Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Looking at the addition of subclause 13(5), it reads:
Upon conclusion of the review and with the approval of the Commissioner, the Minister shall communicate the results of the review in writing to the party making the request.
Upon first glance it does appear that this seems to be a nice clause at the end of this section of the bill, which does bring some closure and brings things back--and of course it's always nice to communicate with people after they've made a request. Notwithstanding that, the same argument I used in my first address still stands here, insofar as this section doesn't do anything that isn't already available to Canadians.
I just wonder, and maybe my colleague can elaborate or explain to me, the way I read “Upon conclusion of the review and with the approval of the Commissioner”, is that simply a closure from the commissioner to make sure that the Commissioner of the Environment has fully dealt with the particular issue? Because in my understanding, I don't know of any other part or section--and maybe others can help me--or any other laws that we have in this country in which parliamentarians are held in abeyance because somebody from the Auditor General's office says we can or cannot do something. Normally, the Auditor General's office goes in after decisions are made and audits whether or not those decisions were acted upon fully. In no other place do I see members of Parliament, ministers of the crown, or any other of our agencies actually waiting for permission from the Auditor General's office or the Commissioner of the Environment's office--one and the same--to do or act on anything.
Is this supposed to be a matter of courtesy, to wait for closure from the commissioner's office, or is this actually empowering the commissioner's office far beyond the scope of what I think the commissioner's office should have?