting shares there are, or what have you.

I'm not trying to be redundant. I'm just trying to cover ourselves off; to say that it's not just a matter of having an office somewhere in Canada; that you really have to be a Canadian-controlled entity.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

It says “authorized to carry on business in Canada”.

[An hon. member]

—“or that has an office or”—