Evidence of meeting #35 for Natural Resources in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was proposed.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
9:05 a.m.
A voice
It's a subamendment.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Let's go to a vote on the subamendment to remove “public” from Mr. Regan's LIB-1 proposed amendment.
(Subamendment negatived)
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we go to PV-3.
Go ahead, please, Ms. May.
9:05 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is on the same topic, and I'm glad we've brushed the surface of it. It is really a commendable aspect of Bill C-22 that sees the recognition that non-use values are explicitly identified as a new category of damages, and that if you have damage in a non-use value, you are, under proposed section 26 of the act, opening up the environmental or natural resources damages that affect something that's categorized as a non-use value, such that they are now open to compensation.
The gap here—and my amendment seeks to address this gap, just as the previous NDP effort did—is that while recognizing that damage to a non-use value is open to compensation within Bill C-22, there is no parallelism in the regulation-making powers to ensure that there can be a consequential implementation of that non-use value. For instance, we definitely need to know about baseline ecological information and inherent difficulty in assigning monetary values to environmental values. Without having that information, it's very hard to know how the spirit of the law would translate practically in saying that we can recognize non-use values as opening up a door to compensation following damage. If you don't have any way of evaluating that, of finding a way to monetize that, then it becomes a fairly ineffective protection of “non-use value”.
Very simply, what the Green Party proposes is that in clause 14 a new paragraph be added. We have proposed paragraphs 14(3)(h.1), (h.2), and (h.3) already in the bill. To create the opportunity to evaluate such value, we would insert, at the very top, proposed paragraph 14(3)(h.01), creating the opportunity concerning the calculation and recovery of damages for a loss of a non-use value. We really do need to put some meat to the bones of the new and commendable effort to include non-use values within the category of damages for which compensation can be claimed under the polluter pay principle.
Thank you.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Ms. May.
You've heard the proposed amendment and the rationale. Is there any further discussion on the amendment?
Seeing none, I'll go to the question.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
On PV-4, Ms. May.
9:10 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Committee, we're still on clause 14 and also still on page 9 of the bill. PV-4 proposes to delete lines 4 to 9.
The effect of this is to remove ministerial discretion as it applies to the absolute liability limit. This is again based on evidence that the committee heard from Ecojustice that eliminating the discretion of the Minister of Natural Resources to reduce absolute liability levels to below the legislated level of $1 billion, and this is also.... Ecojustice cited advice from the National Energy Board in finding that this was not appropriate. There should not remain a ministerial discretion to reduce the levels of absolute liability below $1 billion.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
June 10th, 2014 / 9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
Chair, this proposed amendment that is being brought before us today would strike out proposed paragraph 14(3)(h.2). I would wonder why such an amendment would be brought forward when it concerns the National Energy Board's capabilities in making recommendations to the minister. I'm just wondering if the officials here could give us some clarification on why proposed paragraph 14(3)(h.2) is there and why it may or may not make sense to remove that discretion from the minister.
9:10 a.m.
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
I think I understand the spirit of the amendment. The spirit would be to remove the ability of the board to make the recommendation. However, this part of the bill provides the ability to make regulations that would set in clear terms what the elements of a recommendation to reduce absolute liability would be based on. If you will, it's the criteria, and the determination of the framework around which the board will consider how it might make a recommendation to the minister to reduce the absolute liability provision in circumstances where it's clearly demonstrable.
The framework would allow for explaining how and why that might occur. It's a way of shaping, if you will, how a recommendation could be brought forward. We've already testified that we see this, in our estimation of it, as a fairly exceptional authority that would not be one that would be exercised quite frequently. It is the regulation-making authority that would, if you will, put the parameters around that.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
9:10 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Chair, I'd like to put a question through you to the officials.
If in the wisdom of the government they want to allow for cases where there is not absolute liability—because we're talking about potentially massive impacts to public resources—does it not make more sense that those conditions and criteria be in the statute and publicly debated, as opposed to being in regulations that are not debated by parliamentarians? Is there a reason it was decided that the criteria would be set forth in the regulations and not in the statute?
9:15 a.m.
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
I think the belief was that there would be the opportunity for the board and for members of the offshore Atlantic boards, because the bill does cover the offshore and the NEB's responsibilities beyond Atlantic Canada, to work with the community, to work with interested parties, and to determine what some of the circumstances would be.
Of course, the regulation-making authority does have public consultation through the Canada Gazette process. The belief here is that there would be an opportunity to look at this in the coming period of time, once passage of the bill occurs. We put the regulation-making authority in the bill so that there would be parameters around this, but there would be some thoughtful and more thorough discussion on that as we go forward.
9:15 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Through you, Mr. Chair, as a follow-up, in the law as it stands right now, I don't recall that there's an obligation on those authorities to consult with the public. Is there?
9:15 a.m.
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
It would happen through the regulation-making authority.
9:15 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
No, that's what I'm saying. Are you saying that it would be through the cabinet, not through the offshore boards? You just said that the offshore boards would consult.
9:15 a.m.
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Energy Sector, Department of Natural Resources
In the regulation-making process, there is public consultation involved in the publishing of the draft regulations, if you will. That allows for comment. The government has to then formally comment on the comments that are provided, and then it's provided as a final draft and goes forward.
There are several executive legislative steps, if you will—excuse me if I have the wrong terminology, but my colleague from Justice will correct me—that allow for that to happen, and it happens in a very formal way.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Perhaps I can remind the member that the scrutiny of regulations committee of the House of Commons can choose to examine regulation from any legislation.
9:15 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
That wasn't what I was speaking to. He had mentioned that it would provide the opportunity for those offshore boards and so forth to consult. But in fact he's saying that it would not be them, that it would be the federal cabinet, which does not tend to consult.
Thanks.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
All right.
Shall amendment PV-4 carry?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Shall clause 14 carry?
9:15 a.m.
NDP
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Avec dissidence.
(Clauses 14 and 15 agreed to on division)
(On clause 16)
9:15 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It will not be a surprise to people following the clause-by-clause study that, based on the explanation I gave for my first amendment, we're seeking throughout the bill to remove “subsection 25.4(1)”.
If you look at the language in my amendment and compare it with the language in the existing bill, you will see that I am proposing to the committee that we amend clause 16 by simply removing “subsection 25.4(1)”.
This is a consequential amendment to the amendment that was already defeated, so I suspect I know how this will go.
