Skip to main content
EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, November 2, 1995

.0916

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to our Committee.

We have Bill C-83 on the Agenda today. I wish to apologize to my colleagues, specially to my colleagues from the Opposition, to have interrupted yesterday's sitting due to technical problems which will force us to work until 6:30 p.m. in order to solve certain amendments.

Mrs. Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Chairman, could we have recorded votes, please?

The Chairman: Yes, of course.

[English]

I do apologize to my colleagues for the change in time of our meeting, which is due to the fact that certain technical items have to be discussed at length and longer than we thought yesterday afternoon.

The purpose of this meeting.... We have here witnesses who can be called upon for advice or collaboration. From the auditor general's office we have Mr. Dubois, the deputy, and Mr. Fadden, the legal adviser. From Environment Canada we have Ms Gotzaman.

We start with item c) of our agenda, which is motions. The motions the chair is asking that you consider are those that are intended to rescind certain clauses that were adopted at the last meeting: clauses that have to do with the changing of the definition of department; a clause that requires the elimination of principle in one clause so as to place it in another clause of the bill, as we were advised to do; and a motion that would also include the necessity of a new set of principles and regulations that have been modified and reinforced since our last meeting.

I ask, so we can start on the right track, for a motion to rescind clauses 2, 4, and 5, which will then get us under way in order to move new clauses. Could I have a motion to the effect that we rescind clauses 2, 4, and 5?

[Translation]

Mrs. Guay: I would like to table a sub-amendment to this clause. I will read it in French. I move that right after paragraph (c), where it says:

The Chairman: Would you mind putting that down in writing? Or perhaps you already have?

Mrs. Guay: Certainly; no problem.

[English]

We have a motion by Mr. Adams to rescind clauses 2, 4, and 5. Madame Guay has asked for a recorded vote. The clerk is getting his list ready.

.0920

Motion agreed to: yeas 5; nays 1

On clause 2

The Chairman: We have a new clause 2. This clause deals with a change in the definition of ``department''. Could I have a mover of that motion so we can briefly discuss it?

Mr. Steckle: I so move.

The Chairman: Does anyone wish the department officials to give a brief explanation of clause 2, the new one?

Ms Gotzaman, could you give us a brief explanation, please?

Ms Penny Gotzaman (Director General, Policy and Economics Directorate, Environment Canada): Yes, certainly.

This clause adds the three agencies on the schedule to the ``category I departments'', which will then be subject to the provisions of Bill C-83.

[Translation]

Mrs. Guay: Mr. Chairman, this clause refers to certain public agencies. They are not in fact departments. We are asking the Commissioner of the Environment to audit various public agencies. That is why I'm proposing to add the words ``or any division or branch of the Public Service of Canada''. Agencies are not departments.

[English]

The motion proposed by Madam Guay has the effect of modifying clause 2 so as to include all departments mentioned in the schedule.

Mr. Lincoln (Lachine - Lac-Saint-Louis): Mr. Chairman, could I ask for an explanation? I don't think the translation is -

The Chairman: Good enough.

Mr. Lincoln: - good enough.

The Chairman: Madame Guay.

Mr. Lincoln: I think what Madam Guay said in French was ``all sectors of public administration'', which is much broader than ``all departments''. ``All sectors of public administration'' is what I recall.

The Chairman: It's now a question of cost, Madame Guay, so I urge you to be very clear as to what you intend to achieve here.

[Translation]

Mrs. Guay: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I do not see it written anywhere here that agencies are included. Only departments are mentioned. I would therefore suggest adding ``or any division or branch of the Public Service of Canada''. At the end, certain agencies, as well as the Federal Office of Regional Development, are mentioned. We are asking for this addition in order to make the wording more descriptive. There is nothing complicated about it. It's quite simple, really.

[English]

The Chairman: The chair has some difficulties in deciding, first of all, whether to put the motion forward for discussion. I do not know whether this subamendment broadens the scope of this bill to such an extent that it could be out of order. I will seek the opinion of the officials from Environment Canada.

Ms Gotzaman: Perhaps I could help out. I think it's a question of definition. I believe ``department'' as used here would include the sort of thing you are thinking of.

The Chairman: The departments are included in the schedule.

.0925

Ms Gotzaman: I think the type of agencies Mrs. Guay was thinking about are captured by this clause, by definition.

The Chairman: Do you mean as defined in the amendment?

Ms Gotzaman: Yes, as defined in the amendment before you. It does capture the agencies you're thinking of.

[Translation]

Mrs. Guay: Mr. Chairman, perhaps we could ask our legislative counsel to comment on this. He is probably better able to give you a detailed explanation of what is involved.

The Chairman: Before we go any further, I believe you will need to give us a more precise idea of the scope of your sub-amendment.

Mrs. Guay: Well, I do not think I can be any more precise than that.

The Chairman: As was already mentioned, it states here that three agencies, in addition to the departments, will be covered by the legislation.

[English]

The Chairman: We need more precision, Mrs. Guay, because -

[Translation]

Mrs. Guay: Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate it if you would give our legislative counsel an opportunity to make some comments. He can give you the kind of detailed explanation you are seeking. We are not trying to trick you here. Please just give him a chance to explain it to you.

[English]

Ms Gotzaman.

Ms Gotzaman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My advice is that as far as the way departments are defined under the Financial Administration Act, the sort of agencies that Mrs. Guay is thinking about would be included.

The Chairman: Mrs. Guay, could you indicate which specific departments you have in mind? They may already be included.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis-Philippe Côté (Legislative Counsel, Legislative Counsel Office, House of Commons): Mr. Chairman, the Financial Administration Act defines the term ``department'' as including four different types of entities. First, the departments mentioned in schedule I to the legislation. It then refers to the divisions or branches of the Public Service of Canada listed in column I of schedule I.1 to the Financial Administration Act. That schedule I.1 lists the various agencies that are part of the federal Public Service.

So, while the term ``department'' can have an extremely broad meaning, I think it would be wiser to define those entities that will be covered by Bill C-83 by calling them by their actual name in other words, divisions or branches of the Public Service of Canada. It is dangerous to call them ``departments'' because they are not departments, and under the Financial Administration Act, they are considered to be divisions or branches of the Public Service of Canada, based on the definition that appears in that Act.

[English]

The Chairman: All right.

[Translation]

Mrs. Guay: I do not agree all that this sub-amendment is redundant, Mr. Chairman. It is an amendment that would simply allow us to use to be more precise when referring to agencies or divisions or branches of the federal Public Service.

I have tabled my sub-amendment. It is now up to you to decide whether or not you are prepared to accept it.

.0930

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Fadden.

Mr. Richard B. Fadden (Legal Adviser and Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Our understanding of the matter is that the Financial Administration Act defines ``department'' as encompassing the traditional departments of schedule I, the division or branches of the Public Service of Canada in schedule I, part 1. So from our perspective the entities in schedule I, part 1, though they are not called departments, are defined as departments in the definition section of the FAA. So unless I misunderstand Mrs. Guay's suggestion, I believe that everything in schedule I, part 1 is captured by the expression ``department''.

The Chairman: Yes, and I tend to agree with you.

Mrs. Guay, I think your subamendment is redundant. I cannot accept it.

[Translation]

Mrs. Guay: Could I suggest that our legal counsel provide one last clarification?

The Chairman: Certainly.

Mr. Côté: I would simply like to clarify something. Perhaps this is nothing more than semantics, but in the Auditor General Act or Bill C-83, a schedule I department is defined as being a department mentioned in schedule I to the Financial Administration Act. Schedule I lists the usual departments; thus the term ``department'' cannot be considered to cover all departments generally. In this case, it only refers to the departments mentioned in schedule I to the Financial Administration Act.

If we want to include agencies and offices - and I'm looking here at the list that appears in schedule I.1 to the Financial Administration Act - it would be preferable to refer to them using the usual expression. My understanding is that you want to use the term ``departments'' to cover any division or branch of the Public Service of Canada.

So, once again, I think it would be preferable to refer to them by the most usual and common expression: they are divisions or branches of the Public Service of Canada. I cannot see how the Canadian International Development Agency could be considered to be a department. It is an office that reports to a specific minister, but it is not a department in the conventional sense.

[English]

The Chairman: Well, unfortunately, I'm not in a position to put this subamendment forward for the reason I just gave you and in light of the explanation given by Mr. Fadden. Therefore, I will rule this subamendment out of order. I regret it.

Are there any further points on clause 2?

Mr. Fadden: If I may register a point, we understand and support the idea of adding a number of entities that are listed in schedule I.1, but we believe there are a number of other entities that should also be included.

Schedule I.1 is made up of a variety of entities, some of which are really departments by another name; some are parliamentary entities, some are regulatory agencies, and some are courts. We would like to register the point that from our perspective, we believe there's a certain logic to including in the schedule all those entities that are really departments by another name. I am thinking in particular of the correctional service and the RCMP, both of which might have considerable impact on the environment.

Having said that, I understand from our friends in the Department of the Environment that, while they're not opposed to this in principle, they've not had an opportunity to discuss it with the relevant agencies. But I was asked to simply register the auditor general's concern that these other fairly large and important agencies are not being brought under the rubric of the bill.

The Chairman: Could these other agencies be included in future by way of an Order in Council?

Mr. Fadden: Yes, sir.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are there any further points or questions? Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Chairman, I agree 100% with Mr. Fadden, and I think the desire of all members was to include as many as possible of the key organizations that are connected with the federal government and would be subject to sustainable development strategies.

What we hope to do now is to allow for permission in the bill so that the commissioner would be able to flag in his annual report those organizations that he deems should be included, so that the minister can make the appropriate recommendation to the Governor in Council for inclusion. I think that will take care of it.

The Chairman: Thank you. Are you ready for the question? Mrs. Guay.

[Translation]

Mr. Fadden: Mr. Chairman, I must apologize. I do believe I made a mistake earlier in commenting on Mrs. Guay's motion.

I was in fact thinking of the definition found in the Financial Administration Act. Here, however, we are indeed talking about the definition found in Bill C-83. That legislation provides quite a precise definition of the term ``department''. Here, we are in fact talking about Schedule I only. My apologies for making this mistake, but I do believe Mrs. Guay is right.

.0935

I think it would be advisable to add something here to include those agencies listed under schedule I.1. I was thinking of the wrong legislation - the Financial Administration Act, to be precise - when I made my earlier comments. In my view, the definition that is referred to here is, as our colleague has pointed out, the one that appears in Bill C-83.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Fadden, it is your practical experience that is needed here at this committee.

[Translation]

Mrs. Guay: I would be very happy to read it again, Mr. Chairman.

We are simply proposing that after the word ``any department'', we add the words ``or any division or branch of the Public Service of Canada''. That's it.

Mr. Fadden: That is how entities in schedule I.1 are defined. In English, it refers to: division or branch of the Public Service of Canada. That would allow us to add those entities referred to in the Schedule.

[English]

The Chairman: Are you suggesting that they be identified by name, one by one?

Mr. Fadden: No, sir.

The Chairman: What are you suggesting then?

Mr. Fadden: I don't remember Madame Guay's exact wording.

[Translation]

[English]

The Chairman: We'll have to then re-examine Madame Guay's subamendment. Can I have again the text of Madame Guay's subamendment?

Mr. Lincoln: I'm just totally confused right now. I would like a clarification. We had suggested an amendment in the first place that said:

We had said:

[Translation]

Mrs. Guay: I would just like to know whether a sub-committee meeting was held to review the amendments. We received no amendments last night.

The Chairman: No. There was a technical meeting with representatives of the Departments of Justice and the Environment.

[English]

We have been told that this was not possible to do and that we must delete it. Right now, we're told it was right in the first place to do it.

Does that mean then that we don't have to name CIDA or the RCMP specifically? That's what I would like to know. If we can put this in, which we'd much prefer to do, does that bring in all the various agencies of government. How far does it go?

The Chairman: That's a fair question. Who would like to answer it, please?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As you know, I can't give legal advice to the committee - you have your counsel here - but I thought I would perhaps draw a few points to your attention.

In the new paragraph (c), which refers to any department set out in the schedule, this refers back to the definition of ``department'' in the Auditor General Act. This is defined as any department defined in the Financial Administration Act. If you refer back to what your counsel said, this means those four categories of departments including schedule I.1.

One could refer more narrowly, as Madame Guay has suggested, to the words that have been used to describe schedule I.1 agencies. But if this committee, or Parliament through this committee, ever wanted to amend the schedule, then, by wording it more narrowly to apply to schedule I.1 only, one could argue you would be precluded from adding anything else that falls into one of the four categories of ``department'' under the Financial Administration Act. So this word ``department'' here refers back to a definition in the Auditor General Act that already existed before the amendments came into play here.

Mr. Lincoln: From what counsel for the Minister of Justice is saying, if we were to adopt the amendment proposed this morning - not Madame Guay's - we would have a greater option and flexibility afterward to add other organizations into the bill.

The Chairman: This is the purpose of Madame Guay's subamendment.

Mr. Lincoln: No, no, Mr. Chairman. You weren't listening to what the Justice counsel was saying. She was saying exactly the opposite. That's why it had been suggested that this new amendment be drafted: it gives us more flexibility going into the future.

.0940

I think it's a key issue for Mr. Fadden, the counsel for the committee, and the counsel for the Minister of Justice to clarify. It seems to me that if we use an amendment that is more restrictive, then it's going to kind of impair us in the future.

Surely the three lawyers will be able to tell us between them which is the best formula. I don't care which is the best formula. If Madame Guay's formula is the best, we'll use that. But let's make sure which one is the best for the future to be able to add other organizations that are not presently in the bill.

The Chairman: Thank you. In light of what Mr. Fadden said, I have to accept Madame Guay's subamendment. Therefore, the subamendment will be -

Mr. Lincoln: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, you didn't listen to what the counsel for the Minister of Justice said.

The Chairman: I did. But that does not rule out the subamendment. The committee can decide how to dispose of a subamendment.

Mr. Lincoln: But before we decide -

The Chairman: There will be a vote on it.

Mr. Lincoln: - I would like to know which one of these three lawyers is correct. That's what I'm suggesting.

The Chairman: That is for the committee to decide.

Mr. Lincoln: There are three opinions. Before I decide, I want to -

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln, all three lawyers have been heard. Now it's for the committee to decide.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan (York - Simcoe): I want to hear them again.

Mr. Lincoln: I want to hear Mr. Fadden react to the opinion of the counsel for the Minister of Justice.

The Chairman: Mr. Fadden, followed by Mr. Wappel.

Mr. Fadden: Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, the current Auditor General Act, the one that is in effect today before Bill C-83 comes into effect, has a definition section that reads as follows:

As counsel for the committee suggested a few moments ago, the definition in the FAA is very broad. It encompasses schedule I, schedule I.1, and schedule II.

As I understand it, Bill C-83 adds a new definition of ``department''. It adds the definition of ``category I department'', which is rather narrower than the one contained in the current Auditor General Act.

So if I follow this correctly, what is relevant here is the definition contained in Bill C-83, not the one contained in the current Auditor General Act, because they are different.

To my mind, I believe the suggestion made by Madame Guay would simply give the Governor in Council a little bit more scope and clarity in adding schedule I.1 entities. The Governor in Council would not be required to do that; it would simply make it clearer.

The Chairman: Mr. Wappel.

Mr. Wappel (Scarborough West): Mr. Chairman, I attribute some of my confusion to coming late. I was at another committee meeting.

As I understand this, we're talking about clause 2 of Bill C-83, which includes, as Mr. Fadden says, ``category I department''. The way it currently reads is:

Then you've got, if I understand correctly, a suggested amendment, which is ``any department set out in the schedule''. That's what we're talking about now. What schedule is this?

Mr. Fadden: To the act.

Mr. Wappel: Which act?

Mr. Fadden: Bill C-83. It lists three entities: Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CIDA and the Federal Office of Regional Development (Quebec).

Mr. Wappel: Then I go back to Mr. Lincoln's comment. I wonder what's wrong with what I had before me last night:

What was wrong with that? Has that been moved, are we throwing that out, or what?

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: That limited it to only schedule I.1. The concern was that it was going to be narrowing it far too much. If something fell beyond that, we wouldn't be able to add it.

Mr. Wappel: But as Mr. Fadden says, ``category I department'' is narrower than the broad definition of ``department'' in the Auditor General Act. I presume the intent of the bill is to narrow ``category I'' to make it not every single department that the Auditor General Act applies to. I gather we're making a smaller group of entities - for lack of a better positive phrase - subject to ``category I'' than in the definition of ``department'' in the Auditor General Act, as I understand it.

Is that correct, Mr. Fadden?

Mr. Fadden: I believe so.

Mr. Wappel: I see somebody shaking their head ``no''; then I see Madame Guay. Does anybody know what the answer is?

The Chairman: We'll get to the bottom of this.

A point of order?

.0945

[Translation]

Mrs. Guay: Mr. Chairman, I would like to get some clarification from our legal counsel.

If we do not add the words ``or any division or branch of the Public Service of Canada'', would the three agencies set out in the schedule be off the hook, given that they have not been specifically mentioned and that they are not in fact departments?

Mr. Côté: The answer is no. Those three agencies would be included. I would also remind committee members that the definition of ``category I department'' in Bill C-83 now reads as follows:

That would mean a direction from the Governor-in-Council. In other words, the Governor-in-Council has another option, namely to specifically mention a particular department.

.0950

However, I want to draw your attention to the fact that there seems to be some redundancy here, because this power is set out in two different clauses: in the first the Governor-in-Council can proceed by making a direction, as opposed to by regulation, in the second.

In one case, the idea is to have it listed in the schedule; in the other, the Governor-in-Council can accomplish the same thing by making a direction.

[English]

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Here is my understanding. It was explained to me before. Perhaps I have it wrong, but because the act refers to category I throughout, this definition allows us to define category I as it applies to this act, which gives it a wider definition than what would be in the Financial Administration Act. Is that correct? It makes it easier to deal with any other changes we're adding, so there's a variety of things spelled out in this act under category I. No?

Ms Daniel: Again, I want to be careful not to provide advice to the committee, as you have counsel here. I would just draw to your attention that if you add the new paragraph (c), which is ``any department set out in the schedule'', it doesn't say ``any category I department set out in the schedule'' or ``any department''. Refer back to the definition of ``department'' in the Auditor General Act. It's the all-inclusive definition of ``department''.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: But it says ```category I department' means''.

The Chairman: The subamendment proposed by Madame Guay virtually brings in schedule I.1. Is that a correct conclusion?

Ms Daniel: Yes, I think the point that I was drawing to your attention was that you may wish to consider that the term ``department'' should be broader. It would enable you, if you amended the schedule at a later date, to add all four categories defined as departments under the FAA. The subamendment being proposed deals only with schedule I.1.

The Chairman: So the subamendment would be more limiting than the amendment.

Ms Daniel: I think it's up to the committee to decide that. I'm drawing it to your attention.

The Chairman: You have heard that explanation. It's now a question of the committee using its judgment to decide which of the two to adopt. There is a decision to be made on the subamendment. If that fails, then the decision is to be made on the amendment. I think that we have exhausted these items quite at length.

Mr. Finlay (Oxford): Mr. Chairman, from what I've just heard, why use the term ``category I department'' at all? Why don't we say that ``department'' means any department as defined by the Auditor General Act in section such and such?

Mr. Fadden: I think I can answer that, Mr. Chairman. The current Auditor General Act defines ``department'' very broadly. It encompasses just about any entity funded by Parliament directly. It is my understanding that, at the time the bill was being considered, it was thought that this would be too all-encompassing at the current time to encompass the separate employers listed in schedule II, parliamentary entities, and courts. The government, as I understand it, wanted to start with the government. Then, if it worked well, it would be expanded.

It developed the concept of a category I department to enable it to make some progress on a smaller scale, and then to possibly move up later. In order to do that, it had to have a definition of ``department'' that was specific to Bill C-83.

Mr. Finlay: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mrs. Guay: I would like to ask our legal counsel if the definition that we tabled in our sub-amendment does not in fact mean exactly the same thing as what you have just proposed.

Mr. Fadden: No, I don't believe so, Mr. Chairman, because as I recall the wording of your sub-amendment, it refers to Schedule I.1, but does not include Schedules II and III.

For instance, as I recall, schedule III lists various agencies that would be included under a broader definition of the Public Service of Canada. They would not, however, be included under your sub-amendment, as currently worded.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Fadden.

[English]

The Chairman: The chair has already indicated to you that the subamendment is acceptable. It is now up to the committee to decide. The matter has been elaborated from three different angles. It is now up to your judgment to decide how far the committee wants to go. Therefore, I am now putting the subamendment to a vote. The committee will then have to decide on the subamendment first.

Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chair, is the subamendment in writing?

The Chairman: Yes, it is en français.

Mr. Wappel: That's okay. May I have a copy of it?

The Chairman: It's very short - one line.

Mr. Lincoln: If it were the other way, it wouldn't be allowed.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, we don't have a copy of it in English. I am sorry, but my French is not as good as it should be.

The Chairman: That is a fair point, because the same would be raised if it were done in English only. So we will have to wait for the equivalent in English.

Mr. Fadden: I might have an easy solution. Very often, in legislation, definitions are added for greater certainty when there's the possibility of a lack of clarity. If I understand correctly, the reason for (c), ``any department set out in the schedule'', is to allow for the addition in due course of any department or entity contained in -

The Chairman: Correct.

Mr. Fadden: Okay. So why not simply say, ``any department as defined in the FAA that may be set out in the schedule''? It's not terribly elegant legislative drafting, but if that is the intent of the committee, I think it clarifies it. I admit it's not very elegant, but it does clarify it - if that is the intent of the committee.

The Chairman: All right. We could do that perhaps when we come to the amendment. Right now, we're discussing the subamendment. Therefore, I'm now asking the committee to please be ready so we can have a vote on the subamendment.

I am told by the clerk that there is a provision in the Standing Orders for motions to be introduced in either of the official languages. So I think we can overcome that linguistic problem in consideration of the fact that it is a very short sentence. Is the committee ready for the question?

Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Lincoln: Just wait one second, because this is important to us. Before I vote, I want to know that I'm doing the best possible thing. If Mrs. Guay's subamendment is the best possible thing, I'll vote for it. If Mr. Fadden's suggestion will help to clarify this bill - and I know it can be brought in at one point today - then that's the way I'm going to go. I would like to know this before I vote.

The Chairman: Fine. Then please ask your question.

Mr. Lincoln: What I want to know, Mr. Fadden, is if your solution was going to do what I think we all want it to do, can it be brought up today as an amendment - when we consider the subamendment before we consider this amendment - or later by the committee, because I don't want to lose the chance of improving the thing if it can be improved.

The Chairman: Mr. Fadden has already suggested that the language is inelegant, and it could be reformulated if and when we come to the amendment, but first we have to dispose of the subamendment. We can then discuss Mr. Fadden's suggestion again.

Mr. Steckle.

Mr. Steckle (Huron - Bruce): One thing that could happen here before we get to the vote on the subamendment, and it relates to whether we have agreement among our legal counsel here on the suggestions -

The Chairman: No, no. Evidently, we don't, Mr. Steckle. There's a variety of opinions. You've heard them. We can't force them to agree. Mr. Fadden has just made a suggestion.

.0955

Ms Gotzaman, do you want to comment?

Ms Gotzaman: I think Mr. Fadden's suggestion is a good one.

The Chairman: Fine, that's what we're seeking.

Mr. Gotzaman: It clarifies what we mean by department. I would only add that the definition of department as defined under the FAA is broader than -

The Chairman: Fine, fair enough.

[Translation]

Mrs. Guay: Mr. Chairman, are we going to be voting now on the last full amendment?

Mr. Lincoln: No, Mr. Chairman.

Mrs. Guay: But it is a complete motion. Are we going to vote on half the motion or the full motion?

Mr. Lincoln: He says he will let it go.

The Chairman: Up to the word ``Regulations''.

Mrs. Guay: But we can't vote on half a motion. I don't understand what we're doing here.

The Chairman: We initially decided to move the motion up to paragraph (e).

Mrs. Guay: Where it talks about promoting equity?

The Chairman: No, no.

Mrs. Guay: On the second page, then, up to the word ``Regulations''.

The Chairman: Yes, that's correct.

Mrs. Guay: Well then, we need two motions. We can't vote on half a motion, because this is one complete motion.

The Chairman: In order to simplify matters, we decided to divide it in half.

Mrs. Guay: Oh, I see. Fine.

[English]

Subamendment negatived

The Chairman: We now go back to the amendment and the slight modification suggested by Mr. Fadden.

Would you like to repeat it?

Mr. Fadden: Mr. Chairman, if I understand the intent of the committee correctly, it wishes to provide, through paragraph (c), a capacity to add to the schedule any entity contained in the FAA definition of department. So my suggestion would be ``any department as defined in the Financial Administration Act set out in the schedule''.

Mr. Forseth (New Westminster - Burnaby): I move that this wording be added.

The Chairman: Are there any questions? Are you ready for the question? We are voting on the subamendment as modified a moment ago and moved by Mr. Forseth.

Subamendment agreed to

Clause 2 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

On clause 5

The Chairman: We now move on to clause 5, which has a number of components - paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e). Is it the wish of the committee that we take it in its totality, or one paragraph at a time?

Mr. Lincoln: I suggest that we take it in its totality.

The Chairman: Yes, except for the schedule. So we will examine paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). As you can see, paragraph (a) is an elaboration of principles. The same applies to paragraph (e). Paragraph (b) inserts the words ``and other'' and is self-explanatory. Paragraph (c) provides the powers for the Governor in Council to review and report. Paragraph (d), as you can see from the text of the bill, will delete the term ``reasonable efforts''. Are there any questions or comments?

.1000

Mr. Forseth: Mr. Chairman, this is a lot of amendments and I would like an explanation as to what we are achieving by making them. What was wrong with what we had? Where are we going? What are the improvements?

The Chairman: Would anyone like to answer the question?

As one who has had some involvement with the principles of sustainable development, I can tell you that principles (a) though (h) are an improvement on the previous version. They have resulted from conversations that took place with people in the auditor general's office who felt that what we passed the last time required greater clarity. That has been achieved with the new version of (f), which in the previous version dealt with full cost accounting.

Unfortunately, the last time we passed the principles we did not have the benefit of the auditor general's staff because of other commitments. This input came in subsequently. The (a) to (h) principles are an improvement and are more operational than the set of principles before us.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan, you may want to elaborate on (b), which as I understand it is a simple broadening of the concept, and on (c), which is the review and the reporting by the Governor in Council, and (d), which has been made clearer by deleting ``reasonable efforts''. Would you like to add any clarification or comments?

.1005

Ms Gotzaman: I'm afraid I don't have the exact amendments before me. Perhaps it would be useful to consider the draft you have under the purpose clause first, because it is the list of principles. That clause outlines the purpose of establishing the office of the commissioner. It also scopes out some of the underlying principles of sustainable development.

When you move on to proposed paragraph 21.1(b) and other aspects of sustainable development, it picks up on one of the recommendations you made before, which encompasses the economic and social aspects as well and was a very good suggestion. I can move through those if you like.

Under proposed section 24 we've added that when the commissioner reports every year, he or she will also look at what departments have chosen to become category I departments through this proposed section 24.

Mr. Wappel: The last time we dealt with this bill we made an amendment to clause 4. We added proposed subsection 15.1(3), as I remember it, which set out what the commissioner shall implement as a minimum. We set out proposed paragraphs 15.1(3)(a) through (f). That has passed.

The Chairman: No. We rescinded it at the beginning of the meeting.

Mr. Wappel: Okay. Fine.

The Chairman: Are there any other questions?

Mr. Forseth: I would just like a bit of fleshing out of the rationale of proposed paragraph 21.1(e), ``promoting equity''. What does that mean in a philosophical or pragmatic sense?

Mr. Lincoln: The whole concept of the paper the government has put forward on the greening of government is that equity is always the basis of the environment. The environment can be depleted at the expense of people who are unable to defend themselves and there must be a balance of equity. Before development takes place we must take into account those people or communities that are affected by the impacts of anything we do in regard to the environment.

Equity is at the very basis of any environmental protection because environmental protection means we sustain natural resources into the long-term future for other generations. If by any chance we impair those natural resources so they are unable to fulfil their function, and people who are needy or defenceless against the acts of more powerful interests suffer as a result...there has to be a balance in any integration of economy and environment. There has to be a balance in equity as well so no impairment of natural resources or ecosystems takes place that could impair the possibility of people enjoying a reasonable quality of life.

So there has to be a balance. It's just a balanced quality of life for all citizens. It's a basic definition of sustainable development really.

Mr. Forseth: It's not necessarily talking about the environment being changed or brought into a state of degradation. It's also affecting those individuals who interact with the environment, such as aboriginals or whatever. You might say human equity is kept in the equation.

Mr. Lincoln: Absolutely.

.1010

The Chairman: Are there any further questions? Are you ready for the question? All those in favour?

The Chairman: It is moved by Mr. Lincoln.

Amendment agreed to

The Chairman: Now we go to the portion that begins with the word ``Regulations'' and ``The Governor in Council may'', and ends with the schedule.

Could I have a mover for that portion of this clause, please?

Mr. Lincoln: May I ask Mr. Adams a question?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Adams, I take it your suggested amendment is in regard to the other discussion. In other words, you would like to see these agencies included to start with, and the other one will give you the possibility of adding others.

So moved, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Are there any questions or comments?

Mr. Wappel: I would like somebody to explain why proposed subsection (6) permits the amendment of the schedule only by deleting a department. Why is it not sufficient to end the proposed subsection after the word ``schedule''? It would then read:

Why is it restricted only to deleting departments?

Mr. Forseth: Can't it add any?

Mr. Wappel: It can't. On the basis of this you can only delete.

Mr. Lincoln: I would like to propose an amendment to delete proposed subsection (6) altogether. I don't think it adds to anything.

The Chairman: I don't know what proposed subsection (6) you're referring to right now.

Mr. Lincoln: I mean proposed subsection (6) on page 2.

The Chairman: Mr. Lincoln is moving the deletion of proposed subsection (6).

Mr. Lincoln: Amendment (e), proposed subsection (6).

The Chairman: The entire motion?

Mr. Lincoln: No, just proposed subsection (6) under paragraph (e).

The Chairman: Now we understand what Mr. Lincoln has moved. There's a subamendment by Mr. Lincoln to delete proposed subsection (6) of amendment (e).

.1015

Can you explain the purpose?

Mr. Wappel: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think a better procedure would be for Mr. Lincoln to ask for the unanimous consent of the committee to withdraw that amendment and move another amendment that would be (e), by adding after line 16 on page 5: ``Regulations'' and then (5) and the words following.

It doesn't make sense to deal with a motion he moved only to amend it, only to have another motion moved, when he could easily get the unanimous consent of the committee to withdraw that motion.

The Chairman: The clerk indicates to me that this would be a better procedural approach.

First of all, we need unanimous consent to withdraw the way this motion is before us. Is there unanimous consent for its withdrawal?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Now there is a new motion. Would you please formulate it?

Mr. Lincoln: I move that we delete amendment (e), proposed subsection (6). The motion would be amendment (e), proposed subsection (5) and the words following.

The Chairman: So the motion that is now being proposed by Mr. Lincoln reads:

Is that correct?

Mr. Lincoln: And the annex.

The Chairman: Plus the schedule that is already before you.

Amendment agreed to

Clause 5 as amended agreed to

The Chairman: Shall the bill as amended carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: On division.

The Chairman: Shall the committee order a reprint for use at report stage?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Shall I report the bill to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Shall I rescind all the previous decisions thereto, as adopted on October 17?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

This meeting is adjourned.

;