Environment Committee on Feb. 10th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I'll just offer this as a suggestion to make it so that it's grammatically correct. I'm not allowed to accept any amendment that is “out of order if it is moved at the wrong place in the bill, if it is tendered in a spirit of mockery, or if it is vague or trifling”. Rendering the clause to be unintelligible or ungrammatical is also out of order. That's all on page 768, in chapter 16.

What you could do is after the word “and”, insert “the Marine Liability Act”, and then go on to “the provisions of any international law”. Is that correct?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Actually, I don't want to say that. That's the problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

That's not what you were trying to do.

So then I would suggest, if you want to change this wording again, it would have to happen in the House at report stage, and you can move an amendment at that point in time.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I will leave it as it is. I'll leave it to Mr. Scarpaleggia. I guess I won't proceed with tabling an amendment because it doesn't appear to be possible with the way it's drafted.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay.

Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

I have a question about the validity. I think I understand what Ms. Duncan is trying to do. I don't know why she's not able to do it just because we've already voted on something. We voted on this bill in the House of Commons to send it here and yet we're able to change it. I don't know why we can't amend something that's already been amended.

If you could clarify why it would be out of order for her to replace the words “and the provisions of any international law”, simply because we just voted on it.... Could you point out why it would be out of order to do that? I think Linda should have the opportunity to amend her own bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Anything's possible by unanimous consent. The rules are, however, that once you've taken a decision on the wording, which you already had, you can't amend something that's already been agreed to by committee. So the word “law” has already been agreed to, in replacing that from “convention”.

However, if you wish, by unanimous consent, to allow Ms. Duncan to move her other amendment, I would be more than happy to entertain it.

Do I have unanimous consent?

I see heads nodding; I don't see any nays.

Ms. Duncan, you have the floor. You can do it as you see fit.

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

She's powerful.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Everybody's happy again and getting along so nicely.

Would you tell us exactly the wording, then?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I think it would then start at “Act”, and we replace it with “Act and the Marine Liability Act”. We're taking out “the provision of the convention”.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay.

So you're removing the words from “the” to “Canada” and replacing them with “the Marine Liability Act”.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I have to replace the whole thing because it refers to “convention” again. So we didn't amend it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We'd have to take out right to the end. So we're taking out after “and” right to the end--

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

At the end of “prevail”.

So we take out “the provisions of any international law in force in Canada, the provision of the convention will prevail”, and replace that with “and the Marine Liability Act”.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

So read it the way it's going to read, then, between “the provisions of this Act and the Marine Liability Act” to “the extent of the conflict”.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

It reads: “In the event of any conflict between the provisions of this Act and the Marine Liability Act, the provisions of the Marine Liability”--or do you say “the latter”? I don't know if you can say “the latter will prevail” in proper legislative drafting. I don't know.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

So “convention” becomes “Marine Liability Act”, and the words from “the provisions” down to “Canada” will become “Marine Liability Act” as well. We're putting “Marine Liability Act” in twice.

I'll just read it for clarification so everybody has it the way at least I understand it. It would read:

This Act is intended to ensure consistency with Canada's rights and obligations under international law. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of this Act and the Marine Liability Act, the provision of the Marine Liability Act will prevail to the context of the conflict.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Did you say “the provisions of the Marine Liability Act”?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Should it be “the extent of the Marine Liability Act”?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

No, it should just say “between the provisions of this Act and the provisions of the Marine Liability Act”.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We're not getting translation.

Let me make sure that we have the wording here.

“[A]ny international convention in force in Canada” becomes “the Marine Liability Act”. So we say “between the provisions of this Act, the provisions of the Marine Liability Act”....

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

It says “will prevail to the extent of the inconsistency”.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

It will say “the Marine Liability Act will prevail”.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

And then it says “to the extent of the inconsistency”.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We already took out “inconsistency”. We already changed that to “conflict” in the original subamendment.