Evidence of meeting #47 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Okay. I leave it to Mr. Scarpaleggia to see if he'd be amenable to that.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Yes, I would, indeed. So I don't know how we proceed.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
We have a subamendment right now, and we have to deal with that. We can't deal with another subamendment to a subamendment. So we'd have to deal with this subamendment—
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
We'll vote for it, subject to changing it more, or whatever. Let's just vote for that wording.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
The wording that we have there right now? Okay.
So we're dealing with the subamendment that has been circulated. Everybody is getting the words in front of them now.
I'm looking for any other comments; I'm seeing none. Are we ready for the question on the subamendment?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
It's always recorded at this time and date.
(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're back to the amended amendment.
Mr. Woodworth.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
First of all, I want to thank the analyst for giving us the examples she's put before us today.
I'm surprised at the use of the word “inconsistency”, but there it is, and it certainly does seem to create a precedent. I'm not entirely unhappy to see it removed at this stage. However, I'm also struck by the clarity of the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, subsection 28.01(2), which seems to be the clearest way that I can see on the page the analyst has given us of protecting people against double indemnity, if I can put it that way. The difficulty is that this clause is so complex. I keep returning to the thought that you can't really get to the root of some of these problems by way of the amendments we're seeing, so I'm still not comfortable with subclause (2) as amended, which is proposed in LIB-1.
Thank you.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I just want clarification. At what point do I propose my additional subamendment?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
If you want another subamendment, you do it now, before we vote on it, because if we run out of people to talk about it, we're calling the vote on the amended amendment.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Okay.
Having heard from the Library of Parliament, and given these precedents, I would like to table the amendment that the words...where is it in the bill? Oh, it's in the amendment, so I can't find the line. But the words—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
You have to be dealing with subclause (2), the amendment to LIB-1, that's been amended.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
All right. Okay.
So in line 5 it would replace it with “Act and the Marine Liability Act,”. I would appreciate feedback on the—
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
--“provisions of international convention in force in law” and replacing that with “the Marine Liability Act”. As I understand, that's the way it's been referenced in other Canadian law, to be specific.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
You can't replace the word “law” because the committee has already taken a position on the word “law”.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
The word “law” is in; we can't change it. However, you can remove from “Act” to “international”.
We might have a grammatical.... And if that's the case, then we're back to....
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
How about if I said “between the provisions of this Act and the provisions of any other federal law, including the Marine Liability Act”?
No, that's too broad. I don't know. I'm trying to resolve Mr. Scarpaleggia's--