Evidence of meeting #35 for Natural Resources in the 41st Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was proposed.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Chair, through you, I'm not questioning what the intent is. I'm questioning the drafting.
I just don't understand how you draft a clause like that. Does it not make sense instead for it to be proposed subclause 138.01(2.1) and then you would say this? Otherwise, I don't really.... It's not usually the way you draft a provision, to just add on a sentence after the criteria.
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
I'll ask my Justice colleagues to answer that one.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I worked as a legislative counsel so I looked at these things.
Jean François Roman Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Natural Resources
This is a drafting technique that we used. In the French version, after the words “activité concrète”, we indicated, between dashes, what the concept of “activité concrète” includes, that is to say, the specific activities that are incidental to the main “activité concrète”. It is the equivalent of a definition of “activité concrète”.
In the same way, in the English version, simply indicating before the four criteria listed that—
physical activity includes a physical activity that is incidental. There are different techniques to provide this definition, and this is the one that was adopted in the drafting room to simply keep...instead of having a reference that will be somewhere else and would be more difficult to access.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Through you, Mr. Chair, I don't want to belabour it. I agree with the way it's done in French, but in English it seems nonsensical. We should take out the “It”, and simply say “including any physical activity”, which would be the same as the French.
In the French version it simply carries on from the “physical activity in question is a physical activity that” blah, blah, blah.
I'm sorry. I have to vote against it because it doesn't make any sense. I'm trying to offer redrafting suggestions, but I'll let it go. I'm trying a friendly amendment. I could propose a friendly amendment.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I had suggested that you simply make it subclause (2.1), and that would be “it includes any physical activity” and so forth.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
You have heard the proposal.
First of all, maybe we could have commentary from the officials on that.
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
I think you're proposing that we mirror the French perhaps in the English opening. Is that what the proposal is?
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
It's a stand-alone provision, but the way you have drafted it is it's just something out there and it's not connected really to anything.
You may want to revisit it, and bring it forward when it comes for third reading. My suggestion is that you simply make that provision a subclause (2.1).
We could come back to it maybe, and let them think about it.
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
Perhaps while—
Conservative
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
—committee continues, we can do some caucusing here among our Justice colleagues and perhaps reference CEAA 2012 to make sure there's a consistency.
The aim here is to be consistent with CEAA 2012 and what's being provided for in the future for the board, so perhaps we could do so. Perhaps we could return to it, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
Just for clarification, would not adding this clause that it includes any physical activity that is incidental to the physical activity described in paragraphs (a) to (d) not take on item (e) in the sense of the drafting? Do we need to explicitly state that?
I think Linda's question is this. Is this sentence actually added on to the end of the paragraph itemized (d), or is it proposing a new paragraph, item (e), which would make more sense to me, which would be implied in the legislative process? Or is it a sentence that's actually hung at the end that belongs in the preamble or the start of proposed subsection (2), which I believe would also make the same amount of sense if we were to re-word it in the definition of what a physical activity includes, because it's trying to define the physical activity as any physical activity that's incidental as well to those physical activities outlined in items (a) through (d).
By putting (e) on it, I think actually captures the spirit or intent. Would it not?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Labonté, do you want to respond to that? If it would be helpful, I could ask the committee if you would like to stand this clause until later, and we could come back to it, or do you feel satisfied you're ready to respond right now?
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
There are two things. I appreciate the attempt to clarify. Adding an (e) would actually make it separate so it's not what would be intended.
We just referenced CEAA 2012, and this actually mirrors CEAA 2012, so the language in the bill here is identical to what's in CEAA 2012 in this descriptive area.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Let's go then to the vote on amendment G-1.
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 51 as amended agreed to on division)
(Clauses 52 to 86 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 87)
We have a government amendment, G-2.
Ms. Block, go ahead, please.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'll be brief.
As you can see, this is the same amendment. The rationale is that this is the same as the previous motion in a different section.