Evidence of meeting #46 for Natural Resources in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was tribunal.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Actually, I should have properly been calling for NDP-21.
Shall NDP-21 carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 3)
(On clause 48--Report on the activities of the Tribunal)
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We go now to NDP-22. Is there any discussion on NDP-22?
Go ahead, Mr. Cullen.
5 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
All NDP-22 does is amend clause 48 by adding into the earlier part the words, “The tribunal shall submit to the minister a report on its”.
As we read it, what it's trying to do is make mandatory the disclosure of all the accounts and spending of the tribunal. The need for this is just to press the issue, if you will, of the accountability of the tribunal in terms of its spending and also of the activities of the tribunal writ large. It removes any possibility of this information just simply not getting out because a minister chooses not to divulge it, because when this clause goes in, it's not up to ministerial discretion as to whether that's made public. It's simply a transparency amendment to the clause.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Chair, I have a clarification question. Maybe Mr. Cullen can clarify it. It doesn't really say when. It just says the minister will report. Is that at the conclusion? Is it every year? When is it? It's hard to put that in. I'd like some clarification.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Chair, the rest of the clause remains the same. At the end of the clause, it says:
each House of Parliament on any of the first 15 days on which that House is sitting after the Minister receives it
We're not changing the timing or the speed of the reporting. Those stay the same. The only amendment in clause 48 is to give more direction to the tribunal to report to the minister so that the report can be made public.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
But it says nothing about when it should be reported to the minister. That is the point I think he's making.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Neither does clause 48. It doesn't specify. You can't, in the clause--
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Well, actually it would be. It would be because the minister requested it. When the minister requests it, it has to be provided.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Under this amendment, the occasion on which to report is not clear to me. What is it that causes the report to be done? The only thing that causes it to be done in the existing clause would be the minister's request for it, so I don't see how this would work.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I understand that. An amendment to this would simply say it would be semi-annual. Every six months would satisfy the ability to have public accounts, and the minister would then have to report that account.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Will the committee agree to Mr. Cullen's amendment to his amendment?
The answer is no.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Does it require unanimous consent to amend my own amendment? I don't think that's true. I think when it's in my hands as a mover of an amendment....
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
I don't believe it's possible, actually. I'm just trying to be friendly and allow this to move along.
Anyway, shall NDP-22 carry?
(Amendment negatived on division)
(Clause 48 agreed to on division)
(On clause 66--General)
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We come now to amendment NDP-23. Is there any discussion on that?
Go ahead, Mr. Cullen.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I believe, Chair, this was connected to NDP-16, and since you ruled NDP-16 out of order, NDP-23 becomes irrelevant.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
On amendment BQ-1, Madame Brunelle, would you like to move that motion? If so, you can just speak to it.
5:05 p.m.
Bloc
Paule Brunelle Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
We consider the issue of nuclear liability to be very important. Since the bill gives the government a lot of flexibility in terms of regulations, we think it is preferable, as with other bills of similar importance, that the House and the committee consider the regulations. To our mind, that would be beneficial on a number of levels, including strengthening public confidence, since the process would be open. In the end, what matters is that the regulations go before the House and the committee. That is why we are moving this amendment, to improve transparency.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I do not see why we would give the governor in council the power, in a bill, to make regulations, if we insist that each regulation go before the House and the committee. That is like having another bill. In my view, this is a way of indicating in the clause of a bill that the governor in council would have that power. If the regulation still goes back to the House, it makes no sense, in my opinion.