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.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Proposed section 103.4 says that you can't receive remuneration, so you should be okay.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
It says, “No member of the Tribunal is to receive remuneration”.
It passes. It can go through.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
That's wonderful. It's a shame that Mike is not able to be here, for good and strong family reasons. I certainly do think that if he were here, he would be very pleased that my amendment can stand where his was set aside, because it achieves largely the same thing: to try to establish a tribunal that will create.... I think it will reduce the amount of time in court. I'm sure that friends may be about to say that it will create additional impediments, but working through the conduct of the entire case—and we certainly heard this from numerous witnesses before us, including Meinhard Doelle from Dalhousie law school and Rick Lindgren from CELA—this will be expeditious to handling impact assessment by ensuring that there is a regular access to a quasi-judicial assessment appeal tribunal.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I believe it is out of order. The whole purpose of protecting the crown against any actions here at committee or in private member's bills is imposing a burden on the public purse.
In this case, no remuneration to the members of the tribunal is provided for. However, out-of-pocket expenses would be recoverable by those serving in this capacity. That is a burden on the public purse.
Going beyond that, when establishing a tribunal, you have to set up the structures and the administrative support to conduct the appeals under this tribunal. This has an impact on the public purse. I don't know how you can rule one way in the previous amendment, and then say, no, this doesn't. It's not the issue of remuneration to members. It is, “Does this create an additional charge on the government's spending?” Of course it does. There's going to be an administrative system set up to conduct these appeals under the tribunal. There's going to be out-of-pocket expenses as tribunal members come to participate in the tribunals.
Madam Chair, I would ask you to reconsider.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I hear your points. They're well made.
We're going to suspend for just two minutes to have a discussion. I hear your points, but there's a bit of grey here, so let me just have a discussion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
We're going to come back.
You've made a very good argument, but as we've gone through the bill we've looked at other ways that this royal recommendation is applied.
In part 2, you have a tribunal. There is the ability to appoint a tribunal, so I'm ruling it's not out of scope of the bill. That's not to say that there may be more costs if you do this, but it's within the overall scope of the bill. I'm going to allow this one, and we'll proceed to vote on it. I fully understand your point.
Ms. Duncan.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I can't conceive of any credible tribunal that has no remuneration. I would like to propose a subamendment to this to strike proposed section 103.4, and then I would feel I could vote on it.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
No. I already struck the other one out, and she tried to bring in..so if I change that, then it's out.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I know it's going to get voted down by the non-government government members, but I'm just stating where my position is.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
It is incredible to consider there would be an appeal tribunal that receives no remuneration.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Let's have that on the record with the vote.
Linda, are you withdrawing that? If you do that, I'm going to have to rule it inadmissible.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I'd like to move that subamendment. I'd like to take proposed section 103.4 out.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I would like a recorded vote.
(Subamendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 1)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Now we're going to PV-75.1
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're moving to LIB-55.1.
Mr. Amos.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
We had discussed with Mr. Bossio his desire to see that meaningful public participation would be enabled at all stages of the process. This particular amendment goes to ensuring that public comments that are received are made available online, also that the records and information are easily accessible to indigenous people, to stakeholders—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I'll send mine down to you and get another one later.
Okay. Mr. Amos was in the middle of explaining his amendment, LIB-55.1.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
As I was mentioning, Mr. Bossio's LIB-55.1 really tries to do two things: ensuring the public comments that are received will be made available online, entrenching that aspect in law; and also ensuring the records and information will be easily accessible and remain available over time. The idea is to create some degree of permanence to the records that are submitted so that the public can fully engage and public participation is better enabled.