:
Good morning, everyone. Welcome back.
We are again doing clause-by-clause on Bill , an act to enact the impact assessment act and the Canadian energy regulator act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
We have assisting us today, from the Department of Natural Resources, Jeff Labonté, Assistant Deputy Minister, Major Projects Management Office; and Terence Hubbard, Director General, Petroleum Resources Branch.
From the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, we have Christine Loth-Bown, Vice-President, Policy Development Sector; and Brent Parker, Director, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Division. Welcome.
From the Department of Transport, we have Nancy Harris, Executive Director, Regulatory Stewardship and Aboriginal Affairs.
Thank you very much for being with us today.
Mr. Rochon, thank you very much for being with us from the Department of Justice.
As I had mentioned to committee members, in my zeal on Thursday to assist with amendments and subamendments I had stepped out of bounds and had moved to clause 6. We moved a LIB-76 amendment. I would like to ask the committee's agreement to reverse that decision. I should not be moving on anything outside of the clause we're studying right now, which is clause 1. If we could reverse the decision on the LIB-76 subamendment and the LIB-76 amendment as amended, I would very much appreciate that.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
At the end of Thursday, the last one was amendment NDP-40.
(On clause 1)
The Chair: Ms. Duncan.
:
This amendment was proposed in the evidence of the Canadian Environmental Law Association.
The existing proposed subsection 59(1) talks about the assessment by a review agency, and continues on with the effects in the report. The report sets out what are, in the agency's opinion, the effects of the designated project.
This adds new proposed subsections 59.1(1), (2), and (3), which break out what the minister says must be done with the report. There's an independent review of their operation to be undertaken. Then the minister must cause a report to be laid before the House within two years after the day on which this section comes into force. As well, if an act of Parliament amends it based on a review, the next report is to be tabled within two years.
The effect of all this, Madam Chair, is to enact the recommendation of the expert panel on environmental assessment and to establish the agency as the single quasi-judicial authority that conducts the assessments and makes decisions under the act on behalf of the federal government.
I appreciate the creativity of the Canadian Environmental Law Association in coming up with this. It's an extremely elegant way of ensuring that Bill meets the aspirations of the thousands of people, as well as the expert panel, who worked so hard on preparing the expert panel on the impact assessment report to the federal government.
This is an extremely important amendment.
:
No, this actually comes after....
Okay: NDP-40.1; whatever you say.
This proposes adding, right after the heading “Decision-Making”, a definition for “adaptive management”. This was pointed out, I think to everyone, by Professor Olszynski of the University of Calgary when he testified before us. He spoke to science and the importance of adaptive management.
Presumably in response to that, Mr. actually amended LIB-43, adding in the term “adaptive management”. We haven't gotten to LIB-43 yet, but as has been pointed out, adaptive management isn't defined anywhere in the act. Now, I've noted that the minister, in drafting her bill, from time to time adds in definitions where they relate to just that part of the bill. This is the part of the bill that deals with adaptive management, so the suggestion is that the logical place to put it would be at the beginning of that whole part of the bill. That would be on page 38, between “Decision-Making” and “Minister's decision”.
I provided the recommended definition to everyone. I don't think I need to read it out. The recommendation is that a uniform definition is required. There seem to be a lot of differences of opinion between proponents, consultants, and departments on understanding what that is. It's not a bad idea, in terms of providing greater certainty, for this to be what the government says “adaptive management” is for the purposes of this act.
I'm supporting Mr. Bossio's later amendment.
:
Madam Chair, I would like to speak this, just quickly.
I know that a number of us are supportive of this in principle. I have spoken with Professor Olszynski on the topic. In general, I think it would be a good thing for adaptive management to be incorporated as a concept. However, it should be coming in the definitions section, not at the particular point that's suggested through this amendment.
I would also like to ensure that we have Justice's thoughts on the appropriateness of the location of the definition. If it's helpful, I would suggest maybe allowing Justice to give their early thoughts now, but I know that there are subject matter experts who will have specific expertise on the issue of adaptive management, so perhaps they could come back to us.
It would require unanimous consent, I think, to get this into the definitions section, and I don't know if that would be forthcoming from the opposite members.
:
Okay. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Let's refer back to April 14, when Jean-Marc Fournier, the Quebec minister responsible for Canadian relations, sent a letter with a very eloquent title: Le fédéral doit respecter les lois provinciales. I have copies of the letter here, if anyone is interested in reading it.
On our end, we confirm that there is consensus on that. Quebec has the best assessment process in North America. We are of the opinion that it is important to listen to Quebec when it asks that the process be followed. My amendments are along those lines. They have been submitted by the Centre québécois du droit de l'environnement (CQDE), the only organization that was invited to give a presentation here.
Our laws and regulations reflect the will of the people. At a previous meeting, Mr. Fast said that Canadians expected the legislation passed to be enforced. The same applies to provincial legislation, including that of Quebec. We feel that, instead of increasing Ottawa's powers, they should be brought closer to the people, since they are the ones who will deal with the environmental impacts or the impacts of the proposed bills.
Environmentally speaking, that's an advantage. Because bills must comply with both federal and provincial legislation, protection is increased. This is the highest standard that would apply. In Quebec, we have the best laws. Setting them aside to enforce federal laws would reduce environmental protection.
In conclusion, some members here are representing Quebec, and I would be very disappointed to see them vote against my amendments. That really would mean that they are acting against their own people.
I therefore invite the members from Quebec and all voting members to vote in favour of my two amendments.
:
I have concerns with the provision, but they're different. I think that it would be ultra vires in this bill to assign to the federal government the authority to decide if provincial laws are respected. I understand the intent, but I don't think the way it's worded would be allowed under federal law. I think that both of them would be deemed to be ultra vires, because the federal government should not be the authority that will decide that provincial laws are complied with.
I think the best resolution to this is to always have joint reviews. That would be the preference.
However, I understand where the member is going. It certainly would make sense if.... For example, a province can have a higher standard than the federal government, but not a lower standard for a toxin. That is a good message. If they're going to make a decision based on toxins, they should be based on the provincial law.
I don't think it makes sense in the way that this is drafted, because I think you're saying that the federal government would decide whether or not the provincial law had been respected. I think that would be ultra vires of the federal government.
Shall we ask the experts?
:
I think this is a really important amendment. All the amendments are important, but this one I think is an oversight.
I'm adding a proposed paragraph (f) to the list of factors to be considered—and this was a recommendation that some committee members will remember was from the Wildlife Conservation Society Canada —that the minister's determination of factors should include, where it's actually occurred, any outcomes from relevant regional and strategic assessments.
When you look at this, it's a bare-bones amendment. It refers you to proposed sections 92, 93, or 95. Those are the sections that deal with regional and strategic assessments.
Obviously if there has been a determination and outcome from a regional strategic assessment that the cumulative effects of, say, project x will be to tip an ecosystem into cascading population collapses, the minister can't ignore that factor. We ought to list that as one of the factors to be considered.
:
Thanks for giving us a few minutes to think it through and talk it over.
I am going to start by kind of contextualizing it before speaking to the specific amendment. Adaptive management has been part of the environmental assessment for a very long time. In our experience, having a uniform definition as to how to manage that has been helpful. We do that currently through policy.
Under the existing act, CEAA, 2012, adaptive management is a concept we use to ensure that mitigation measures that are proposed are achieving the objectives that have been set. It allows the department or the agency to engage with the proponent and identify what changes might happen to those mitigation measures over time when we see the results from those.
That's something we're doing through policy. We have a policy definition for that, and it helps to reduce uncertainty. It's somewhat different from the definition proposed here. I'd say that, in concept, it is similar. In terms of the amendment as drafted, there are certainly some unknowns in it. “Adaptive management” in the motion notes that it's a structured, iterative process. I think there is some uncertainty around what that means.
Looking at LIB-43, it uses the notion of “adaptive management plan” versus process, so there is a difference there.
I think that Justice might be able to speak to the placement of a definition, but I would flag that the Liberal amendment notes “adaptive management” in one section, in proposed subsection 64(4), which is under our “follow-up program”. That is where we would be using that process and that tool. Our plan would be to use policy to support a definition around “adaptive management” so that we can achieve the objectives that I highlighted.
:
All of these are related.
The basic intent is that the decision statement must include an evidence-based justification for any trade-offs that were made between or among the the public interest considerations in proposed section 63. It requires that there can't be transparency and accountability without expressly requiring a reasonably detailed explanation of how and why the trade-offs were made. Also, the reasons for the decision must provide a cogent, evidence-based account of why, for example, a project was approved despite the likelihood of adverse environmental effects or impacts on indigenous rights and interests. As well, it allows for amendments to the decision statement in response to unforeseen changes.
One thing I would add is that is in proposed paragraph (a.1) it would say that “the Minister disagrees with” any of “the conclusions”, and the same under proposed paragraph 65(1)(e), which is after line 11 on page 41, “terms and conditions of” any “approval”.
:
This is an amendment to effect change provisions dealing with projects regulated by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, specifically to permit designated projects related to uranium mines and mills to access the agency assessment provisions of the act, including the suite of provisions related to co-operation with provinces and indigenous governing bodies.
This amendment does this by adding an exception to the decision statement, considered to be part of licence under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act section of the decision statement portion of the act, for uranium mines and mills from the power of the minister to designate conditions in relation to a project that includes activities regulated under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act through a decision statement.
As Bill is currently written, in the proposed “Limitation” subsection of the agreement to establish a review panel, the minister must not enter into an agreement with any jurisdiction that has powers and duties in relation to environmentally assessing a designated project if that designated project includes physical activities that are regulated under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act or the Canadian energy regulator act.
This amendment makes a language change to clarify that in the proposed “Obligation to refer” section of the act, the minister must refer physical activities at a nuclear facility that are regulated under the act or the Canadian energy regulator act to a review panel. It also adds an exception to the proposed “Obligation to refer” section of the act, stating that physical activities at a uranium mine or mill are not included in the minister’s obligation to refer physical activities at a nuclear facility that are regulated under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act or the Canadian energy regulator act to a review panel.
Finally, the rationale is that uranium mines and mills, like all mines and mills, are subject to provincial regulatory and permitting frameworks, but they’re also regulated by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Bill would preclude co-operation and preclude agency assessment for all designated projects that are regulated by the CNSC, treating all such projects as exclusively in federal jurisdiction. There is no justification for this differential treatment as the complexity and impacts of uranium mines and mills are not in any different category from those of other mines and mills, and co-operative approaches are just as valuable.
:
The amendment is that Bill C-69, in clause 1, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 46 with the following:
the costs and amounts referred to in
The previous act only required the proponent of a project to pay the agency for any costs incurred for prescribed services provided by a third party in any prescribed amounts that are related to the exercise of the agency's responsibilities. Currently, this bill reads that the “Governor in Council may make regulations” and then sets out the two items: one has to do with providing for fees, charges, or levies, and the other provides for the manner of calculating those fees.
The rationale is that, if this section were to be kept and the agency can charge the proponent for whatever it wants, then there is no incentive for the agency to be efficient and effective in its duties. Project proponents and investors need certainty if they're going to invest in the Canadian economy. We've seen that certainty dissipate in Canada. We've seen a flight of capital. The regulatory process needs concrete timelines if we're going to have certainty.
I note that the government pledged that investors will get more certainty and shorter timelines with this legislation. In fact, the timelines here are longer, when you add the planning phase to the assessment phase and all of the discretionary powers the minister has in order to extend and suspend. Clearly this is not an expedited process.
I'll leave it at that.
:
PV-67 is in the same vein as Madam Duncan's earlier effort. I know that some of the questions put to government witnesses a moment ago would suggest that it might be unusual or overreaching. I want to stress that between 1975 and 2012, a period of over 40 years, any time federal government money was spent on a project, it was screened at least at a minimum. There was a federal environmental assessment review of every project on federal land, every project in which federal money was used, and every project in which an authority was a proponent, as well as those that were triggered by a law list.
We now have a project list. Of course we all know there's a public consultation about what the project list will be. We have an impact assessment bill in front of us, and the guts of it remain a big question mark. When will there be an impact assessment? What projects will come out under review? Everything we've seen in documents from the minister's office and statements from the before this committee is that the intention of the current government is not to repair the process but to keep it only for major projects. That's a fundamental question. What is impact assessment for?
From 1975, through Progressive Conservative governments, Liberal governments, it was always about the federal government having an obligation to assess all the projects in its jurisdiction. Again, we're seeing a substantial shrinking of that in this bill.
That's why I'm putting extra effort into pleading for this one amendment, that if you can accept Green Party amendment 67, we will be saying in the definition of the act, which will inform the project list, that a project is always one that takes place on federal lands or where the authority is a proponent or where the federal government is providing funding. This will go a very long way to meeting the mandate letter that re-establishes trust in the IA process.
:
Are you sure about that?
What if it's Coast Salish people, and it's something that's affecting the Coast Salish? What if it's a project outside Canada, but it's still within the boundaries of traditional hunting and fishing of indigenous peoples in Canada? What if it's the Gwich'in people, and it has something to do with Alaska?
If they're not there, they're not there, but hypothetically, they could well be there, and because it's a project outside Canada, we wouldn't be—
:
It amends to ensure that under this proposed section, decisions that are made reflect back on “conditions and circumstances” established “by regulations made under section 112.1”, which currently doesn't exist in the bill. The conditions and regulations in proposed new section 112.1 are in my amendment PV-76.
I don't know whether you want me to describe PV-76 at this point or not, but it is to backfill for important rules of procedural fairness; to ensure that the minister makes regulations for the rules of practice and procedure for review panel hearings and that those be based on rules of procedural fairness and natural justice and emphasize flexibility and informality.
We've heard that some people want to make sure that this is not too court-like, but we've also heard from many witnesses that the great black hole as to what the content of public participation will be is a significant problem with this act.
I take the point and I'm grateful for the earlier Liberal amendment that modifies public participation rights earlier in the act and says that they must be meaningful, but this is basically a definition of meaningful. This is what any administrative lawyer would say is the bare minimum of meaningful engagement of public participation rights.
As well, it is setting out in regulation the detailed criteria and process to be followed to determine which designated project contributes to sustainability, and the conditions and circumstances in which regional assessments or strategic assessments must be conducted. It refers to the classes of projects on federal lands or outside of Canada in respect of which the agency would conduct a streamlined assessment based on the purposes of the act.
PV-76 imports to the act a substantive, meaningful improvement by injecting a new section 112.1 on page 59, as you can see if you're going back and forth in the act to see where it would come. It would come as the minister is making regulations. Right now, there are powers that the minister can exercise later for making regulations. That's very typical in an act, and it touches on issues of public participation, particularly in terms of participant funding programs, but it doesn't set out that the minister will by regulation set out the rules of practice and procedure for the impact assessment process.
I think this is an extremely valuable amendment and one I hope will carry. Again, however, if you carry PV-71 without amendment PV-76, you have a bill that doesn't make sense, because there is no proposed section 112.1.
:
I'm so sad from that last vote because, honest to goodness, I can't understand why anyone would call public participation meaningful and be unwilling to define what it means.
But I'll move to PV-72. This amendment is changing text on page 51 at line 26 to insert a new proposed section 93.1 so that when we refer to “regional assessments”—and this is from West Coast Environmental Law's brief—it adds a definition of “regional assessment” to specify the assessments have the effect of including historical, existing, and future activities as well as looking at alternative development and different scenarios for any region. When looking at a regional assessment, requirements for regional assessments identify ecological limits and include cumulative effects.
My amendment, which would insert itself at line 26 on page 51 is, in fact, a new proposed section, which would be 93.1, so that, when we refer to “regional assessments” in section 92, we have some guidance for a comprehensive understanding of what “regional assessments” mean.
:
I think that my attempt, like 's attempt, to create an environmental assessment appeal tribunal is going to meet the same fate.
I'm attempting to set up, in amendment 75.1 for the Green Party, a way of meeting the intent, if not the letter, of the expert panel on environmental assessment that recommended this government establish impact assessment as a stand-alone quasi-judicial tribunal. The bill fails to do that.
This is an attempt to go to a sort of halfway measure, but I'm certain your ruling, as it applied to 's amendment, will apply to mine as well.
:
I believe it is out of order. The whole purpose of protecting the crown against any actions here at committee or in private member's bills is imposing a burden on the public purse.
In this case, no remuneration to the members of the tribunal is provided for. However, out-of-pocket expenses would be recoverable by those serving in this capacity. That is a burden on the public purse.
Going beyond that, when establishing a tribunal, you have to set up the structures and the administrative support to conduct the appeals under this tribunal. This has an impact on the public purse. I don't know how you can rule one way in the previous amendment, and then say, no, this doesn't. It's not the issue of remuneration to members. It is, “Does this create an additional charge on the government's spending?” Of course it does. There's going to be an administrative system set up to conduct these appeals under the tribunal. There's going to be out-of-pocket expenses as tribunal members come to participate in the tribunals.
Madam Chair, I would ask you to reconsider.
:
The amendment would add the following to line 3 on page 58:
(b.1) prescribing the process for applications for costs and the awarding of costs for public participation in the participant funding program established under section 75, and the issuance of guidelines for funding following consultation with the public;
This requires the cabinet to make regulations for how the participant funding process will be conducted rather than leaving it on an ad hoc basis. It's necessary to provide direction and cost awards through regulations made under proposed section 109 rather than at the mere discretion of the agency. This is providing some level of certainty and clarity and fairness across the board for all reviews so that communities, indigenous people, and anyone coming forward will know what the rules are for costs.
This is normally what all assessment tribunals do. They make known what the rules are for applying for costs. There's usually a kind of chart that shows how much an engineering witness is paid, how much a lawyer is paid, and how much people will be paid to travel to the location, organize the community, or coordinate with other intervenors and so forth.
That's what this does. It provides that there will actually be clear regulations on how those costs are assessed.
:
Yes. I'm proposing a new section 112.1, which, given the fact that they're not mandatory, would give the minister one year to make regulations concerning those specified categories. They include the power to designate a physical activity, the posting of a notice on commencement of an impact assessment, the scope of factors, public participation, the effects set out in the report, delegation to another jurisdiction, approval of conditions for substitution, determinations as to the public interest, conditions in relation to adverse effects, and the minister's obligations regarding a request for assessment. That is, she would have to establish principles and criteria and provide guidance respecting all of those matters.
The second part adds additional areas where the minister must make regulations, and provides the minister with a broad suite of regulation-making powers, ensuring that regulations under these areas are made in a timely manner. It includes public participation procedures, panel procedures, criteria under proposed section 9 if you're designating, direction on how to carry out effective cumulative impact assessments, and so forth.
Again, these recommendations were made by a number of witnesses and briefs, calling for greater certainty in how the process is going to be applied.
:
NDP-59 removes the minister's discretionary power to issue guidelines or codes of practice, or to establish criteria for the appointment of members on review panels or committees in proposed sections 92 and 93. Proposed section 92 deals with regional assessments where the region is entirely on federal lands, and proposed section 93 deals with regional assessments where the region is only partially within or is entirely outside federal lands.
Essentially, it's the same thing again. This isn't about the minister making regulations. It's about her issuing guidelines and codes of practice, and criteria for the appointment of members on the review panels. It all seems to be very sensible, fair, open, and transparent, providing legal certainty.
I will speak to NDP-60 as well, since we're doing them together. Again, it adds a new section 114.1 and makes it mandatory, as follows:
For the purposes of this Act, the Minister must
(a) issue guidelines and codes of practice respecting the application of this Act;
(b) establish criteria for the appointment of members of review panels; and
Actually, we only need to do one or the other. Obviously, this is something a lot of people called for.
Well done, Scott.
We were in the middle of a vote and it's going to be a recorded vote.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We have LIB-61 and LIB-64 passed.
LIB-62 was dealt with under LIB-60. That one's done.
Now we're moving on to LIB-63. If this one is voted on, it will apply to LIB-65 and LIB 65.1, which is just going around. Please make sure you have LIB-65.1 in front of you.
:
In this context, it's not a court proceeding as you're interpreting it. It's that the panels are able to call witnesses forward.
As I articulated earlier, if they are calling forward that information, first and foremost, in proposed subsection 119(1), the information is treated as confidential. Then in proposed paragraphs 119(2)(a), (b), and (c), it is noted where there is an exception to proposed subsection 119(1) and lays out the parameters for those exceptions.
As I explained earlier, what's being proposed here in LIB-63, new proposed subsection 119(2.1), is to ensure in the example—as I said—that, if there is going to be information disclosed, the parties are brought together to have a discussion with respect to that.
Further to the explanation provided by Madam Loth-Bown, with new proposed subsection 119(2.1), the consultation that would take place would be that, whenever the information or indigenous knowledge is received in confidence, it needs to be provided for the purposes of “procedural fairness”. That's not the other half of proposed paragraph 119(2)(b) but the first half, which deals with “procedural fairness” in the context of the impact assessment. The other half, civil proceedings, is not being consulted on because that would be directed by the rules of court that are applicable in whatever legal proceedings this information may become relevant subsequently.
Therefore, new proposed subsection 119(2.1) is applicable only to “procedural fairness” in that moment related to the impact assessment.
:
At the provincial level, because the courts are clogged, because many of the parties to these reviews would prefer to just sit down and work it out, the tribunals have incorporated alternative dispute resolution—or ADR—in their processes, and that is exactly what is being proposed here, “with the consent of the parties”. It requires the consent of the parties who want to do the ADR to refer part of the review to ADR.
Rather than going to the courts and arguing about some provision of what is proceeding, it would be possible for the parties to enter into an agreement to go into ADR. It's not binding, but a review panel could take into account the results of the ADR and include that in recommendations or in their decision. The review panel must make the results of the ADR public subject to the consent of the parties, if it's going to be included in their ruling.
This was recommended as the bill should recognize and strongly encourage informal opportunities for participation that involve two-way dialogue and discussion, including the undertaking of mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution. Quite often what can happen is that if there's something highly contentious.... Well, you have a tribunal, but in this case, you might have a panel or even the agency doing the review, and they may say that if the parties think they can go off and resolve it and then come back with a resolution, they potentially will incorporate that. I think it's a sensible way to go. It seems to be the way most jurisdictions are going.
:
This adds two new paragraphs, on page 78 after line 9.
Here we're dealing with the agency's duties. It would add in the duty to “track compliance with monitoring and reporting obligations with respect to the follow-up programs”—the Liberals like that term—“and report annually on the matter, including on aspects of follow-up programs that are under the control of other jurisdictions”.
Secondly, it would add:
ensure that lessons learned about the accuracy of the predictions made during past impact assessments are shared with the public and brought to the attention of those involved in relevant future impact assessments under this Act.
Clearly the agency should be responsible for tracking compliance. We've added this whole part about enforcement and compliance, so it seems logical that it would be the agency that would track and report on that.
There have been ongoing concerns by the public that when conditions are attached, there is no follow-up and no reporting on whether those are being delivered on. It would require reporting annually on what's happening with compliance with the conditions, and to report about resulting actions in terms of adaptive management of the approved project.
There you go.
Yes, “adaptive management”, because we added a change.
There was a request to basically go away and understand whether that definition was acceptable. I believe I had unanimous consent if it passes to insert it into this section of the bill.
There was unanimous consent to reserve the chance to do that, and now we have to decide. It's not to do it. It's to vote on whether we're going to do it. It was to give us that opportunity to go back. We reserved the right to go back, which we're doing now, to add the definition. The definition is as brought forward in amendment NDP-40.1.
Is that right, Linda?
:
We're all good. We're on the page. Everybody has the definition in front of them.
Amendment NDP-40.1 would add that definition on page 38, line 22.
Shall the amendment carry?
Mr. Scott Reid: I would like a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We are now at the end of clause 1.
Shall clause 1 as amended carry?
Mr. Scott Reid: I would like a recorded vote.
Ms. Linda Duncan: On division.
The Chair: If it's a recorded vote, Linda, it supersedes on division. Once they call a recorded vote, on division doesn't work.
(Clause 1 as amended agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)
The Chair: There are no amendments to clause 2.
Mr. Scott Reid: I would like a recorded vote.
(Clause 2 agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)
(On clause 3)
The Chair: The first one up is amendment LIB-74.
:
Madam Chair, I want to briefly review the concerns that have been expressed by many. We also had the expert panel on environmental assessment, which recommended that energy regulators did not have a role. They were not referenced as having any future role or expertise that's useful to environmental assessment in the very substantial and thorough report prepared by the expert panel on EA that the federal minister commissioned.
My own personal concern, I have to say, just based on years of work in the Maritimes, is that it really matters that the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board have a legislated mandate. In fact, they have an affirmative duty to expand offshore oil and gas. That's their mandate. It comes out of the accords that were negotiated between the federal government and those provinces.
In this case, I'm deleting the sections that say the roster for an environmental assessment should include people appointed from the membership of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board. I don't know how those people could do the job they are supposed to do on impact assessment without prejudging the outcome when they have a legislated mandate in the body they serve to expand offshore oil and gas.
I think it's not personal to those individuals. It's not about the agency's record. It's just a legal fact that these entities have a statutory conflict of interest, which has not yet been removed. They could have removed it in the context of this legislation, but it was not removed. Of course, the reason it could not be removed easily is you would have to go back and revisit the accords between the federal government and the provinces.
I'm explaining this more for my friends at the end of the table who I know are new to this discussion. It is mind-boggling that this would be proposed, that members of a board that has a mandate to expand offshore oil and gas would be required to serve on panels to decide if it should go ahead or not.
:
Madam Chair, this one has an identical rationale to the one I put forward earlier in that this now applies to saying that we will delete the sections that say you must appoint from the roster on review of offshore drilling in an area that's otherwise regulated by the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board.
The same rationale applies, so I'll just use the quick opportunity to respond, and I appreciate what Mr. Aldag's comments were, that Liberal amendments are in the same ballpark. They don't eliminate my concerns. They moderate them. They make a really horrific thing less horrific, but I will go to my grave never understanding why the Liberals ignored the advice of the expert panel and told us they were going to do one agency and then injected the very same regulators from Bill , who have been so offensive until today, to have any role at all.
I don't know when my grave will greet me, but as this goes on, it seems to me it should be soon.
In any case, I've said my piece. This is to remove members of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board and their embedded conflict of interest from the roster of participants in impact assessment—
:
I want to say that the plain, common-sense effort of my friend Mr. Reid is to appoint people ex officio. I think it's a bit incredible that our experts are telling us that people got it right. They don't sit there and all provide different information. One way or another, they come to a conclusion.
If we create this amendment that says these people are there, which is always the argument given by representatives who want to see that these energy regulators have a role, we understand that they have some sort of expertise. Surely, if they're in the room offering their expertise, the government rationale is completely met.
My concern that they are required by statute to promote the thing they are now supposedly reviewing impartially is significantly lessened if they're there ex officio. Perhaps the term “ex officio” is better than injecting the word “voting”, since that's being taken to be a prescriptive assessment of exactly what a panel does when there are multiple people in the room writing a shared report. I have to agree with Mr. Reid. I can't imagine how else they would come to a conclusion if they're not prepared at some point to vote. Certainly, if they're ex officio they're in a different category, and that certainly would be preferable.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The term “ex officio” might not achieve the purpose that's being proposed by the member. Ex officio refers to a situation whereby a person, by virtue of their function or their position in one instance, also acquires a function or a position in a different one.
For instance, the Minister of Justice is, ex officio, the Attorney General of Canada, as well as an ex officio member of the Law Society of Upper Canada. It doesn't have the exact same connotation.
:
I've been unable to deliver my other responsibilities in my portfolio because I am dedicated to trying to improve this bill.
A number of things that Mr. Fast said are a hundred per cent true. I've put the question to the minister many times. We've put the question to many times. We asked, “Will you be accepting amendments to this bill?”
In good faith, we worked diligently. The public worked diligently. First nations, Métis, and Inuit worked diligently. Industry worked diligently. Lawyers, law firms, and the law schools worked diligently. Yet every one of those amendments are being voted down, not even with consideration.
I find it absolutely astounding that this committee, which is essentially the environment and sustainable development committee.... We do not deal with the Navigation Protection Act. It was already reviewed by the transport committee. It would have made more sense for that part of this bill to go to that committee. They could have done an efficient review, having reviewed it already. We don't deal with the CER. That's the natural resources committee.
So here we are, and I think we went through fairly efficiently the review of the first part of the bill, which should have been our responsibility. We should be continuing this review. We should be giving due respect to all the people who participated, for two and a half years, when the government asked for input on reforming the NEB, reforming the Navigation Protection Act impact assessment. We are giving short shrift to the last two parts of this bill, and I find it absolutely outrageous.
:
We are at line 31 of page 97. We would be adding in a new paragraph:
(e) to ensure that a healthy and stable climate is maintained for future generations.
This, as Ms. May has said, amends the purpose of the act to include dealing with climate change as part of the operations of the CER. As the Pembina Institute have said to us, “A 21st-century energy regulator must integrate climate change considerations throughout its functions and activities.” They have also said, “ This is necessary to ensure that we meet our commitments under the Paris Agreement and is imperative to protect Canada's long-term interests in a decarbonizing world.”
As we hear the say in the House ad nauseam, we must balance economic development and environmental protection, including taking action on reducing carbon. That is exactly what this provision does, to ensure that a healthy and stable climate is maintained for future generations in decisions by the CER.
:
We're at the same place in the bill, page 99, line seven.
The proposal is to replace clause (e) with the following, so that the regulator's mandate would include:
(e) advising and reporting on energy matters, including renewable energy, energy efficiency, the impacts of the production, distribution and use of energy on climate, the impacts of a changing climate on the production, distribution and use of energy, as well as Canada's transition to a low carbon economy;
Again, this was brought forward by the Pembina Institute. As they stated, the regulator right now does not have any explicit mandate to report or advise on Canada's supposed transition to a low-carbon economy. It's just the same old, same old oil and gas, etc. They also add that accurate reporting on the impacts on climate from the production, distribution, and use of energy will help Canada meet its international commitments on climate.
What this is doing is moving the Canadian energy regulator into the 21st century and beyond by actually finally defining energy as more than fossil fuels.
:
Madam Chair, at first blush, my amendment may look to be virtually identical to the one you just defeated, but it does include other concepts, which is, of course, why it would have merely been a line conflict had the NDP motion passed.
My proposed subparagraph (e) for the mandate of a CER includes to advise and report not only on energy matters, including renewable energy and energy efficiency, but also on how we're doing in reducing carbon, and what the climate impacts are related to production, distribution, and use of energy and the impacts of a changing climate on the very industry that is being regulated.
This takes, in my view, the Canadian energy regulator into a mandate that's much more similar to what we get from the International Energy Agency. That agency provides useful information for world governments on the topics that you see here. I think it would really strengthen the Canadian energy regulator were it doing the same kind of analytical work that we get from the International Energy Agency.
:
Madam Chair, we are now on page 105.
NDP-71 is consistent with further recommendations about broadening the scope of determining when someone is in a conflict of interest. I would bring to your attention the way proposed section 29 is written. It very specifically says, “while exercising the powers or performing the duties and functions of a commissioner”.
That's a pretty specific, narrow activity. You could be appointed as a commissioner, and you haven't done any work yet, and you decide to enter into a contract with one of the people who have applied, and it may or may not be reviewed. You could be holding a contract with one of those parties, but you don't do the work while you are sitting in your office and doing your work.
I am deeply troubled by that very narrow description. We know why the NEB was struck down. It was because of activities between members of the NEB, governments, and officials who had interests in various proponents. Supposedly it was just friendly, it was at another activity, and so forth. I don't know why the government wants to do this so narrowly. I think it's just going to open a Pandora's box for concerns being raised.
I would strongly recommend taking out “while exercising the powers or performing the duties and functions of a commissioner” to make clear that, if you are appointed as a commissioner, you simply will have clean hands.
:
Madam Chair, I imagine people will recall that the National Energy Board expert panel also recommended that the newly created Canadian energy regulator should “publish regular reports on incidents and compliance actions” so that any interested party will know what happened, why, and what was done in response. That's taken from page 82 of the expert panel report.
What I've done here is very straightforward, and I do think this is the kind of reasonable thing that Ed wants me to propose so that he can support it.
This is for you, Ed.
Proposed subsection 32(2), which appears under “Inquiry”, sets out what the commission may inquire into in terms of accidents, what we might do to prevent accidents, and decisions made.
At the moment, there's no requirement in the act to report on any of that, so it's a very straightforward and common-sense approach to say that the commissioner must make public the determinations that are made under proposed paragraphs 32(2)(a), (b), and (c). Once the commission has done this work, publish it. Make a report to which the public has access, and be more transparent about the work of the commission.
:
Before I move to CPC-11, I've been asked that we have a nature break.
There are some last-minute amendments that people have brought forward. I would like to hand them out to everybody. I would like you to take a look at them. We're going to lose our technical support at nine o'clock. I want to make sure that you take a look at these new ones, and if there are any questions, that you have a chance to ask them.
We'll take a 10-minute break, now. You'll have those in front of you. At eight o'clock, if you need to have a few minutes with the officials to clarify anything, then that's what I want you to do, before they go. They're going to leave at nine.
:
CPC-11 is an amendment brought forward by my colleague, from Lakeland. She's proposing that the bill be amended in clause 10 by replacing line 30 on page 108 with the following:
must give instructions to the commissioners authorized to
My rationale is that it is intended to clarify that the lead commissioner must give instructions to the commission to ensure that an application before the commission is dealt with in a timely manner.
As Bill is currently written, the lead commissioner “may” give instructions to the commission to ensure that an application before the commission is dealt with in a timely manner. You may recall that when this legislation was first tabled, the praised it as being a much more efficient way of moving forward. She praised the transparency—or what she felt was transparency—in this legislation.
If we want to make sure that there's timeliness, which is another thing she committed to, the lead commissioner must be compelled to give instructions to the commission to ensure that applications are dealt with in a timely manner.
In the interest of giving proponents certainty regarding timelines, the commission should always be operating with timeliness and efficiency in mind, as promised by the government. It should not be overlooked, as this plays a part in how investors view Canada.
I would dispense with a quote from the minister that actually reflects exactly what I just said she articulated when the legislation was tabled.
:
This is another amendment brought forward by my colleague from Lakeland, . The amendment is that Bill in clause 10 be amended by replacing line 25 on page 113 with the following:
ferred to in that subsection must be disclosed if
Let me tell you what the intent is. It clarifies that if any traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples of Canada is provided to the regulator in confidence, it is publicly available, or if disclosure of that knowledge is necessary for procedural fairness, natural justice, use in legal proceedings, or is authorized to be disclosed under the regulations set by Governor in Council, that information must be disclosed. Again, it's not optional. It's mandatory that it be disclosed under those conditions.
As Bill is currently written, any traditional knowledge that is provided to the regulator in confidence that is publicly available or necessary to be disclosed for the reasons I articulated earlier—
This one is very specifically related to an issue that's come up throughout the review of this ominous bill, and that's the treatment of traditional knowledge or indigenous knowledge. This is related to the disclosure of information that indigenous peoples have asked remain confidential. The two exceptions where indigenous knowledge can be shared occur in the lines that I'm deleting. The first occurs in lines 30 to 31 on page 113, where the disclosure is authorized. The second is on the following page, where the Governor in Council can, by regulation—and this is really specific and I find it really very offensive—release indigenous traditional knowledge that is provided to the regulator in confidence and that it “may be disclosed without written consent.”
I can't imagine how such a provision could apply in an era when we hear from a government that there's no relationship more important to us than our relationship with indigenous people, but we could in the process of this hearing get their information, tell them we're going to keep it confidential, and then release it without their consent. I don't understand why that's in here and I hope you'll agree with this amendment.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Again, this is in the public participation section, page 120, line 12, and it's related to the importance found in the purpose clause of the proposed act, which instructs us that one of the act's purposes is “to ensure that regulatory hearings and decision-making processes related to those energy matters are fair, inclusive, transparent and efficient.”
To that end, I am proposing a new subsection 74(2), so that “The Regulator must, at the end of each fiscal year, prepare and make public a report that includes an evaluation of the processes established under subsection (1)”, which is of course around public engagement, that it would “set out its plan for public engagement for the upcoming year”, and that, in developing this plan, it would “invite the public to provide comments”.
This is about an ever-involving, open, inclusive, fair, and transparent process for engaging the public in decision-making.
:
This is another amendment put forward by my colleague from Lakeland. She proposes that Bill in clause 10 be amended by replacing line 18 on page 120 with the following:
241(3). The participant funding program may also be used to facilitate the participation of the Indigenous peoples of Canada and Indigenous organizations in any steps leading up to those hearings.
The purpose is effectively to ensure that the participant program, which a regulator may establish, can only fund the participation of Indigenous people and Indigenous groups in the steps leading up to the public hearing played out in the act. As is currently written, the regulator may establish a participant funding program to help facilitate the participation of both the general public and Indigenous peoples in the public hearings and in the steps leading up to public hearings.
Just to be very clear, we support the funding of both public and Indigenous people's participation in public hearings. We also support funding Indigenous participation in the steps leading up to those hearings. However, allowing the participant funding program to fund all public participation in such a broadly defined portion of this regulatory process is irresponsible.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The participant funding program in this act, strangely, as currently drafted, unlike the impact assessment act, only provides for the potential for participant funding. It doesn't require participant funding. I think it's inconsistent. Obviously it's inconsistent with the impact assessment process. Why would the same government say participant funding is important if you're doing an impact assessment but not important if you're proceeding under the Canadian energy regulator? The participant funding program is a toe in the water in section 75, in that, “the Regulator may establish a participant funding program”.
My amendment would ensure that it was not discretionary but mandatory, as it should be. Thank you.
:
It's another amendment brought forward by from Lakeland. It's that Bill , in clause 10, be amended by adding after line 10 on page 121 the following:
(78.1) Despite section 78, the Minister must not enter into any arrangement under section 77 devolving any powers, duties or functions given to the Minister or the Governor in Council in respect of any final decision or order.
I think you all know where I'm going with this. It clarifies that, regardless of the regulations set by the Governor in Council in regard to the ability of the minister to enter into arrangements with indigenous governing bodies, and to authorize those indigenous governing bodies to exercise power under this act, the minister does not devolve any powers in respect of any final decisions. I want to make sure that's clear.
The bill, as currently written, provides that the minister may enter into arrangements with these indigenous governing bodies for the purpose of carrying out this act, may authorize those bodies to exercise powers or perform duties and functions under this act in accordance with regulations governing these arrangements.
This simply limits the ability of the minister to delegate her final decision-making powers. I think that's reasonable.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think that, given the critical importance of climate questions to all governments around the world, having an energy regulator that doesn't have a specific responsibility to maintain ongoing awareness, review, research, etc., of how their areas of energy regulation relate to climate is a big gap. Where the section is called “Study and review”, the government directs that the regulator must study and keep under review matters relating to exploration and supply, essentially, and the safety and security of regulated facilities, but nothing as to the impact of the regulated industries on the threat of the climate crisis.
Again, I do think we should aspire to Canada's energy regulator having the kind of robust analysis and comprehensive review that now happens under the International Energy Agency. The International Energy Agency isn't a replacement for UNEP, the United Nations Environment Programme. It doesn't replace the secretariat of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. However, it recognizes that critical research and analysis done by the International Energy Agency informs public policy all around the world, and I think our Canadian energy regulator should reflect domestically what international energy agencies conduct internationally.
This is a minor amendment to address a very large gap.
Thank you.
:
I'm speaking now, John. Give me the courtesy of articulating what is in the hearts of many of us at this table, and that is about the sham of a process that we're going through. We have many more amendments—you can see them right here—that we still have to go through and that will not be discussed or debated. You will have seen on our side of the table that goodwill has been shown. We've supported some of the Liberal side's amendments. We have supported some amendments coming from Ms. Duncan, from Ms. May. That is the way a committee should work, and we should have the time to do that work properly.
Unfortunately, because the government has indicated that it wants this pushed through within a certain time frame that is not appropriate for the scope of this bill, it will be Canadians who will be cheated out of this process. They will have a bill that is way less than satisfactory.
Secondly, Madam Chair, I don't want you to take this personally, but under whose authority are the timelines for this committee's work being shortened? Who imposed the timelines? Did this come from the 's Office? Did it come from the office? Did it come from , who's the parliamentary secretary? Did it come from Kyle, who's providing directions to the members on the Liberal side? Maybe Kyle is a super-powerful guy like Gerry Butts.
:
With unanimous consent, it will be a recorded vote on all of them. You were unanimous on that. Co-operation is wonderful.
If NDP-79 is adopted, PV-117 and LIB-101.1 cannot be moved because there will be a line conflict.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Now we have PV-117. If it's adopted, LIB-101.1 cannot be moved because there will be a line conflict.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Now we're on LIB-101.1.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: On LIB-102, we'll have a recorded vote.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We are on PV-118. If PV-118 is adopted, LIB-102.1 cannot be moved because of redundancy.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Now we're on LIB-102.1.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: On PV-119, shall the amendment carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: On to PV-120, we'll have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: On NDP-81, shall the amendment carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: On PV-121, shall the amendment carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: The next one up is CPC-22.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: On CPC-23, shall the amendment carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: On PV-122, shall the amendment carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: On LIB-103, shall the amendment carry?
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
:
I will now put it to committee. I personally do not feel it is an issue, but I'll put it to committee as a question of privilege of committee.
I don't feel there has, but if the committee feels there has been, then we would have to agree to do a report to the House. That's done by a vote.
I hear his complaint, his question of privilege. I'm suggesting I don't believe that there is one, but it's up to the majority of the committee. If you feel that there is, then we would draft a report.
Does the committee feel that there's a breach of privilege?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
First of all, I will try to explain in French because I am a little bit tired, like everybody.
[Translation]
Madam Chair, I think it is perfectly normal for people, who come here in good faith, to want to debate important issues properly. As time passes, we start to get a little tired, which is quite normal, but no one here is acting in bad faith.
What do we have here? We are dealing with a very important bill. We were elected to debate issues and the future we envision for our country. Unfortunately, this bill is full of items that deserve to be improved. That is why so many amendments have been introduced. There are 400 amendments.
Madam Chair, I have sat in other parliaments and I do not recall having to vote on a bill for which hundreds of amendments had been moved. Let's be honest, we can hardly do a meaningful and rigorous job when so many amendments are introduced.
This bill is quite impressive. Our party has introduced some 90 amendments, but other parties have introduced more. Whenever we have to explain why a particular amendment has been proposed, we are surprised to see that so many amendments have been proposed by the government party.
I would not say that the bill is a draft, but perhaps 400 amendments have been introduced because it was rushed. Now, the worst thing would be to improve it on the fly. On the contrary, we must take the time we need to analyze it, to examine the arguments and to see whether the amendments are consistent. A precise analysis must be done. That is what we are used to doing and that is why Canadians pay us.
If we are going to look at 400 amendments in a rush, I think my privilege as a parliamentarian is being violated. That is why I raise this point of privilege.
:
I think we need to be really clear about where we are process-wise, first of all. Aside from what people may think about the merits or demerits of the point I've raised, we have a process for matters of privilege. I think you as well as the clerk know where I'm going and what I'm going to say.
When a member raises a question of privilege, we may previously have been operating under a particular rubric, which is a question of what programming motions may have been passed, what processes are happening for the votes and amendments, and so on. When you have an issue of privilege raised, that's a separate question. Then the chair rules on the basis of a prima facie case of privilege. If there's that ruling, we then proceed to a debate and then a vote.
I raised the issue. We are now having a debate. We are having that debate because you, Madam Chair, told us that there would then be a vote. In so doing, you ruled that there was a prima facie case. If you had not found a prima facie case, I wouldn't be talking right now. The only reason I'm talking, the only reason we have opened the speakers list at all is on the basis of the question of privilege that I raised. Otherwise—
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6 ; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Now we're going to do LIB-105.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 5; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're now onto PV-123.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We have PV-123.1.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We have NDP-82. If adopted, LIB-106 cannot be moved, because there's a line conflict.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Now we have LIB-106.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
:
Moving on to LIB-108. This one also came in on May 1.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 5; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendments CPC-29 and CPC-30 are the ones that had a lot involved in them. They were dealt with under CPC-10, so we're now moving to PV-124.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Amendments CPC-31, CPC-32, CPC-33, and CPC-34 were also dealt with under CPC-10. Now we're on CPC-35.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're now on CPC-36.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're on CPC-37.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We are now moving to CPC-38, again from .
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're moving on to CPC-39. Again, it's from Mrs. Stubbs.
Do you have a point of order?
:
You asked for unanimous consent to move a motion, and the unanimous consent was not granted, so I'm sorry, we can't hear it. Thank you.
Moving on to LIB-110, we'll have a recorded vote.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're on to PV-125. If adopted, NDP-83 and LIB-111 cannot be moved, due to a line conflict.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're now moving on to PV-126.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're having a recorded vote on NDP-83. If adopted, LIB-111 cannot be moved because of a line conflict.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We are now on LIB-111.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We are on CPC-43.
(Amendment negatived: nays, 6; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're now on CPC-44.
(Amendment negatived: nays, 5; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
:
On LIB-112, we'll have a recorded vote.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We are now on LIB-113.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 5; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We are moving to LIB-114.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 5; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: NDP-84 came in on May 1. I gave everybody time to ask their questions, and that's why I did that, so let's move on. On NDP-84, we'll have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
:
Linda, I'm not going to debate it. This has not changed and you've had this now for three months. There were lots of opportunities to discuss this with experts.
(Clause 11 agreed to: yeas 5; nays 3)
(Clause 12 agreed to: yeas 5; nays 3)
(Clause 13 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
(Clause 14 agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)
(Clause 15 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
(Clause 16 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
(Clause 17 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 18 negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)
(Clause 19 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
(Clause 20 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
(Clause 21 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
(Clause 22 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
(Clause 23 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
(Clause 24 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
(Clause 25 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
(Clause 26 agreed to: yeas 4; nays 4)
(Clause 27 agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)
(Clause 28 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
(Clause 29 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
(Clause 30 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
(Clause 31 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
(Clause 32 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
(Clause 33 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 2 ])
(Clause 34 agreed to: yeas 5; nays 2)
(Clause 35 agreed to: yeas 5; nays 2)
(Clause 36 agreed to: yeas 5; nays 2)
:
We're on to new clauses, which are 42.1 and 42.2. We're doing proposed amendment LIB-117.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 43 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
(Clause 44 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
(Clause 45 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
(Clause 46 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
(On clause 47)
The Chair: On clause 47, there's amendment NDP-85.
By the way, if adopted, PV-127 cannot be moved because of a line conflict.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're moving to PV-127, and if it's adopted, PV-128 cannot be moved because there will be a line conflict.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Now we move to PV-128.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We are on NDP-86.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: LIB-118 is withdrawn, so we are now on PV-129.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We are on LIB-119.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We are now moving on to amendment PV-130.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 47 as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
(On clause 48)
The Chair: On clause 48, if PV-131 is adopted, NDP-87 cannot be moved because there will be a line conflict.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We've moving on to NDP-87.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We are on NDP-88.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We are on PV-132.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 48 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
(On clause 49)
The Chair: We are on NDP-89.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're moving on to NDP-90.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We are on NDP-91. If it is adopted, PV-133 cannot be moved; it's a line conflict.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We are on PV-133. If it is adopted, NDP-92 cannot be moved as there will be a line conflict.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We are on LIB-119.1, and the vote will apply to LIB-119.2, as it's consequential.
:
We're moving on to LIB-119.1, and the ruling will be that the vote will apply to LIB-119.2.
You did not get unanimous consent, so we're moving on. Thank you.
An hon. member: It would be nice to know why—
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We are now on NDP-92.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're now moving on to NDP-93. If adopted, PV-134 and NDP-94 cannot be moved, as there will be a line conflict.
:
That's fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.
Let's move on to NDP-93. We're in the middle of a vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We are now on PV-134. If adopted, NDP-94 and LIB-120 cannot be moved because there will be a line conflict.
When I make the rulings it's important to listen. If you don't hear it that's why we get confused.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're now on to NDP-94.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're now moving to LIB-120.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're now moving on to LIB-120.01. That's one of the ones that came in today.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're now moving on to PV-135.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 49 as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
(Clause 50 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
(Clause 51 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
(Clause 52 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
(On clause 53)
The Chair: We're now on clause 53. We're looking at NDP-95. Shall the amendment carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 53 agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)
(On clause 54)
The Chair: We're now on clause 54 and we're looking at PV-136. Shall the amendment carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We have amendment LIB-120.1.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 54 as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
(Clause 55 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
(Clause 56 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
(On clause 57)
The Chair: We'll start with amendment NDP-96. If adopted, PV-137 and LIB-121 cannot be moved, because there will be a line conflict.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall amendment PV-137 carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're now doing LIB-121.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall PV-138 carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 57 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
(On clause 58)
The Chair: We're now on clause 58, and we're looking at amendment LIB-122. The vote will apply to LIB-123, LIB-124, and LIB-127, which are consequential amendments. If adopted, PV-139 cannot be moved, because it will be moot.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6 ; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
:
We are now on LIB-125. The vote will apply to LIB-126 and LIB-126.1, which are consequential ones.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We are now on PV-140.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 58 as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
(Clause 59 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
(On clause 60)
The Chair: We're moving into clause 60. Do people need a break? No.
We are looking at PV-141. If adopted, PV-142 and NDP-98 cannot be moved because there will be a line conflict.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: If PV-142 is adopted, NDP-98 cannot be moved because there will be a line conflict.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're on to now NDP-98.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 60 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
(On clause 61)
The Chair: Now we're on to LIB-128.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: We're now doing LIB-129.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 61 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3)
(On clause 62)
The Chair: Shall PV-143 carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 62 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
(Clause 63 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
(Clause 64 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
(Clause 65 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
(Clause 66 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
(Clause 67 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
The Chair: Do I have the agreement of the committee to move clauses 68 through 127 together?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Clauses 68 to 127 inclusive agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
(On clause 128)
The Chair: We have LIB-130.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 128 as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
The Chair: Do I have agreement from the committee to move clauses 129 to 196 together?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Clauses 129 to 196 inclusive agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
:
We are on the schedule.
(Schedule agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
The Chair: We're now on the preamble. We have PV-144.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall NDP-99 carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall LIB-131 carry?
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Shall CPC-47 carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Preamble as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
Now we're on the title.
(Title agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
The Chair: Shall the bill as amended carry?
(Bill as amended agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)
The Chair: Shall the chair report the bill as amended to the House?
(Reporting of the bill to the House agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
The Chair: Shall the committee order a reprint of the bill as amended for the use of the House at report stage?
(Reprinting of the bill agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
The Chair: Thank you very much. We have completed the bill.
Before I hit the gavel, I just want to thank all the staff up here at the front who have been helping to keep me organized, and all the staff in the back, who have been doing all the work for the MPs. Thank you very much to all of you, and to all of those in the back who are hanging in there to help us.
Also, thank you to the MPs. I know it's been a very gruelling process, but we have gotten through it, a lot of hard work was done, and we have definitely improved the bill significantly.
The meeting is adjourned.