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.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
I guess we'd have to deal with this first because she's eliminating. Maybe I'll try doing that immediately afterwards.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Sure, there's also a Liberal one that you can look at, too, which is coming up.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I want to reiterate the comments by Ms. May. I'm repeatedly stunned that we spent a lot of money on two expert panels travelling the country hearing from everyone, and then, at clause-by-clause, we are completely refusing to take the advice from the expert panels.
This is another one. The same issue that we had with the NEB, we have with this panel. They promised they would have independent review bodies. Why on earth are we appointing more advisory bodies in here? Are we going to ignore their advice, too? I find it very disappointing. It was a very impressive expert panel, and they recommended against this. I agree with Ms. May.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Can we do a recorded vote?
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Madam Chair, I'd like to propose an amendment.
Liberal
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Yes. The amendment would read, “must be appointed, in a non-voting capacity, from a roster”, and everything else would remain the same.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Is there any interest from the experts to chime in on what the implications of that may be or on how that works?
Go ahead, Mr. Labonté.
Jeff Labonté Assistant Deputy Minister, Major Projects Management Office, Department of Natural Resources
If we understand the amendment right, it's suggesting that they would be non-voting, but the panels do not vote in any way, shape, or form. The panels provide recommendations to the minister or to the government. In this instance, they would be made to the government, to make a decision as to whether a project would proceed under the impact assessment act, and in this instance, the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board act. So there is no voting, if you will.
Conservative
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
If it's more than one person, you have to come to some kind of consensus or have a vote. You have to have some kind of internal process to decide how to deal with disagreements, unless the panel is making a series of seriatim recommendations. Let's say you have five people and each one submits their own view, and you get this list of potentially disagreeing opinions. I don't see how one overcomes having an internal decision-making process, which is either consensus—we all have to agree—or it's a majority, or it's something else like two-thirds. Ultimately, there's some kind of ability to say yea or nay that gets counted. I don't see how you avoid that. Am I missing something?
Assistant Deputy Minister, Major Projects Management Office, Department of Natural Resources
The composition of the panel is determined by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, from the roster, of which two would come from the petroleum board members who are on the roster. The balance would be chosen from the minister's roster, and that would be composed of the five people who are on the panel.
The inner workings as to how the panel develops its report and how it comes to its conclusions is the panel's responsibility, and it's not statutorily defined anywhere in the act.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Right, but Madam Chair, it isn't defined but it would be defined if we put this in. There is nothing that prohibits us from defining it in the act. It's just that up until now we haven't chosen to do so. As I say, it may be bad policy—that's a reasonable argument—but it's not unlawful or contrary to the way the statute is supposed to work.
Vice-President, Policy Development Sector, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
With all due respect, if I understand the amendment correctly, it's not defining the panel and whether they are to vote or not; it's just saying that those two members wouldn't be voting. But as my colleague has pointed out, it's not a manner or a fashion in which the reports are generally developed. It is experts coming together to put together recommendations, and it's at their choosing how they arrive at the recommendations in that report.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I have a list.
Ms. May, we're building the list.
Garnett, you're after Ms. Duncan.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I want to say that the plain, common-sense effort of my friend Mr. Reid is to appoint people ex officio. I think it's a bit incredible that our experts are telling us that people got it right. They don't sit there and all provide different information. One way or another, they come to a conclusion.
If we create this amendment that says these people are there, which is always the argument given by representatives who want to see that these energy regulators have a role, we understand that they have some sort of expertise. Surely, if they're in the room offering their expertise, the government rationale is completely met.
My concern that they are required by statute to promote the thing they are now supposedly reviewing impartially is significantly lessened if they're there ex officio. Perhaps the term “ex officio” is better than injecting the word “voting”, since that's being taken to be a prescriptive assessment of exactly what a panel does when there are multiple people in the room writing a shared report. I have to agree with Mr. Reid. I can't imagine how else they would come to a conclusion if they're not prepared at some point to vote. Certainly, if they're ex officio they're in a different category, and that certainly would be preferable.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
If my colleague would be willing to pull his amendment, I think a better way would be to put on line 30, after “natural resources”, a comma, “and will serve ex officio”.