Evidence of meeting #82 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was parks.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:10 p.m.
Conservative
9:10 p.m.
Conservative
9:10 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I think this would be a highly unusual clause. It would set a rather bad precedent if every time the government wanted to institute a memorandum of understanding it had to take it to committee. It doesn't seem wise to me.
9:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
I think we're ready for my ruling; at least that's my impression.
Bill S-15 amends the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act to restrict surface access rights provided for under that act and to provide for the issuance of licences and authorizations with respect to activities that may be carried out in Sable Island national park reserve of Canada. This amendment proposes to lay any proposed memorandum of understanding concluded between the board and Parks Canada agency under section 46 of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act before each House of Parliament.
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on page 766:
An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.
In the opinion of the chair, the amendment attempts to introduce a new concept that is beyond the scope of Bill S-15 and is therefore inadmissible.
(Clause 8 agreed to)
(Clauses 9 to 15 inclusive agreed to)
9:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
We now have a new clause, which is amendment LIB-5.
Ms. Duncan.
9:15 p.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
This is a review clause. It would require Parliament, most likely a committee, to study not only the operation of this act but also the working relationship between Parks Canada and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board.
I want to make sure we get this right and that we don't forget about Sable Island after Bill S-15 receives royal assent. I'm proposing that we come back and take another look at it in five years. How has it fared? How is it being enforced? What is the health of the island, its ecosystem, and wildlife? Also, what is the relationship between Parks Canada and the board? Are there areas of friction or concern? How can we smooth those out?
9:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
I do have a ruling on this, but I will allow debate if you want to continue.
9:15 p.m.
NDP
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
Thanks.
I think this is a great proposal. My only regret is that I didn't think of it myself. We see these kinds of parliamentary reviews quite often in legislation, for example, in SARA and CEAA, which we've dealt with in this committee. I think it's a great idea.
9:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Centre-North, AB
This will shock you, Mr. Chair.
We also think that a parliamentary review is good, but there is another way. The issue I have with this particular amendment is that it would have the effect of amending the section dealing specifically with the Marmot Basin ski area in Jasper National Park. But the proposed amendment, in our opinion, is redundant in that, within five years, Parks Canada must table in Parliament a management plan for Sable Island national park reserve. This will provide the opportunity for a parliamentary review of the overall management of Sable Island, including the provisions of Bill S-15, as well as the work of Parks Canada with the Offshore Petroleum Board.
9:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
I will give my ruling at this point.
Bill S-15 amends the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act by prohibiting drilling for petroleum, by restricting surface access rights, and by providing for the issuance of licences and authorizations with respect to activities that may be carried out in Sable Island national park reserve of Canada.
The proposed amendment aims to also review the working relationship between the Parks Canada agency and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board.
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on page 766:
An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.
In the opinion of the chair, the “working relationship between the Parks Canada agency and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board” is beyond the scope of Bill S-15 and is therefore inadmissible.
(Clause 16 agreed to)
Shall the short title carry?
9:15 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
9:15 p.m.
Conservative
9:15 p.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Mr. Chair, this amendment would affect the preamble of the bill to affirm that the circumstances facing the establishment of Sable Island as a national park are an exception and that they should not be used as a precedent for creating national parks in areas of oil and gas exploration.
As all of you know, one of my biggest concerns with this legislation is that it may be used as a precedent to weaken environmental protection in the future. I know I've spoken on this before, but due to the fragility of Sable Island and its historic and ecological importance, I think it's worth saying again. I really don't want this to be used as a precedent.
9:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
I have a ruling on this one as well, by the way.
Ms. Rempel and then Mr. Woodworth.
9:20 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Centre-North, AB
Mr. Chair, the preamble to Bill S-15 is not repeated in the provincial legislation, so it would only apply to the federal act. The proposed amendment calls on the Government of Nova Scotia to, in part, not use Bill S-15 as a precedent for creating new national parks in areas of oil and gas exploration, or allowing oil and gas exploration in any new national parks. This subject matter is not germane to the province of Nova Scotia.
The preamble as currently written suggests that Parks Canada should no longer consider proposed national parks should they be located in areas of oil and gas exploration. This could constitute an enormous constraint on Parks Canada's ability to complete the national parks system.
I think this was the point that was made by Ms. Leslie in her questioning of certain witnesses. This is a park that exists within an area of hydrocarbon exploration, and we're actually getting an enormous ecological integrity gain from this legislation.
The preamble is redundant in that Bill S-15 does not amend the Canada National Parks Act to permit petroleum exploration and drilling activities in any national park or national park reserve, nor in any future national park or national park reserve.
9:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Mr. Woodworth, and then Ms. May. Oh, Ms. May, I'm sorry. You're not a part of the regular committee so your participation is limited to introducing your amendments.
Mr. Woodworth.
9:20 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Ms. Rempel has come close to saying what I intended to say. Let me just emphasize it a little more by saying that I think, actually, it's a great precedent to establish an area of ecological protection within an oil and gas field. Quite frankly, that's the kind of precedent we should look to extend. If we have opportunities to create areas of protection within oil and gas fields, I see nothing wrong with that, and I don't mind it being a precedent for the protection of the environment.
9:20 p.m.
NDP
François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We are all happy that Sable Island is becoming a park, but not because oil and gas exploration can be done, or that it could constitute a precedent. It is not that at all. It is a marvellous, unique and exceptional place, and that is why we want to protect it. Unfortunately, yes, there is oil and gas exploration. However, we do not want to make it a precedent that would allow oil and gas exploration elsewhere. That is the difference. We were never pleased or said we were happy about a precedent being established, nor about the fact that, from now on, a park could be created and there could be oil and gas exploration at the same time. We thought it would be better to have a park than nothing at all. It is very different.
That is why Kirsty Duncan asked several times if this bill would create a precedent. Several times, we were told that that would never be the case. No one here ever stated they intended to make it a precedent and repeat this type of situation several times.
We have here a small amendment that says absolutely nothing dangerous. I know you have a ruling to give on it, Mr. Chair, but frankly, there is nothing dangerous about it. It only specifies that it would not be a precedent. It explains that a park is a park, and an oil and gas exploration site is an oil and gas exploration site.
I would like to vote in favour of this amendment. I hope we will be able to vote on it.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
9:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
I'm going to give the ruling of the chair on this amendment.
This amendment seeks to make a substantive modification by adding new elements to the preamble. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, page 770, states:
In the case of a bill that has been referred to a committee after second reading, a substantive amendment to the preamble is admissible only if it is rendered necessary by amendments made to the bill.
—which we have not done—
In addition, an amendment to the preamble is in order when its purpose is to clarify it or to ensure the uniformity of the English and French versions.
In the opinion of the chair, the proposed amendment is substantive, and therefore, is inadmissible.
June 17th, 2013 / 9:25 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Chair, can you seek permission for me to speak to my amendments?
9:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
The only way that a member of the House of Commons who is not a member of the standing committee has an opportunity to speak is with the unanimous consent of the committee.
9:25 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I was invited to be here, but not given notice of the meeting until later in the day today, and I was in British Columbia.