Evidence of meeting #89 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was right.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
We support the amendment. Whenever there are very clear, measurable targets established and clear time frames, as long as those time frames are reasonable, I think it's good for government and it's good for those who are holding government accountable.
9:30 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I'm still trying to figure out what they're doing in that first part. You're taking out subsections 9(1) and 9(2)?
9:30 a.m.
Legislative Clerk, House of Commons
This is just to add new subclause 6(1) here, because—
9:30 a.m.
Legislative Clerk, House of Commons
Part (a) of LIB-2 is just adding that new subclause 6(1) to clause 6 that's being amended.
9:30 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
As it reads, it says that subsections 9(1) and (2) of the act, “Preparation” and “Content” are to be removed, right? They're replacing line 22—
9:30 a.m.
Legislative Clerk, House of Commons
Right now, there is no subclause in clause 6 of the bill. Because the amendment is adding new subclause 6(2), they need to add this new subclause 6(1) to the first part of clause 6 to make the numbering correct. The substance of the amendment is under (b), while (a) is a formality.
9:35 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Then essentially, their amendment is exactly the same as mine.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
It's not exactly the same. What I wanted to offer is that you have some more things in yours that you might want to do in a subamendment, which I'm open to right now. In yours, NDP-5, there are some things that are not in here. If you want to do a subamendment, now's the time to do it.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
She can. It's a bit complicated, because she did something that is a little into what we've done. If we do ours, she will not get to do hers, so I want to see if she wants to do a subamendment at this point.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
We're talking about hers. We're seeing if she wants to put some of hers into this.
9:35 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
There are two differences in the drafting that I propose, which is based on what witnesses had suggested.
The one that the Liberals put forward talks about measurable targets. It talks about—
9:35 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
—a timeline. It specifies a timeline, which was always there.
I've added in the (b) and (c). These are what some of the legal experts recommended to the committee, and the committee then recommended those three things to the minister.
Having heard from the commissioner again, she was very clear that what she's troubled by is that there need to be more specifics of what has to be done in these strategies—both the overall one and the individual departments and entities—in order to evaluate, and also for the officials to evaluate, that there is compliance with the act and they can sign off.
The (b) and (c) that I added follow from what was called for by people who testified at the committee earlier, when I wasn't a member of it, and what the commissioner and others have called for. Part (b) speaks to whether the strategies are likely to achieve the targets. In other words, have they been written in a way...are they reasonable and have the principles been considered?
She clearly asked for that to provide better guidance, in a way, because I think she's being very kind in saying that maybe they just don't understand what the act says or that some come up with strategies, but they're not really telling how they meet the principles and whether they adequately meet the targets. That had been recommended, and we had recommended that it be in the bill.
Clearly the Liberal amendment speaks to measurables and time frame, and I have that in (a), so I have no problem with that whatsoever. I just thought that breaking it down that way is a little easier.
It's up to the other members, if they still stand by what they recommended to the minister when they did the committee review. I haven't varied from that at all. That was what the committee had recommended.
