Evidence of meeting #12 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was amendments.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

I agree with my colleagues. There has been no consultation with stakeholders on these significant changes. It's another case of omnibus legislation and this committee deliberating and ultimately voting on something unrelated to the fiscal framework of the country, which is what we ought to be dealing with in budget bills.

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you.

I'll just explain the voting. For clause 197, amendments PV-6, LIB-3, and NDP-12 are identical, so the vote on amendment PV-6 will obviously apply to amendments LIB-3 and NDP-12.

As well, colleagues, you should be aware that amendments LIB-4 and NDP-13 are consequential, so that if you defeat amendment PV-6, for instance, you will also be defeating amendments LIB-4 and NDP-13. This is a very consequential vote on amendment PV-6.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Colleagues, I do not have another amendment until clause 212. Can I group some clauses together? You can take a look.

Oh, I'm sorry; I'm reminded here that I did not take an official vote on clause 197.

(Clause 197 agreed to)

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Ms. Nash.

5:30 p.m.

NDP

Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON

You could group clauses 198 to 203.

(Clauses 198 to 203 agreed to)

(On clause 204)

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Monsieur Côté.

5:30 p.m.

NDP

Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I will indulge myself and have some fun at the expense of my colleague Brian Jean, who said this week that he was very concerned about the spending power of judges, meaning their power to use the money of others, when the government is doing such a great job in that area. However, here we have an example of a rather specific expense, whose usefulness for the public good was not demonstrated at all. When the senior officials came to answer our questions, they told us that the amendment will easily cost $430,000 for reprinting documents and replacing the signage.

Changing the name of the current Department of Human Resources and Skills Development to the Department of Employment and Social Development is clearly a political tactic. It can even be considered propaganda. When all is said and done, that will enable the government to highlight the word “employment” in big neon letters. This razzle-dazzle will also enable the minister to focus on the word “employment” when he travels across the country and the word appears on TV or in photographs.

It is really embarrassing for the government to spend so much money just for propaganda. That is one of the reasons why we oppose this initiative.

I would also like to talk about clause 205. In fact, I would like to talk about the new definition for the title of the Minister of Employment.

I will leave it at that, at least in terms of section 204.

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Merci, Monsieur Côte.

(Clause 204 agreed to)

(Clause 205 agreed to)

(On clause 206)

Monsieur Côté.

5:30 p.m.

NDP

Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair

In addition to the titles a minister can give himself, his actions are clearly a consideration. The minister being called “the Minister of Employment and Social Development“ is not a bad thing in itself, if it weren't for the lack of real employment policies. As I said, clause 204 opens the door to propaganda first and foremost. In the next few years, the next couple of years in particular, just before the next election, the government will constantly be able to highlight the word “employment” on television.

Employment development has always been a priority for the NDP. That has been the case since the party was formed, over 50 years ago. However, employment development does not happen through piecemeal actions, one-time actions. We need to keep the big picture in mind. I would also like to remind the committee that the countries in the world that achieve full employment make a concerted effort and use real strategies.

What is really deplorable is that, at the end of the day, this is a marketing exercise to make the government look good, but it does not come with a real strategy, with tangible actions. Mr. Chair, I will not hide the fact that the NDP supported some of the government's measures, including the employment credit, but we are very far from having a strategy here.

There you go. We can now vote on this clause. Thank you very much.

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you.

(Clause 206 agreed to)

(Clauses 207 to 210 inclusive agreed to)

(Clause 211 agreed to)

(On clause 212)

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

We have amendment NDP-14.

Go ahead, Ms. Nash.

5:35 p.m.

NDP

Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON

Bill C-4 would introduce electronic enforcement of the Canada Labour Code. Given that the Conservative government through Bill C-4 is already making very drastic changes to health and safety—we've talked about that; the drastic changes would reduce health and safety protections in the workplace, put workers at risk across this country—in this light, we're very concerned that the power to administer this particular act electronically could further undermine the rights of workers who want to object to dangerous situations.

Our concern is, for example, that if someone is wanting to refuse to work, there could be no visual inspection of the workplace and maybe a phone call or an e-mail might suffice, but we believe that a visual inspection is essential where there are serious problems in the workplace. That's what our amendment would provide for.

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 212 agreed to on division)

(Clauses 213 and 214 inclusive agreed to)

(Clauses 215 to 217 inclusive agreed to)

5:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

We have clauses 218 to 238.

5:40 p.m.

NDP

Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON

Nice try.

5:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Okay, is everyone in favour of clause 218?

(Clause 218 agreed to)

(Clauses 219 to 238 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 239)

5:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

We have amendment PV-7. We will go to Ms. May again, please.

5:40 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a number of amendments that relate to this section. Did you want me to address them all at once or separately?

5:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

You have amendments PV-7, PV-8, PV-9, PV-10, PV-11, and PV-12. Did you want to address all of them at one time?

5:40 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

It's up to you, sir. As long as I'm allowed to address them either a minute at a time, with breaks in between, or all at one go. It's up to you.

5:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

If you want to do it all in one go, it's probably easier. Is that okay?

November 27th, 2013 / 5:40 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Yes, certainly. I'm fine with that.

My amendments to these sections, beginning with PV-7 and going through to PV-12, are all relating to division 7, as you will know, which is an extremely important section of Bill C-4. Unfortunately, this is one of those examples of where it would have been so much more preferable to have this in stand-alone legislation.

This relates to the disposition of a substantial chunk of lands that were known as the Dominion Coal Blocks. They were tied up in very old legislation, under the Crow's Nest Pass act, and held by the federal government, but they've also been the subject of significant research and advocacy, because they are part of the proposal for Flathead national park.

They're part of a very significant and valuable ecosystem that is particularly important as a wildlife corridor. It's the Flathead and Elk valleys of southeastern British Columbia, in the riding of our friend, Dave Wilks. Mr. Wilks is well aware of the conservation values here, as are we all. It's also the traditional territories of the Ktunaxa First Nation. I know that first nation has been consulted through this process. They have been the stewards of this land for 10,000 years, so they have something to say about it, and their rights must be respected in this.

The intention of the sale is to open up mining. By the way, there are international concerns as well. UNESCO has declared the Waterton Glacier International Peace Park as a world heritage site, so there is also concern internationally about whether the development of coal mining operations in this area would in any way diminish the ecosystem values found in a world heritage site.

It's hard to overstate the significance of this particular part, division 7 of Bill C-4, in terms of the biodiversity obligations of Canada under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, under our Canada National Parks Act, and in the interests of future generations.

Mr. Chair, to give you a sense of what I'm attempting to do in my amendments, PV-7 is to create a buffer zone. There would be a two-kilometre inward buffer zone so that there would be a preservation of ecological integrity around the boundaries of wherever there was to be development of coal. We do know that Teck is very interested. This will likely be one of the ways that Canada gets itself out of deficit, by selling off our assets in this way.

The second amendment, PV-8, goes to ensuring that there would be a statutory responsibility that no negative environmental effects would be allowed to the Flathead watershed associated with the sale of the Dominion Coal Blocks.

The third amendment, Mr. Chair, goes to ensuring ongoing consultation with all the key stakeholders. I know there has been discussion, from the briefing we had with officials, but this is to make sure that continues as a matter of statutory obligation.

The next amendment, Mr. Chair, again goes to reinforcing the buffer zone so that if there is a further disposition of lands beyond the one that takes place at the outset, the buffer zones will be protected.

PV-10 speaks to ensuring that within that buffer zone there would not be any activities that would be of the nature of resource development.

PV-11 wants to make sure, and would ensure as a matter of statute, that the Governor in Council would have to ensure there were no negative environmental impacts to the Flathead River watershed from the sale.

The most interesting one, although certainly they're all important, is PV-12. I really recommend it to you because this could be very creative, and I think it will be well received by all stakeholders. It's to ensure that there be a restrictive covenant that runs with the land, so that before disposing of this land we could ensure that any new owner would be required to maintain and preserve the ecological integrity of the land.

Restrictive covenants are used quite commonly across Canada these days for conservation purposes. It would not mean that the Dominion Coal Blocks were not then used for resource development, but as the land was disposed of and sold to private commercial interests, the commitments to maintain ecological integrity would run with the land—not just in the case of a Teck, which is a company with a particularly good reputation, but in the case of others down the road—so that we would be able to protect the ecological integrity of the Flathead. With these amendments, I hope it would be possible to continue moving forward with Flathead as a national park.

These are not trivial concerns. We want to make sure that we watch for the pollution that could be taking place with toxic chemicals, which tend to be involved in acid-mine drainage, with selenium and other substances that could be very negative for the local ecosystem.

I'm getting a bit of a sign from you, Mr. Chair, that this is probably where I should wrap up.

I really hope my colleagues will consider these seriously, because they would be very well received, I think, by all stakeholders.

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you very much, Ms. May.

We'll go to Mr. Saxton on this issue.

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC

Mr. Chair, are we just dealing with clause 239 at this moment?

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

I allowed her to group her discussion, so she has addressed amendments PV-7 through to PV-12, but in terms of voting, I will deal in succession with clauses 239, 240, 241, and 242.

I will ask the NDP to address their amendments at clause 242, if that's acceptable.

5:45 p.m.

NDP

Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll do so, if I may, on behalf of the NDP.