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.
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Okay. That seems like a strange approach, but I guess I'm new to this.
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I understand, but the bottom line is that, when you have such an extensive and omnibus bill, you would think a committee would be the one place where you actually have the time to have that discussion. That seems like the point of a committee, in a way, that you can dig into it.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Garnett, I have been very generous. You haven't been here, so you wouldn't know that. We are way past those rules, but I am going to be strict if we are just repeating ourselves.
What do you have to say on this particular one?
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I will go ahead and say my piece and won't go longer than I need to, but I think the issue here is that it's important that on any of these boards you have some kind of structure that ensures a balance of perspectives. The existing provision, when it talks about having people who have some connection, some affiliation, in terms of supporting the development of those resources, says at least two of the persons.... I think it establishes a certain proportion within that, but that still creates an opportunity for balance to be achieved in other ways.
On that basis, I don't see the need for what's been proposed. I think it makes sense as it is.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Okay. That's great.
Shall the amendment carry?
You want a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're going to LIB-76.
We had a subamendment to the amendment. What are we going to do?
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
The essence of this one is simply that the amendment addresses the concerns the different stakeholders raised by retaining a role for life-cycle regulators while also ensuring that panel membership is balanced.
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
We've had a discussion on this before.
We'll have a recorded vote.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We are now at the end of this clause.
6 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
We'd like to have a recorded vote on that, if we could.
(Clause 6 as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3 [ See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause7)
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
If I have it right, clause 7 is on page 89, at line 9.
We're at LIB-77.
Mr. Rogers.
6 p.m.
Liberal
Churence Rogers Liberal Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL
Again, Madam Chair, this simply has to do with timelines and would support timely assessments by setting a clear timeline for establishing review panels.
6 p.m.
Conservative
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
No, we did clause 6. We did LIB-76, and then we did clause 6, and now we're on clause 7.
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
We're on LIB-77. It's okay. There's a lot going on.
We had an explanation for LIB-77.
We'll have a recorded vote.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're now moving to PV-81.
Ms. May.
6 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Chair, this one has an identical rationale to the one I put forward earlier in that this now applies to saying that we will delete the sections that say you must appoint from the roster on review of offshore drilling in an area that's otherwise regulated by the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board.
The same rationale applies, so I'll just use the quick opportunity to respond, and I appreciate what Mr. Aldag's comments were, that Liberal amendments are in the same ballpark. They don't eliminate my concerns. They moderate them. They make a really horrific thing less horrific, but I will go to my grave never understanding why the Liberals ignored the advice of the expert panel and told us they were going to do one agency and then injected the very same regulators from Bill C-38, who have been so offensive until today, to have any role at all.
I don't know when my grave will greet me, but as this goes on, it seems to me it should be soon.
In any case, I've said my piece. This is to remove members of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board and their embedded conflict of interest from the roster of participants in impact assessment—
6 p.m.
Liberal
6 p.m.
Liberal
Churence Rogers Liberal Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL
Madam Chair, I totally disagree with my colleague across the way. The industry in the province, and the people involved in running the industry in the province, and the work that they've done, they have a lot of experience, both federal and provincial. I understand some of the concerns that Ms. May may have, but I totally disagree with some of her comments.
6 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
I have a question. I assume the point is to put people who have a certain kind of expertise in there. If the concern is that the two individuals are being appointed from this roster, couldn't you achieve the same goal by having them serve in an ex officio capacity, where they're present but aren't necessarily actually voting? Wouldn't that resolve both the government's concerns and Ms. May's concerns?
The answer's yes? Okay.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
There's a way to do it. There's the potential to bring an amendment from the floor if you wish to do so.
