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.
Director General, Petroleum Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
If I read this correctly, it's simply a proposal to change a “may” to a “must” include processes to meaningfully engage the public when hearings are required under the legislation.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
It does something like what you were talking about before.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 8; nays 1)
I just want to make sure you're all aware that NDP-75 and PV-107 cannot be moved, because now there's a line conflict.
On PV-106, go ahead, Ms. May.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Again, this is in the public participation section, page 120, line 12, and it's related to the importance found in the purpose clause of the proposed act, which instructs us that one of the act's purposes is “to ensure that regulatory hearings and decision-making processes related to those energy matters are fair, inclusive, transparent and efficient.”
To that end, I am proposing a new subsection 74(2), so that “The Regulator must, at the end of each fiscal year, prepare and make public a report that includes an evaluation of the processes established under subsection (1)”, which is of course around public engagement, that it would “set out its plan for public engagement for the upcoming year”, and that, in developing this plan, it would “invite the public to provide comments”.
This is about an ever-involving, open, inclusive, fair, and transparent process for engaging the public in decision-making.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
A recorded vote has been requested.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Madam Chair, I'm not sure why you're saying NDP-75 is no longer consistent, because I'm simply adding a qualifier.
They changed NDP-75 to say “the Regulator”. It says exactly the same, “For the purposes of this Act, the Regulator must”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
It's because there's a line conflict. NDP-75 says lines 13 and 14, on page 120, so they changed it. Sorry, Linda.
We're now moving on to CPC-14.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
This is another amendment put forward by my colleague Ms. Stubbs from Lakeland. She proposes that Bill C-69 in clause 10 be amended by replacing line 18 on page 120 with the following:
241(3). The participant funding program may also be used to facilitate the participation of the Indigenous peoples of Canada and Indigenous organizations in any steps leading up to those hearings.
The purpose is effectively to ensure that the participant program, which a regulator may establish, can only fund the participation of Indigenous people and Indigenous groups in the steps leading up to the public hearing played out in the act. As C-69 is currently written, the regulator may establish a participant funding program to help facilitate the participation of both the general public and Indigenous peoples in the public hearings and in the steps leading up to public hearings.
Just to be very clear, we support the funding of both public and Indigenous people's participation in public hearings. We also support funding Indigenous participation in the steps leading up to those hearings. However, allowing the participant funding program to fund all public participation in such a broadly defined portion of this regulatory process is irresponsible.
NDP
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Only because if you look at line 18, it starts with “241(3)”. That's what it starts with.
There is a period because they start a new sentence. They're stopping it there. It was “241(3) and any steps leading to those hearings”. They're starting a new sentence that expands on that. I'm still not sure I get what the difference is, but—
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Can we have it recorded?
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The participant funding program in this act, strangely, as currently drafted, unlike the impact assessment act, only provides for the potential for participant funding. It doesn't require participant funding. I think it's inconsistent. Obviously it's inconsistent with the impact assessment process. Why would the same government say participant funding is important if you're doing an impact assessment but not important if you're proceeding under the Canadian energy regulator? The participant funding program is a toe in the water in section 75, in that, “the Regulator may establish a participant funding program”.
My amendment would ensure that it was not discretionary but mandatory, as it should be. Thank you.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I'd like a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I'd just suggest, on PV-108, that if we're not serious it shouldn't be called “public engagement”. It should be called “public dating”. Sorry, that was a bad joke.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
It doesn't look like they're serious.
PV-109 is to ensure that we have an indigenous governing body referenced and not merely a government or indigenous organization. The language “Indigenous governing body” was specifically recommended to this committee by numerous witnesses, including the Assembly of First Nations. Thank you.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I'd like a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal