Kieron Testart

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that the chair rise and report progress. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My colleagues and I were just discussing who should speak to this, because this was an issue that occurred in our review of the Petroleum Resources Act. I think that this is a really important consideration, because all committees are bound by certain rules when it comes to amending legislation.

Over our time in the 18th Assembly, I think that committee Members have become very well-versed in those rules, what is admissible, what is not admissible, what is in the scope of the bill, how much it can change, and how much it cannot change. That is really useful in our review...

Thank you. I support this motion, as well. I'm a bit surprised to have a suggestion that this motion is in some way troublesome. This is based on the evidence that we obtained, that committee obtained, speaking to Indigenous co-drafting partners that there was a lack of capacity, or their experience in the technical working group, and inconsistencies between them. I don't think there are any ulterior -- I know there are no ulterior motives here. These concerns were not raised when these motions were developed and the report was drafted. These are new to me now, and I'm not sure why they're...

Thank you, Mr. Chair. A procurement advisory panel, I think, is an excellent way to ensure that all stakeholders engaged in the procurement process are at the table and able to provide some degree of oversight advice and recommendations to government on how to improve procurement.

As Members of this Assembly, we are not always subject matter experts, and it is always, I think, prudent to give subject matter experts an opportunity, and who better to lead than procurement experts, industry, and public servants, as well, who are all involved in the system.

This idea is not a new concept. It exists...

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think you can summarize the feelings of Members, at least on this side of the House, to say this process that led to the committee's process around this bill was a triumph of consensus. It does draw to mind the previous work that this department and this Minister did on the ATIP Act, starting with a bill that was largely updates, and now has ended up being some of the most progressive legislation in Canada governing that topic, and I'm a firm believer in credit where credit is due. I think, in this case, learning from my colleagues, that there was a lot of give and take...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My final question is: is the department prepared to provide a leadership and kind of a central support role for municipalities as they seek to solve their waste management issues and the coming single-use plastic ban? Is that something the department can do? Thank you.

I know this is somewhat forecasting, but we have a federal intention. I guess my concern is for the many businesses who are currently using plastic knives and forks, food services, for example, that they're going to be hit with a lot of costs when this happens. Has the government considered that problem? Are they working with industry to help transition them into this new reality, whether it will be a single-use plastic ban?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to recognize two of my constituents who have joined us today, Ms. Caitlin Cleveland and Ms. Elsie DeRoose. Thank you for being here today and taking an interest in our proceedings.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to start in addressing this bill by confirming my support for this, for Bill 34, and I will confine the majority of my commentary to the process that brought this bill to third reading today.

The Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment lived up to his promises: this bill has made no one happy. Instead, we have a bill that has created confusion, uncertainty, and shown a huge contrast in how legislation has been developed and reviewed in this Assembly by different committees.

Mr. Speaker, the standing committee's clause-by-clause review lasted four-and-a-half...

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Of the many pieces of devolution-related legislation that came forward, only a few contain preambles. Others contain purpose statements. Some contain both, and some contained nothing. Some Indigenous governments who provided evidence before the committee and some members of civil society, as well, expressed a desire to see a preamble or to see a stronger purpose statement or those kind of features to the bill.

Curiously enough, members of another committee worked on a bill that didn't have a preamble. There was some discussion about adding one. Ultimately, the committee...