Evidence of meeting #114 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was see.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I just want to ask a question of the officials, to be very clear about something.
What is the format in which this advice has been provided in the past? Is it one unified and agreed-upon piece of advice, or is it, “here is what I think, here is what this person thinks”, a collection of different opinions?
6:10 p.m.
Vice-President, Policy Development Sector, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
It's a panel report that goes through a summary of the information the panel has heard, as well as a summary of their findings, their recommendations, and the conditions they would like the minister or the government to consider in their decision-making and approval process.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
The existence of findings, recommendations, and conditions clearly implies some kind of either voting or consensus process, even though it's not articulated formally in the statute. Is that right?
May 22nd, 2018 / 6:10 p.m.
Vice-President, Policy Development Sector, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
They develop their report as per terms of reference that are set by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Yes, I don't want to belabour the point, but is that a yes, as my NDP colleague said? Is that a yes that there is some kind of process by which...?
What happens if one of the five disagrees? Presumably they vote, right?
6:10 p.m.
Vice-President, Policy Development Sector, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
The process is that they have terms of reference that are set by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. They are required to prepare a report and submit that report.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Has there ever been a case of somebody submitting a dissenting opinion as part of that report, somebody who is part of the panel?
6:10 p.m.
Vice-President, Policy Development Sector, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
To my knowledge, I'm not aware of anything, but we can come back on that in the future if the committee chooses.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
6:10 p.m.
Vice-President, Policy Development Sector, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
I said no, in my knowledge.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Churence Rogers Liberal Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL
Madam Chair, I have to say, I'm surprised, even shocked, by the Conservatives' stance on some of this stuff, this amendment, and how they're throwing the CNLOPB under the bus as far as I'm concerned when it comes to this discussion. I understand where Ms. May and Ms. Duncan stand, but those guys, I'm shocked at their position on this. I have no intention of voting for that kind of an amendment.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I understand Mr. Reid is willing to pull his amendment for the moment, so he's next.
Go ahead. We have yours coming in now, right at the end of line 30. You're suggesting wording that will come in at the end of “in consultation with the Minister of Natural Resources”.
6:15 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
It will read, “Minister of Natural Resources, and will serve ex officio.”
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
I just want to confirm. Does “ex officio” mean you don't count for purposes of a quorum, but also that your votes don't count? Is that the way people are understanding it?
6:15 p.m.
Counsel, Department of Justice
I need just a minute or two to check my references on this, if you don't mind.
6:19 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
We're going to resume.
Can we get some clarification on “ex officio” and whether that will do what they're intending it to do?
6:20 p.m.
Counsel, Department of Justice
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The term “ex officio” might not achieve the purpose that's being proposed by the member. Ex officio refers to a situation whereby a person, by virtue of their function or their position in one instance, also acquires a function or a position in a different one.
For instance, the Minister of Justice is, ex officio, the Attorney General of Canada, as well as an ex officio member of the Law Society of Upper Canada. It doesn't have the exact same connotation.