Interventions in Committee
RSS feed based on search criteria Export search results - CSV (plain text) Export search results - XML
Add search criteria
View Alupa Clarke Profile
I think there was a very good reason that this amendment was brought forward, and it's to make sure that the bill doesn't actually affect anything.
Let's look at that objectively. If you put “on community benefits provided in” before “construction”, it means that every time the minister does a report, it will always be positive. For each contract, she will find something that was adequate towards this bill, and she will present this adequate result.
The other way around, the way it was before, she had to present each construction report and try to find community benefits provided by the construction. Now it's the other way around. By doing so, they are just protecting the minister. This is exactly what it's doing.
View Alupa Clarke Profile
No, but that is very serious, Madam Chair.
Under this amendment, the reports would deal with community benefits, and our colleague put it very well: it will be very easy to find community benefits. Actually, projects always produce valuable community benefits. The reports should not address community benefits, though; they should address the real results of each contract.
There you have it.
View Alupa Clarke Profile
I would like to respond to Mr. Sikand.
I understood very well what you meant. There is the assessment report, but the assessment addresses a completed project. It will change absolutely nothing. You can assess the report 1,000 times; it will not change the fact that the project is completed. If it has not produced community benefits for aboriginal people, for the environment, or for women, it will not be possible to change the facts.
However, your amendment is worded in such a way that the Minister will always report the positive. She will never be able to report the negative.
That is my analysis and how I see things.
Results: 1 - 9 of 9