Evidence of meeting #90 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 regulations.
A recording is available from Parliament.
8:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Does it need to be changed? Go ahead. She's asking you a question on drafting.
8:55 a.m.
Olivier Champagne Procedural Clerk, Journals Branch, House of Commons
It's just one committee in either House of Parliament.
8:55 a.m.
Procedural Clerk, Journals Branch, House of Commons
It's not recommended language in legislation to have “and/or” because it can be confusing. You would say “or” and then “or both”.
8:55 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Can we add “or both” to that sentence?
I want to protect the fact that our committee will have a right to review it if it's referred to a committee in the Senate.
8:55 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
It's “any committee of the Senate, or the House of Commons, or both”.
Can we add in the words “or both”?
9 a.m.
Liberal
9 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
We're going to resume.
Thank you for the pause. It gave us a chance for a bit of discussion at this end.
I'm going to give it back to the legislative clerk to explain.
9 a.m.
Procedural Clerk, Journals Branch, House of Commons
The clause we are looking at is pretty standard. We see it in many bills. When there's a review of an act that is called for by a House of Commons or Senate committee, there can only be one report, and if the clause already provides that if we wish both the House and the Senate to take part in this, they can then set up a joint committee.
In English, at line 35, when it says, “or of both Houses of Parliament,” it relates to a joint committee. If you look at the French, they say “un comité mixte”, so that's what it means. There's no need to have this idea of two different committees, one House committee and one Senate committee, doing the review, because on the other page you see that the report needs to be tabled, and you could have contradictory recommendations emanating from these two reports. I don't think that's the wish here in this bill. This would be fairly uncommon, but the committee is master of its business.
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
9:05 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I'm even more concerned now. Has this committee ever had a joint review with a Senate committee? Do we anticipate that in five years we will review the sustainable development act with the Senate?
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
That's not what he's saying. It leaves the option open.
9:05 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
What he is saying is, it's one or the other or a joint committee. If the Senate decides to review it, we cannot review it.
December 12th, 2017 / 9:05 a.m.
Liberal
9:05 a.m.
NDP
9:05 a.m.
Procedural Clerk, Journals Branch, House of Commons
Normally, what will trigger the review is the government, basically, through the government House leader or the leader of the government in the Senate. There will be a motion for the committee to be designated for the review of the act. That's the way it works.
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I'm just going to give Mr. Gerretsen a chance. I just wanted to say, this is standard language, so I don't want to go back and start changing all the language that's standard in bills.
Go ahead, Mr. Gerretsen.
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
I was just going to say that at any time, any committee can choose to review a piece of legislation if they want to. This wouldn't prevent every committee at the same time from reviewing it, if they chose to do that. This is just establishing the timeline and the requirement.
I think we already voted on this, Madam Chair, but if we haven't, or if Ms. Duncan wants to put forward a motion to change it, I suggest we do that and we move on because we've been on this for a good 15 minutes, including the break.
9:05 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
We can go ahead and vote. He's just clarified my concern, that's all.
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
We were in the middle of a vote, and you asked for clarification. I gave you that opportunity.
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 9 as amended agreed to)
Mr. Bossio mentioned there was something he wanted to do.
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Madam Chair, in making that change to proposed section 10.1, and now this change to clause 9, two other clauses are impacted where, for consistency's sake, we should change from “environment” to “sustainable development”.
I ask that Bill C-57, in clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 29 and 30 on page 3 with the following:
House that normally considers matters relating to sustainable development.
Also, there's clause 7 on page 5. I'd like to propose these amendments, if it is the will of the committee, if we can get unanimous consent from the committee.
I ask that Bill C-57, in clause 7 be amended by replacing line 13 on page 5 with the following:
mally considers matters relating to sustainable development.
Once again, this is to create consistency throughout the bill.
I apologize that we didn't catch these sooner, but we do want to try to change everything so it does say “sustainable development” rather than “environment”.
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
