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.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I think we've had enough discussion on amendment NDP-3, and the positions are clear.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we have the first Conservative amendment, amendment CPC-1.
Go ahead, Mr. Fast.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Well, it's as written.
Just to correct Ms. Duncan, this is not an effort to restrict the ability to collect reasonable expenses; it is simply making it clear that this particular council is not a paid council. It is compensated for its reasonable expenses.
I distinguish advisory councils from boards. As you know, there are other pieces of legislation that have come or are coming through the House that provide for compensation to be paid to duly established boards that have specific functions set out.
This council is advisory to the minister. Our amendment is simply clarifying that they are fully entitled to be compensated for all their reasonable out-of-pocket expenses for lodging, travel, and food. We totally get that, but beyond that, this is advisory to the minister and it should not be compensated.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
We support this amendment. We would like to make a couple of comments, though. We don't know that it's necessary to include that it is subject to the Treasury Board guidelines. We would prefer language more in line with “in the course of their duties under this act”. This language is more consistent with other acts that are out there.
We are okay with it, but we would propose, if possible, to change the language so that it is more in line with what is representative in other acts.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Let's get the language clear, because that's a subamendment to the amendment.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
I'd like to know if...only if they are agreeable. I don't want to push it. It's not a hill I'm going to die on, but it is something that I thought I would put out there.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I appreciate Mr. Bossio's point. The reason we've done it this way is that somebody has to define what is reasonable; someone has to sketch out or scope out what reasonable expenses are. That's the function of the Treasury Board. The Treasury Board applies its directives across government, so those directives would be consistent. That is why we have referenced the Treasury Board there.
9:25 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Can I ask a question, just in case somebody knows the answer?
Does anybody know if COSEWIC receives a per diem, in addition to paying its expenses?
9:25 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I am not particularly opposed to what he is saying, because I think the part about reasonable expenses makes sense. What troubles me is this, and I've dealt with this for more than 45 years. When you have boards advising the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Natural Resources, and so forth, it is just understood that business advisory bodies receive a per diem. Why would the ones that indigenous people or environmentalists sit on be treated differently?
This is a pretty important advisory group. It really troubles me that we would think.... These are people who aren't going to have the resources to do the work. If you are going to provide constructive advice, you have to spend some time on it. What we are saying is that they should do it on their own time and money.
On a point of principle, I am very troubled with taking away any opportunity for a fair per diem. I just wanted to put that on the record. I don't think it's appropriate. These are the very people who probably don't have the resources to be doing that constructive work to give her good advice.
I'm fine with reasonable expenses, but it troubles me that we are taking out any possibility of a per diem. I think the Treasury Board does set reasonable per diems, as well.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Okay.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Are we finished with clause 5? Does anyone have anything else they want to bring forward? If we approve it, we can't get it back.
Shall clause 5 carry, as amended?
It carries—oh, is it on division?
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
9:30 a.m.
Conservative