Evidence of meeting #69 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was clauses.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

5 p.m.

NDP

Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON

I'm concerned. I think in essence what we're doing here is grossing up the salary of the Governor General, to a point where his gross salary is increased so that his net salary works out to be the same as it is today. I see some nods on the other side. That means, in essence, that you increase his salary so that it's taxable, and Canadians will now pay that tax on his behalf because he's still winding up with the same net. It's grossed up.

5 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Okay, thank you.

Mrs. Glover.

5 p.m.

Conservative

Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB

I disagree with what Mr. Marston has said, but more importantly—because I know I only have a short period of time left, in response to Mr. Brison, the changes will take effect in 2013 and subsequent taxation years. I just want to make it very clear that that's what will happen.

Again, this legislation is intended to make the Governor General whole, with absolutely no salary increase, but to have a taxable salary. I think it's the appropriate way to go to serve the purpose, and that's the intention of the legislation.

5 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you. I will call the question on amendment NDP-1.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to on division)

(Clause 18 agreed to)

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

I will move, then, to part 2 of the bill. Part 2 deals with clauses 19 to 51.

I have no amendments for part 2. Can members indicate which clause they wish to speak to? Can I group some of them together, or do members wish to...?

I'll give you a minute or two to look at that.

(Clauses 19 to 24 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 25)

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

I'll go to Ms. Nash.

5:05 p.m.

NDP

Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON

Our concern here is that this is something we did not hear testimony on. We would like to understand better the implications of this. Again, it's one of the many items buried in this omnibus budget bill and should properly be before the environment committee, or perhaps the industry committee, or some other committee. In any case, we would like to understand it better, and until we do, we're not prepared to support it.

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you, Ms. Nash.

I have Ms. Glover.

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB

The government side believes this is an important measure. There have been ample opportunities for all parties to ask questions at a briefing that was held for four hours for members. It's unfortunate the critic wasn't there. But following that, in committee, we also had officials, and questions were permitted at that point.

Our homework has come to where we're now doing clause-by-clause. It's an important measure that Canadians will see the benefits from, and I believe it's important that we vote on it today to make sure it comes into force.

Thank you.

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you, Ms. Glover.

I go to Mr. Jean now, please.

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB

Actually, it's all right, Mr. Chair. For the sake of moving forward, I'd rather just not make any comment.

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Okay. Thank you.

(Clauses 25 and 26 agreed to on division)

(Clauses 27 to 51 inclusive agreed to)

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

We are now moving to part 3 of the bill.

I have Ms. Nash, please.

5:05 p.m.

NDP

Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON

Mr. Chair, because we're moving to a part of the bill that was in the subcommittee, which we did not hear the testimony for, can we take five minutes just to prepare ourselves for this part of the clause-by-clause?

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

I will suspend for five minutes so we can have a health break.

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

I call this meeting back to order.

Colleagues, we are on part 3 of Bill C-38, clauses 52 to 169.

I want to welcome our officials, who have joined us in case members have any questions.

I will just indicate to members that for clause 52, which is the first one we're dealing with, there are a lot of amendments—about 36. It's problematic when we have the five-minute timeline, because for us to deal with all of these amendments within five minutes is very challenging. What I'm going to suggest is that I be a little flexible in terms of time.

What I would point out—it's been pointed out to me—is that 21 of the amendments by the NDP deal with a very similar issue. If I could ask that an argument be made with respect to those 21 amendments, perhaps it would be a good way to group them together. I would ask for members' agreement that we be flexible in terms of time. But given that we are being flexible and deviating from the motion somewhat, I'm going to ask members to make points and not be repetitious. When I see the debate points have been made, I will then call the question and move on.

Is that acceptable to members of the committee?

Ms. Glover, do you want to speak to that?

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB

Just very briefly. We have great confidence in your abilities to do that and hold people to account for limiting repetition, etc.

I do make this other comment, though, Mr. Chair. With regard to territorial borrowing limits, there's another area where six potential amendments are similar. Perhaps we can look at lumping those together as well. I mention them just so the other parties can consider them when we get there.

It would be NDP-40, NDP-41, and NDP-42, and LIB-3, LIB-4, and LIB-5, for consideration of lumping together.

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Okay. That's a good point. That's in part 4. We can look at that as well.

We have clause 52. Members all have the amendments before them. I have been asked by members if they don't have to read them into the record, in the interest of time. I certainly will accept that. We will consider them read into the record.

I will start, then, with NDP-2, in the name of Ms. Nash.

[On clause 52—Enactment]

5:25 p.m.

NDP

Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON

I will defer to my colleague.

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

We'll go to Mr. Chisholm, please.

June 4th, 2012 / 5:25 p.m.

NDP

Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On behalf of NDP committee members, I will be moving these amendments, and I want to speak to them briefly. These amendments are extremely important amendments in terms of dealing with some of the issues I raised earlier that have to do with the lack of opportunity we've had to focus on the details of these bills.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, for example, has been completely repealed and replaced with a new act.

That's just one piece we're dealing with. There are also major changes to the Fisheries Act, which we heard representations about again and again and again during our 14 hours of discussion on all these matters. People pleaded with us to, at the very least, split the Fisheries Act out of it.

In the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, for example, there's a statutory review every seven years. But these changes, the repealing and the new wording to replace what was repealed, have gone through without anybody seeing these changes, without amendments, and without there being a full discussion and deliberation by experts. There was nothing. We had a few last-minute representations here at committee last week. We had very few hours to deal with something that is so critical. And the fact that we're going through it in this manner is going to result in delays. I'm convinced of that, as were many of the presenters who came and spoke to us. It gives overriding power to ministers. It gives overriding power to cabinet to override panels.

There's a lack of clarity in terms of the offshore petroleum. I was asking the environment commissioner, who was here at some point last week—I can't remember when—about what's going to happen, for example, with the development of the Old Harry site in the gulf, in terms of the responsibility of the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board. He said he didn't know, because it wasn't clear. It wasn't clear whether there was going to be a requirement that the panel be able to ensure that there is a full environmental assessment.

It is so troubling, Mr. Chairman, that I'm almost at a loss for words, and this doesn't happen very often. I will recover—honestly.

The designated projects list, for example, is another area where it was suggested to us that for questions of responsibility and responsible governance, and because of the impact it will have, we should not proceed with the passing of these changes through to the House until those regulations and what is contained in the designated projects list are clarified. It may be, as was suggested by the environment commissioner and a few others, that the designated projects list will clarify who's on it and who isn't on it, to the point where we have some confidence. But to leave that up in the air is irresponsible, Mr. Chairman, in the extreme.

The fact that we're going forward and making these environmental assessment changes and these wholesale changes to the Fisheries Act, which are just two pieces of legislation, without any consultation with first nations people and without providing clarification on how and where they will be consulted, is irresponsible.

The fact that we're proposing in the legislation provided for in this bill that the federal government can designate the provincial rules to cover a project or an assessment may well be unconstitutional, it has been suggested, because of where the jurisdiction already rests, not the least of which is that this is very clearly ignoring the role that has increasingly been defined by the Supreme Court on first nations communities that are affected by any development, Mr. Chairman.

We talked about it in our subcommittee and during the presentations and said that we're trying to find balance, we're trying to get rid of duplication, and we're trying to clarify, but in the haste and the overwhelming imbalances created by these changes in these various acts, Mr. Chairman, we're creating a huge imbalance that exists out there.

There are different opinions. There are going to be differing opinions in the Commons, and if, as the government says, we're committed to their four pillars for the sustainable development of natural resources, then we have to ensure that all of those opinions are brought to the table, that we're able to ensure that there's a full debate and discussion, and that we're able to achieve some compromise.

But what these changes do, Mr. Chairman.... And I honestly believe that if members of this committee had the opportunity and weren't so jammed up by these time constraints, these absolutely irresponsible time constraints.... You are here for a reason as members of Parliament: to represent your constituents, to make a stronger country, and to make your community stronger. I believe that.

But if you had paid attention to the representations we've had in this committee, in our subcommittee, and to the concerns that were raised and the uncertainty that this is going to create.... My point was the power imbalance that is going to be created whenever these projects come forward. This is not Canada. This is not the Canada I know. We can have a civil discussion and debate, an exchange of ideas, and come to a conclusion without there being such unreasonable power in the Commons that a group that has more access and more money is always going to be the victor.

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Mr. Chisholm, I just want to clarify, because you are speaking to NDP-2 to NDP-36. So you are formally going to move the...?

5:35 p.m.

NDP

Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

We're moving the amendments that we've tabled. We have absolutely insufficient time to discuss them, to discuss the merits of them, the detail, and the reason why they're important to have here, Mr. Chairman.

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

I'm just reminding—

5:35 p.m.

NDP

Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

So I just wanted to make sure, on behalf of this committee, that it's understood by all members that this is wrong, that some detail and scrutiny need to be given to this, and that this is an absolute abuse of power.

Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of my intervention I said I was moving the NDP amendments.