Evidence of meeting #89 for Natural Resources in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was material.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
10:10 a.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
Thank you, T.J., I appreciate that—the new chair.
Thank you, Chair.
We're still having discussions regarding safety. We think that is something that needs to be in there. At this point, we're quite adamant that it be included in that amendment, which we're just working on now. We're trying to say that if it is already in there, it shouldn't be a problem that it be in this amendment. It just reinforces the need to keep our firefighters safe, to keep the residents safe, to keep the construction workers safe.
I don't see how ensuring that safety is a very strong consideration would be an impediment to making this bill stronger.
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL
I guess in order for us to have time to consult with legislative counsel on how those two proposed changes would work....
The first one, proposed by Mr. Falk, would be to delete the words “staying—including a”, and then add a comma after “resource”, or maybe not add a comma after “resource”, depending on what legislative counsel tells us; and then where could be an appropriate place to add words something like, “shall also consider safety impacts of wood or any such other thing or material”, or whatever is the appropriate way to draft those two changes.
I think Tuesday is open in the schedule, so we can come back on Tuesday to discuss this. From my personal perspective, I sort of agree with Mr. Falk about the drafting style in that third-last line and the change, but I'd like to hear the rationale from legislative counsel on that.
In terms of the other one, we did hear a lot of stuff about safety. My own view is that paragraph 7(1)(c) of the act already includes the necessary fettering of the minister's discretion around safety. The standards and specifications, as we heard from the testimony, include things like the national building code, which impacts safety. I'm confident that the minister's discretion is already so fettered with respect to safety and that, if we read section 7 as a whole, we're fine.
But I'm also prepared to meet on Tuesday so that we get the answers. I want the legislation to be as good as it can be.
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
Yes, I think we're agreeable to revisiting the discussion.
There's one thing I would say in response. If the contention is that the way the legislation as drafted originally already includes these aspects that we would like to include in your amendment, that section doesn't include safety, though, as we just read. It doesn't make an explicit recommendation. But if your argument is that given the original legislation, this concept as well as the others we would like explicitly noted are already dealt with in the original legislation, then I think it follows to make the argument that the consideration of wood as a building product in itself is already embedded and under the discretion and the consideration of the original legislation, which calls into question what exactly we're doing with this legislation at all.
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL
No, it's the greenhouse gas portion. Its benefits as a GHG-reducing material is what we determined to be the new element.
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
Mary Ng Liberal Markham—Thornhill, ON
I have one last point on that.
I'm also mindful of having an amendment read together with the rest of the legislation. There's already a fettered check on the minister in terms of consideration for things like specifications in building codes, etc. I think we should look at it, for sure, but I certainly don't want to add more red tape into a piece of legislation. I think we should get the answers, because I think from a practical application, that's what happens.
But we should totally look at it. We hear you.
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
10:15 a.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
We'll adjourn until Tuesday. In the meantime, we'll work on some mutually agreeable language.
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
TJ Harvey Liberal Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
So we'll have a meeting, you guys can have a meeting, and then we'll come back and we can have another meeting. How does that sound?
10:15 a.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
10:15 a.m.
An hon. member
Have your people talk to our people.
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
TJ Harvey Liberal Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
I liked the old way of doing things, when we just hashed it out and it was done with.
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Unless there's anything else, I'll adjourn the meeting.
I will see you Tuesday.