Natural Resources Committee on March 22nd, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Do you have the existing legislation?

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

If you look it up on your tablet, it's Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, and it's section 7.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Go ahead, Mr. Falk.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In your motion, the third line from the end, you have “thing—including”. Could you explain to me why you need to have the words “thing—including” and why you wouldn't just go from “other” straight to “material”?

The word “thing” makes it look hokey, unless there's a reason for it. But if you would jump straight, saying “other material, product or...”.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

I agree with getting rid of the dashes. I think it actually makes the “ing” in “including” an exclusive inclusion; it's a weird drafting style.

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

We got advice from the legislative counsel in putting this together. The reason it's in there is that, according to the lawyers who put this together, it is the appropriate language. That's my best answer.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

There was a lot of back and forth.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I just think it would read better.

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

It really is the legislative counsel putting it...and to give it the flexibility and to keep it broad. I think that's the intention. In legal drafting language, where they go back and forth with legislative counsel, that was the advice and it was acceptable from a drafting standpoint to give us that flexibility.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I just think it would read better if it would say “...benefits and may allow the use of wood or any other material, product, or sustainable resource...”.

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Rather than the word “thing”.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Well, “thing—” is really not necessary.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

What part are you reading from?

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

It's 7(1) (a) to (d). It's the exercise of powers.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I think we're just waiting for them to have a look at that, to see whether it's necessary—

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

They are not even considering my common-sense approach, are they?

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

I remind everybody that we're not in camera.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

That's fine. I'd love to be quoted as saying there's no common sense on that side of the table.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

You were looking at your side of the table when you said that, for the record.

[TJ Harvey, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Just for the record, I really don't have any problem with anybody knowing that I was sending a text message, either.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. Schmale.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[TJ Harvey, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Schmale was first.