[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, October 17, 1995
.0910 
[Translation]
The Chairman: Good morning everyone.
Today we are looking at the amendments to Bill C-83, an Act to amend the Auditor General Act.
.0915
[English]
We will proceed in good order. We will provide ample time for interventions so that nobody is taken by surprise. I thank the official opposition and the non-official opposition and the government members for their amendments. We have enough here to keep us going until noon, possibly, and maybe conclude.
The customary way, for those of you who are doing it for the first time, is to leave the title of the bill until the end and to start by calling clause 1. We then call subsequent clauses in progressive numbers and ask for amendments, if any. If there is an amendment, the proponent will propose it and explain it. There may be a brief discussion, if required, and then there will be a vote. We'll then move on to the next amendment.
Mr. Wappel.
Mr. Wappel (Scarborough West): Mr. Chairman, is it not customary to have the parliamentary secretary and the officials from the department here to discuss the proposed amendments or to answer any questions we may have on a clause-by-clause basis? If so, where are they?
The Chairman: The secretary has asked Mr. DeVillers to replace him. The department is present in the room but it is not at the table. At this stage a decision on amendments is for the political judgment of the members of the committee. The amendments are of a nature that relate to the witnesses we heard and to the report. If an explanation is necessary we will try to provide it as well as we can.
We welcome Mr. Finlay and we thank him.
Clause 1 agreed to
On clause 2
The Chairman: We have an amendment by the Reform party.
Mr. Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Chairman, I move that clause 2 be amended by deleting lines 20 to 23 on page 1. There are subsequent amendments. Should this amendment fail, we would then be withdrawing the subsequent amendments we have respecting the word ``commissioner''.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I'm very pleased to be back acting on behalf of the Reform Party. I must say, particularly to yourself and all of the long-standing members of this committee, that I remember the goodwill we had. Therefore, my comments are somewhat difficult to make in the face of this goodwill.
First, we would see the removal of any reference to the word ``commissioner'' for two reasons: one, we believe there was a red book promise to come forward with the position of an environmental auditor general. The members of the committee who were here when I was on the committee will recall that the Reform Party argued against that and we won't revisit those arguments. However, our feeling is that the use of the word ``commissioner'' gives the appearance of fulfilment of a red book promise. We do not feel there is actually the fulfilment of the red book promise and therefore would see the deletion of the word ``commissioner''. In light of this first point, we believe that to have the word ``commissioner'' in this bill would authenticate or legitimize a statement by the Liberal Party that they had fulfilled the promise in the red book, which they have not.
.0920
Second, while our party agrees with Bill C-83, and again it may be recalled that we argued in favour of this function coming under the Auditor General's department, we agree with C-83 in principle. However, we believe that the use of the title and legislating the position will lead to the legitimization of a bureaucracy growth within the department of the Auditor General.
For both of those reasons we have moved this amendment to delete all references, this being the first reference, to the word ``commissioner''.
The Chairman: We thank you for the spirit in which you have delivered your intervention. We definitely understand the political reasons for doing so.
Are there any comments on this motion? Madam Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan (York - Simcoe): It's great to know that a member of the opposition is so concerned about our red book. I campaigned on the red book. We're meeting our obligations under this, so I find it kind of unusual that a member in the House of Commons would want to stop government business based on some partisan motive here.
As far as bureaucratic growth goes, it's a matter of consolidating. I think consolidation is a word the Reform Party is very familiar with and would certainly like to promote in a lot of different areas. It's a way of consolidating and better utilizing scarce government resources to take a look at environmental concerns.
I know the Auditor General has already been working in this area and is very pleased with what we're doing here, so I wouldn't be able to support the motion.
The Chairman: Mr. Abbott, briefly.
Mr. Abbott: If I may respond, it is not our intention in any way to stop the business or to not see Bill C-83 go through, with the exception that by the inclusion of the word ``commissioner'' it makes it appear as though something has happened, when in our judgment it has not.
The Chairman: All right. Mr. DeVillers, briefly.
Mr. DeVillers (Simcoe North): Mr. Chairman, I move that the question be put.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Amendment negatived
The Chairman: That also would consequentially deal with motion R-2.
Is that acceptable to you, Mr. Abbott?
Mr. Abbott: Yes.
The Chairman: So that motion is consequentially withdrawn, if you like.
Clause 2 agreed to
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Chairman, if I may, just to outline specifically again where the Reform Party is coming from, we feel that while we are in favour of Bill C-83, as stated, with the inclusion of the word ``commissioner'' we will not be voting any further on any of the other amendments contained in Bill C-83. Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you. I regret that but we accept your decision.
Clause 3 agreed to
On clause 4
The Chairman: We have a Liberal amendment dealing with principles.
Mr. Adams.
Mr. Adams (Peterborough): Mr. Chairman, I move that clause 4 be amended by adding after line 40, which is on the second page, the wording following ``Implementation of principles'' in the material members have.
.0925
It seems to me that what this does in terms of the duties of the commissioner is provide the commissioner with some valuable general principles upon which he or she can base judgments on matters that aren't specifically laid out in the legislation.
These are principles the committee heard enunciated time and time again in the presentations, and I think this will be a valuable addition to the legislation and to the powers of the commissioner.
I would move the amendment given on pages 1 and 2 of the Liberal sheets. Do I need to read those?
The Chairman: No, thank you, Mr. Adams.
Are there any questions or comments on principles?
[Translation]
Mr. Pomerleau, please.
Mr. Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies): In général, Mr. Chairman, we think this seems to be a good amendment, except for paragraph d) which says:
- d) the preservation of the capital stock of Canada's natural resources by harvesting the interest
they yield:
- To us, it seems like a way of eventually eliminating the power of the provinces. If we could
move a subamendment to delete that paragraph, we would vote in favour of this amendment.
The Chairman: Canada is the sum total of its natural resources.
Are there any comments on that suggestion?
Mr. Adams: Government, political and other boundaries are not recognized by most aspects of the environment. In terms of the harvesting of natural resources, if in fact there were one set of principles on one side of a boundary and another set of principles on the other, it would defeat the overall purpose, which is quite simply in this case not to deplete the natural stock.
Mr. Wappel: I think the wording in the English language is a little stupid, quite frankly, because the way it's worded in English would indicate that the only way to preserve the capital stock is to harvest. As I read the French, it indicates that you can preserve by using the fruits of the capital.
I would have thought that a better way of phrasing it could have been by substituting the word ``while'' for the word ``by'' so that it would read
- (d) the preservation of the capital stock of Canada's natural resources while harvesting the
interest they yield;
I don't know about the provincial thing, but as far as I'm concerned, the environment is a national matter.
Mr. Adams: I appreciate the intervention. Certainly in terms of the English, I think that captures the intent better. I simply wonder, with my colleague, if that helps.
The Chairman: Mr. Pomerleau, are you moving a subamendment? Mr. Wappel is making a suggestion to improve the language by replacing ``by'' with ``while''. I suppose this would be a subamendment to this amendment, but if you have an amendment to propose to this amendment....
[Translation]
Mr. Pomerleau: No, Mr. Chairman, we are proposing a subamendment to delete paragraph d), a subamendment that would read as follows...
[English]
The Chairman: So that would be your motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Pomerleau: Yes.
[English]
The Chairman: All right. We will first deal with the motion by Mr. Wappel as accepted by Mr. Adams that the word ``by'' be replaced with the word ``while''. Then we will deal with Mr. Pomerleau's subamendment to delete (d) and then we'll deal with the total amendment. Is that all right?
First is the motion to insert ``while'' in place of ``by''.
Subamendment agreed to
The Chairman: Now is Monsieur Pomerleau's amendment to delete (d).
[Translation]
Did I understand you correctly?
Mr. Pomerleau: Yes.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Pomerleau is proposing the removal of (d).
Subamendment negatived
.0930
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 4 as amended agreed to
On clause 5
The Chairman: There is a Liberal amendment and a Bloc amendment. I will seek the clerk's view as to which one should be called first. It involves lines 5 to 10.
Line 2 goes first because of line 5. Who is the mover of this amendment to the reference to crown corporations? Madam Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: The amendment on page 5 of the Liberal amendments refers to the addition of crown corporations as part of the agencies or government organizations that would have to develop sustainable development strategies. This would include things like CIDA, and for those kinds of reasons I think it's important to include this.
The Chairman: Are there any comments or questions on this Liberal amendment? Mr. Wappel followed by Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Wappel: I'm having a little difficulty following the paperwork in front of me. Last night we received some amendments, and I take it that the amendments handed out by the clerk today supersede the amendments. If that is true, then I note, for example, that Mr. Adams moved an amendment in clause 4 and referred to two pages that would have referred to the amendments that were sent to us last night, whereas the motion L-1, which we presumably passed, had only one page.
The Chairman: I have two pages, Mr. Wappel.
Mr. Wappel: You have two? Okay, I only have one. That answers my question. Then I take it we should discard what we got last night and concentrate on what was given out.
The Chairman: One may complement the other. I will definitely define the number of pages and identify everything better for you as we proceed.
Mr. Wappel: I note, for example, we had mentioned sections 24 and 25, and the amendment we're talking about this morning doesn't mention them. I take it that's a redraft. Am I looking at the wrong thing? What am I looking at? It looks to me like it's the same thing.
The Chairman: You should look at the documents passed out this morning. That is the best approach.
Mr. Taylor (The Battlefords - Meadow Lake): Mrs. Kraft Sloan talked about the addition of reference to crown corporations in terms of required statements. Yet, when I read this amendment to clause 5 replacing lines 5 to 10 on page 3, it simply refers to the record of petition. I'm wondering if you could clarify, as Mrs. Kraft Sloan suggested, whether it is the intent for this part to deal with - -
The Chairman: No, you're looking at the Bloc Québécois.
Mr. Taylor: No, I'm looking at L-2. The specific addition says:
- the Auditor General shall make a record of the petition and forward the petition...to the
appropriate...department or...Crown corporation.
- I don't believe that's what Mrs. Kraft Sloan said in her introduction. I'd like that clarified.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Thank you, Mr. Taylor. I was speaking a little ahead of myself here. All of the amendments I'm moving this morning will add crown corporations that all ready exist to category I.
.0935
Mr. Taylor: Thank you.
The Chairman: Mrs. Kraft Sloan is moving an amendment that reads:
- the responsibility of a category I department or a Crown corporation
- Any further questions or comments?
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Pomerleau, do you want to move an amendment?
Mr. Pomerleau: I move to amend Bill C-83, clause 5, by insertion, after line 9, page 3, of the following:
- (1.1) Where the petition described in subsection (1) is signed by five thousands persons or
more or laid before the House of Commons, the Minister shall take steps to appear before the
committee of the House of Commons that normally considers environmental matters.
[English]
The Chairman: May I ask how you arrived at the figure of 5,000 persons? On the basis of what experience?
[Translation]
Mr. Pomerleau: It's arbitrary, completely arbitrary.
[English]
The Chairman: Are there any questions or comments on the motion? Madam Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: In order to call a minister before a parliamentary committee...I have some concern that an arbitrary number is being pulled out of the air.
The Chairman: Are there any further comments? Mr. Wappel.
Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chairman, as I understand the wording, there are two potential criteria: either a petition of 5,000 signatures, or if a petition is laid before the House of Commons. If a petition is laid before the House of Commons, it only requires 25 signatures. I would hate to think that the minister would be dragged before the committee every time a petition of 25 signatures on an environmental matter was laid before the House. If that's the intent of the motion, I couldn't support it.
The Chairman: Mr. Wappel is drawing our attention to the fact that there is an additional route available.
Mr. Pomerleau, would you like to comment?
[Translation]
Mr. Pomerleau: We just want to make sure that serious petitions get to the commissioner. The figure of 5,000 was arrived at in a completely arbitrary manner. A petition of 5,000 names or more would be considered a serious petition.
[English]
The Chairman: What do you say to the comment made by Mr. Wappel, that you can lay a petition with 25 signatures before the House of Commons?
[Translation]
Mr. Pomerleau: We presume that petitions made before the House by MPs, no matter how many petitioners there are, are serious petitions which were checked by the MPs.
[English]
The Chairman: That is why we have the procedure already in the House of Commons. I think that is Mr. Wappel's point, isn't it?
Mr. Wappel: Yes. If a large number - I gather 5,000 is considered to be a large number - of people are concerned about an issue, the idea would be, I take it from the mover, that the minister should come before the committee to address the issues of concern to those 5,000 people. To then bring it down to the level of 25 on the basis of the judgment of any particular member of Parliament as to whether or not it's an important environmental issue...although it might very well be on a local basis, a street basis or a pond basis, it may not be necessary to bring the minister before the environment committee.
He's answered the question, which is yes, either 5,000 or 25. I couldn't support it on that basis.
.0940
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: We now have another motion on crown corporations.
Madam Kraft Sloan, this would be L-3?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Yes, it's L-3 on page 7 of the Liberal motions. This is to add another reference to crown corporations in the sustainable development strategies laid before the House of Commons. This is just in line with the earlier motion.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Next is motion L-4, still on clause 5. It's intended to broaden the scope of the annual report.
Mr. DeVillers: I would like to move motion L-4, that clause 5 be amended by replacing line 8 on page 4 with the following:
- tion to environmental and other aspects of sustainable
The Chairman: We will now call L-5.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: This is the Liberal motion on page 9, and again it is another reference to crown corporations.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Now we have an amendment by the Bloc.
[Translation]
Mr. Pomerleau: I move that Bill C-83, clause 5, be amended by replacing line 18, on page 4, with the following:
- (3) The report shall, in addition, include the opinion and recommendations of the
Commissioner concerning the implementation of the plans of each category I department to
further sustainable development.
- And then we would add:
- (4) The report required by subsection (2)
[English]
The Chairman: Is there any comment from the law clerk?
Mr. Louis-Philippe Côté (Legislative Counsel, Legislative Counsel Office, House of Commons): No.
The Chairman: Is there any clarification you would like to offer, Mr. Clerk?
The Clerk of the Committee: No. I think it's very clear.
The Chairman: The clerk alerts me that in light of the amendments we have adopted until now, we would have to insert the words ``Crown corporation'' in this amendment, if it is adopted.
First let's hear any comment or question on the amendment per se.
[Translation]
Mr. DeVillers: Which one is it?
Mr. Pomerleau: It's in clause 5, line 18 on page 4.
Mr. DeVillers: Is it to clarify that we wish to add...
Mr. Pomerleau: Yes. We want the auditor to give his opinion on the implementation, that is on the measures that will be taken to make sure that the plans are implemented. In addition to giving his opinion on the value of these plans, we want him to give his opinion on how these should be implemented.
.0945
[English]
Mr. Wappel: This would be the perfect time for the department to give us their views on whether or not this amendment would be....
The Chairman: It would not be the department; it would be the Auditor General.
Mr. Wappel: Except that we're considering an amendment, which I presume hasn't been contemplated by the government, nor has it been contemplated by the bureaucracy - any bureaucracy.
I would be looking for the guidance of the government's representative in the person of Mr. DeVillers as to whether or not this is a reasonable amendment. On the face of it, this seems reasonable, but does it then require the commissioner to form an opinion and a recommendation in each and every case? Suppose the commissioner doesn't feel it's appropriate in a particular case to offer anything more than an opinion, or to offer only a recommendation and no opinion.
The Chairman: In some cases, it might well be the case. Let's hear Mr. DeVillers.
Mr. DeVillers: With the inclusion of this amendment there would be the imposition of an obligation on the commissioner to render an opinion and a recommendation. I think elsewhere in the bill the role, the task, the duties, and the principles of the commissioner are set out so that the commissioner should be able to exercise discretion in deciding whether or not to render an opinion or make a recommendation.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Are there any further questions or comments? If not, I will put the question.
Amendment negatived
The Chairman: There is another amendment to clause 5. It's on two pages and it's from the Bloc.
[Translation]
Mr. Pomerleau, please go ahead.
Mr. Pomerleau: Mr. Chairman, we have decided not to move this amendment.
[English]
The Chairman: The motion is withdrawn.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Which motion is that?
The Chairman: It would add three paragraphs after line 23 on page 4.
We are still on clause 5. We come now to a Liberal amendment dealing with strategies to be tabled.
Mr. DeVillers: I'd like to move amendment L-6, which would amend clause 5 by replacing lines 24 to 45 on page 4 and lines 1 and 2 on page 5 with the wording set out in the Liberal amendment L-6 on pages 10 and 11 of the enclosures.
These are amendments replacing the existing wording in the bill. They provide wording more consistent, I think, with the recommendations of the committee. You could say that the department shall cause sustainable development strategies for the department to be prepared.
So it's the preparation of plans by the various departments. Within two years after this comes into force, these plans would be laid before the House.
Subclause (2.1) under ``Regulations'' would provide that the Governor in Council make regulations prescribing anything that is to be prescribed by this act. It is just for clarification on the regulations.
The Chairman: Are there any questions or comments?
[Translation]
Mr. Pomerleau: Mr. Chairman, could we stand that amendment? It could have an impact on the amendment we are proposing.
.0950
[English]
The Chairman: What amendment do you intend to propose? Is it the following one?
[Translation]
Mr. Pomerleau: The amendment on line 30, page 4.
[English]
The Chairman: Your amendment is more restricted in time than this, so we can deal with it in due course. I don't think it will affect the validity of your amendment. I don't see any problem.
The law clerk has a comment to make. We have to deal with this first.
Mr. Côté: Perhaps a correction is needed in the regulation power in proposed subsection 24(2.1). We are talking about regulation prescribed by this section as opposed to ``this Act''. Perhaps the committee may wish to correct that.
Mr. DeVillers: I move that change in the amendment, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: This is a technical change in the language proposed by the law clerk and moved by Mr. DeVillers.
Subamendment agreed to
The Chairman: We are back again to Mr. Pomerleau's amendment. I would ask the committee to please look at Mr. Pomerleau's amendment to the amendment that reads, ``within one year after this subsection''.
Contrary to what I said earlier, we cannot proceed with Mr. DeVillers' amendment without wiping out Mr. Pomerleau's subamendment.
We will first deal with the subamendment by the Bloc that would limit the timeframe available for the departments to one year. I invite Mr. Pomerleau to present his amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Pomerleau: Mr. Chairman, are we first of all going to vote on this amendment?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Pomerleau: As things stand now, we are talking about having a two-year period followed by an audit. That brings us up to three years. The Auditor General said that, in his opinion, this bill didn't have much teeth given the budget cutbacks. We feel that this bill must be given a bit more teeth. If we truly want to protect the environment, then the other departments will have to do as the Department of the Environment is doing. I think that Ms Copps made an informal commitment that her department would be ready within a one-year time period. If she is ready, then the other ministers should also be serious about doing their work. In our opinion, the one-year period is reasonable.
[English]
The Chairman: One year.
[Translation]
Mr. Pomerleau: I therefore move that Bill C-83, and clause 5, be amended
a) by replacing line 30, on page 4, with the following:
- within one year after this subsection
- b) by replacing line 35, on page 4, with the following:
- before the earlier of the first anniversa-
- This is so the text corresponds given that we are talking about a one-year as opposed to a
two-year period.
The Chairman: I'm very happy to see that your party wishes to give this bill more teeth. This is a new and welcomed development.
[English]
Perhaps Mr. Pomerleau's subamendment requires some comments or questions. As you can see, the timetable is going to be compressed.
Mr. Taylor: Maybe I can remind committee members that the environment department, for one, talked about its plans to be out early and have everything in place quickly. It assumed the other departments would come forward with strategies early in the two-year plan. Therefore, we have to assume it was an arbitrary number in and of itself and the departments will be ready within a year.
.0955
I think Mr. Pomerleau is suggesting this committee endorse the environment department's commitment and that in fact we encourage the other departments by putting it in the legislation to get it done in one year. Then the Auditor General's office can begin work studying these plans much more quickly. I think it makes sense.
The Chairman: Madam Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I'm of two minds on this one. Given the comments Mr. Taylor has just made, I think what we can expect is that certain departments will be forthcoming with their sustainable development strategies, and if we remain with the proposed two years we have a little more flexibility in the range in that certain plans can come in on a staggered basis so that the commissioner in the Auditor General's office will have time to look over the plans as they come in on a staggered timetable. For those departments that are clearly not in a position to begin to develop a sustainable development strategy, it will give them the opportunity to get going on it.
The Chairman: Are there any further comments or questions?
Mr. Taylor: I just want to comment, Mr. Chair, from the point of view of workload and timing of the departments' scheduling. Inasmuch as one year would certainly be better, I think two years would be more realistic.
Subamendment negatived: nays 4; yeas 2
The Chairman: Amendment L-6, the one that Mr. DeVillers had moved and commented upon, with a change from ``act'' to ``section'' in the last word under the heading ``Regulations''...are you ready for the question?
Legal researcher, because of preceding amendments we need to consequently insert the words ``Crown corporations'', which would be done from now on automatically, I assume, as a consequential change.
Are you ready for the question?
Amendment agreed to
The Chairman: Still on clause 5, we will now move amendment L-7. There are actually two identical amendments, I understand from the law clerk, L-7 and the Bloc Québécois amendment. Am I correct in drawing this conclusion?
Mr. Côté: It is correct.
The Chairman: I wonder whether out of courtesy we would allow the Bloc Québécois to move this motion, since we are on the same wavelength.
Mr. Finlay (Oxford): For your information, Mr. Chairman, the bottom of my sheet says if L-6 carries, this becomes redundant.
.1000
The Chairman: Or vice-versa, yes. Well, one or the other becomes redundant, because they are identical in intent.
[Translation]
Mr. Pomerleau, you have the floor.
Mr. Pomerleau: According to the document I'm reading, the amendment that we have before us is redundant. Both amendments, which are identical, would be redundant depending on which one has been agreed to. Did I understand correctly?
The Chairman: No.
[English]
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Yes.
What Mr. Finlay and Mr. Pomerleau were referring to is on the bottom of page 12 of the Liberal amendment, L-7. It says, ``If L-6...'', which is the Liberal amendment. As Mr. Pomerleau has stated, both of these amendments, the Bloc amendment and the Liberal amendment, would be redundant then.
Is that correct?
An hon. member: L-6 changes that wording.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. You're quite correct. We stand to be corrected here at the table. So both are redundant.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: And crown corporations have been included where they were supposed to be included?
The Chairman: As a result of the last comment, yes.
Would you like to move that crown corporations, as a consequential amendment, be inserted in all subsequent passages so that we won't forget?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Yes.
Mr. Côté: I would like to draw your attention to the fact that I believe the Liberals will present an amendment that deals with crown corporations in a fashion similar to departments. So there's an entirely new section, section 25, that will deal with crown corporations. Therefore, it will not be necessary to add crown corporations to this amendment, L-6, that you just passed.
The Chairman: So it's redundant.
Mr. Côté: Yes, that's right. It is unnecessary at this point.
The Chairman: We'll go by your advice and we'll move on to amendment L-8, dealing with principles.
Mr. Adams is not here. Could someone else move it in his place?
Mr. Finlay: Yes. We have to move amendment L-8 to clause 5.
The Chairman: Which is consistent with the amendment that he moved earlier, and with a change of the word ``by'' with the word ``while'' in paragraph (d), as we did before. Correct?
Mr. Finlay: Agreed.
Mr. Wappel: Just a point of clarification. L-6, which we have passed, provided that the new subsection (2.1) would deal with the regulations.
L-8 puts in a new subsection (2.1). Is this now going to be subsection (2.2)?
The Chairman: We will ask the law clerk to clarify that question.
Mr. Côté: Some renumbering will probably need to be done.
Mr. Wappel: My point is that it's not the intention, then, to supersede what we've already passed as an amendment.
Mr. Côté: That's correct.
Mr. Wappel: This would simply be an addition.
The Chairman: Thank you for the clarification. The answer is yes.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: We now have an amendment L-9, on three pages.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Again, this is an additional amendment in regard to crown corporations and inclusion of them.
The Chairman: You so move?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Yes, I move it.
.1005
The Chairman: Any comments or questions?
Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we then could have agreement to substitute the word ``while'' for the word ``by'' in new paragraph 25(3)(d).
The Chairman: Is there consensus?
Subamendment agreed to
[Translation]
Mr. Pomerleau: We are dealing with pages 15 and 16, are we not?
The Chairman: That is right.
Mr. Pomerleau: And page 17 too?
The Chairman: And 17.
[English]
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Mr. Coté: To the same effect, I think the word ``by'' should be corrected by the use of the word ``while'' in amendment L-8, because we have the same principles there.
Amendment agreed to
Clause 5 as amended agreed to
The Chairman: Shall the bill carry as amended?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the committee order a reprint as a working copy for the use of the House of Commons at report stage?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the chair report the bill as amended to the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: This means we have concluded our work. There is no need to meet this afternoon or this evening. Happily, we will see each other again tomorrow at 3:30 p.m., when we'll start the witnesses on Bill C-94.
I thank you for your input and your cooperation. This meeting is adjourned.