Next is CPC-18.
Evidence of meeting #102 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #102 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Madam Chair, this adds further to the registry. Currently, in the orders made by the minister, by him or her, under sections 34.3 and 37, this would add that the responses be in the registry as well.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Madam Chair, if I may point out something I just picked up on, the government members had been proposing amendments in a couple of different places throughout the bill where they were removing gender terminology. In proposed paragraph 42.3(1)(c), at the bottom of page 33, they're referring to “him or her”. I'm wondering if the government members would want to insert “the Minister”.
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
It's the language of the bill. I noticed that previous amendments had addressed this discrepancy, and I'm wondering why it hasn't been addressed here.
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bernadette Jordan
Does the government have an amendment to make the language gender neutral to “Minister”?
Mr. Hardie.
10:12 a.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Madam Chair, could we have the officials just confirm that this change will be compatible with the earlier change that was made in amendment LIB-5?
It would be? Okay.
It still amounts to the same.
10:12 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bernadette Jordan
It would then say “That Bill C-68 be amended, on page 33, line 31, by replacing the words 'him or her' by 'the Minister'”. That's (a). For (b), “on page 33, line 32, by replacing the words 'him or her' by 'the Minister'.” Is there any further discussion on those amendments?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I believe we go back to amendment CPC-19.
10:12 a.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Madam Chair, I move this amendment that “letter of advice” be included in the registry for documentation.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
10:12 a.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Madam Chair, this refers to the contents of the registry, and it adds a proposed paragraph 42.3(1)(d.1), regarding “any letter of advice provided under section 35.01;” to allow for greater transparency.
(Amendment negatived)
10:12 a.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Madam Chair, again, with regard to the contents of the registry, it adds a proposed new paragraph:
(e.1) any regulations made under this Act; and
That includes the word “and”, and this allows for greater transparency.
(Amendment negatived)
10:15 a.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Madam Chair, once again, on the contents of the registry, it adds a proposed paragraph:
(g) any statistical summaries of convictions for offences respecting fish and fish habitat protection and pollution prevention.
Again, this is focused on greater transparency.
(Amendment negatived)
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bernadette Jordan
We are on amendment PV-13. If PV-13 is adopted, NDP-24 becomes moot, as they are identical. Also, if PV-13 is defeated, so is NDP-24, as they are identical.
Ms. May.
10:15 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Chair, this is a deletion with the purpose of dealing with what some witnesses pointed out was sort of odd, that some disclosure of documents is mandatory, and then there's a different category of “optional”. By deleting lines 8 to 19 on page 34, the effect would be to ensure that the disclosure is mandatory. I'll just quote briefly from West Coast Environmental Law's brief:
The rationale for making publication of some records mandatory, s. 42.3(1), and some records optional, s. 42.3(2), is unclear, and the public interest would best be served by mandatory disclosure of all records relevant to the administration and enforcement of the Act and impacts of works, undertakings and activities on fish and fish habitat.
At that point they went on to recommend the deletions that are found in PV-13.
Thank you.
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
To staff, would there be provisions for the public to ask for records that weren't necessarily released by the minister?
10:15 a.m.
Director General, Ecosystems Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
The public always has the opportunity to request information through access to information. The intent of the public registry with the obligatory elements is to provide as much information as possible. The voluntary or the optional ones are those for which we don't have necessarily all this information or when it's information that's already publicly available through the annual report to the Parliament.