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.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Centre-North, AB
I'd just like to thank Mr. Barry, who probably doesn't even know which time zone he's in right now, for interrupting a trip to Australia to be here tonight.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
That's excellent.
On that note, I would like to thank all the witnesses for coming in on very short notice and I thank those who were available by teleconference as well. Thank you for sharing your valuable input and expertise with us. We'll certainly put it to good use in the next few minutes as we do the clause-by-clause evaluation.
I'm going to suspend the meeting for three to five minutes to give members a break. We're going to come back and do clause-by-clause study in five minutes.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
I call the committee back to order, please. We're going to move to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-15.
Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), the consideration of the preamble and clause 1, the short title, is postponed.
(Clause 2 agreed to)
(On clause 3)
On clause 3, amendment deemed moved, is there debate?
NDP
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'm not quite sure how this works with the amendments. Can you explain how we're doing this?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Because Ms. May is not here, the amendment is deemed moved, and now we're open for debate on the amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
I do have a ruling on it, but is there debate first?
Okay. The motion has been made. However, the ruling is that Bill S-15 amends the Canada National Parks Act to ensure continuity of existing leases, easements, and licences of occupation in or on the Sable Island National Park Reserve of Canada. This amendment proposes to subject the continuity to pending consultations with first nations and the general public.
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, this condition is contrary to the provisions of clause 3 of Bill S-15 and is therefore inadmissible.
This ruling also applies to amendment MAY-2.
(Clause 3 agreed to)
(Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to)
(On clause 6)
On clause 6, amendment MAY-3 is deemed moved. Debate.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Centre-North, AB
With regard to this particular amendment, it's my understanding that it contradicts the 2010 Canada-Nova Scotia MOU, in which Canada and Nova Scotia agreed not to recommend the “creation of a federal protected area” that would have an adverse impact on their interests in and management of offshore petroleum resources.
The amendment also contradicts the terms of the 2011 Canada-Nova Scotia national parks agreement. Industry may need access to Sable Island to conduct low-impact seismic from time to time to ensure that any offshore activities are conducted in a fully informed and environmentally safe manner.
As we have heard in witness testimony from across the spectrum of witnesses in the last two meetings, Mr. Chair, we do believe that through the development of the management plan, or potentially another instrument, this particular activity can be defined and put into a formal framework of some type, such that it can be done without adversely impacting the ecological integrity of the Sable national park.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
I have a ruling on amendment MAY-4 as well.
Bill S-15 amends the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act by prohibiting any work or activity related to the drilling for petroleum. This amendment would permit the establishment of any facilities related to emergency evacuation without the board's authorization.
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, this amendment is contrary to the provisions of clauses 6 and 8 of Bill S-15 and is therefore inadmissible.
Amendment MAY-5 is deemed moved.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're on amendment MAY-6.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we have amendment LIB-1.
Ms. Duncan, you have a minute to speak to your amendment.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Thank you so much.
It would prohibit drilling underneath the island. As you all know, it's a national treasure with significant biodiversity, 375 wild horses, 350 species of birds, etc. There are a number of breeds that are protected under the Species at Risk Act. This process to protect Sable Island has been decades in the making. We owe it to the island, the wildlife that lives there, and Nova Scotians to get it right. In terms of directional drilling, there's a lot we don't know.
Conservative
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Centre-North, AB
As we've heard in testimony from the Nova Scotia government and other witnesses, the horizontal drilling rights are important to seeing the passage of this particular legislation. I'd also remind my colleagues that there is mirror legislation in place with the province of Nova Scotia which this would impact significantly.
As has been mentioned numerous times, and it's my understanding anyway, there will be an opportunity to discuss policies and practices related to drilling, etc., as further consultations on the parks management plan is developed.
Conservative
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I'd just like to add to that the fact that the evidence we've heard suggests that when licences of this nature are granted, there would be a very complete and rigorous environmental assessment. The environment commissioner was satisfied that the board that performs that assessment does its due diligence, and I have confidence in his opinion.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
NDP
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, or Mr. Chair, whatever works.
It is easier in French: it is the same for the Chair and the Speaker.
We're going to try this the third time because it's basically the same amendment.
Notwithstanding the testimony of industry that we heard today, we are legislators around this table. We have the right to create legislation and industry will follow. I ask my colleagues to consider this amendment which is in the best interest of Sable Island.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Centre-North, AB
I appreciate my colleague's testimony and I certainly appreciate the goodwill that has gone through the debate on this piece of legislation both in the House and here. My concern with this amendment is there is mirror legislation that has been passed by the Nova Scotia government which this would impact. Given the rationale that we've previously stated, and which Mr. Woodworth also just alluded to, my inclination would be to not support this amendment.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
May I just, as a point of order, inquire about the fact that this amendment seems substantially the same as the LIB-1 amendment. It would seem to me that since we just defeated amendment LIB-1, it may well be out of order to be considering a further amendment which is in substantially the same terms.
[Technical difficulty—Editor]
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 6 agreed to)
(On clause 7)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
We're moving to clause 7. We have two amendments, MAY-7 and LIB-2.
Ms. May's amendment is deemed moved. Is there debate on the amendment?
Ms. Leslie.
NDP
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
It's not actually debate, I should have said “point of order”.
There is a problem with the translation from English to French. If you look at proposed subsection (2) in the amendment, it says, “within 60 days” and there's nothing in the French version that says “60 days”.
I'm not asking for a ruling, just that it's on the record that the two versions match.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Are we okay to proceed based on making the English version applicable to the French version?
We're going to proceed as “within 60 days”.
We're still on amendment MAY-7. Is there further debate on amendment MAY-7 with the point of order?
Ms. Rempel.