Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Duncan, for moving your amendment.
We heard a bit of testimony. Unfortunately, we're going back quite some time now, so I don't remember it all. But going through the bill right now, subclause 13(1) reads:
Any resident of Canada or entity that believes that an existing policy or an Act of Parliament or a regulation made under an Act...may apply to the Commissioner for a review by the Minister responsible
The whole problem--and I think this is why Ms. Duncan is moving this amendment--is that the application was made to the commissioner, but in subclause 13(2) the actual response is made by the minister. I guess this is simply a technicality of bumping from the commissioner's office to the minister's office so that the minister can then fulfill his duties under subclause 13(2). Is that correct?
I believe we heard several testimonies from witnesses and from Ms. Duncan basically saying that this is to make it consistent with what's already in the Auditor General Act for the Commissioner of the Environment to do, which is what was said in the testimony we heard, that this section of the act actually doesn't do anything new. It doesn't allow Canadians any more abilities than they have. It does lay it out maybe a little more specifically, but it doesn't add any new rights for Canadian citizens to engage in the democratic process, which they already have through the petition process under the Auditor General Act.
So I appreciate what Ms. Duncan is trying to do to clean up her own bill, and I guess if this clause is going to pass, the addition of that subclause would seem to make sense. But because the entirety of the bill doesn't seem to make any sense, I'm going to have a hard time supporting it, Mr. Chair.