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.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
If it's a recorded vote, Linda, it supersedes on division. Once they call a recorded vote, on division doesn't work.
(Clause 1 as amended agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)
There are no amendments to clause 2.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
I would like a recorded vote.
(Clause 2 agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)
(On clause 3)
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Madam Chair, I think everyone has the amendment in front of them, so I don't think I have to read it.
The amendment would directly address the stakeholder concerns by enabling joint assessments with provinces, territories, and indigenous jurisdictions. At the same time, it would ensure that joint panels are not established with federal life-cycle regulars. It provides that legal clarity that the minister cannot enter into an agreement with another federal authority for review panels.
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Yes, please.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 3 as amended agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Next is clause 4, and we'll have a recorded vote.
(Clause 4 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings)
Next is clause 5.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
We'll have a recorded vote, please.
(Clause 5 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings)
(On clause 6)
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Clause 6 is still on page 88. It's at line 21.
We are on LIB-75. Mr. Rogers, you're up.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
Churence Rogers Liberal Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL
Madam Chair, again, this has to do with timelines and trying to provide more timely assessments. This particular amendment would support timely assessments by setting a clearer timeline for establishing review panels. Everything else, I think, is pretty much self-explanatory.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
We'll have a recorded vote.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We are now on PV-80. Ms. May.
5:50 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Chair, I want to briefly review the concerns that have been expressed by many. We also had the expert panel on environmental assessment, which recommended that energy regulators did not have a role. They were not referenced as having any future role or expertise that's useful to environmental assessment in the very substantial and thorough report prepared by the expert panel on EA that the federal minister commissioned.
My own personal concern, I have to say, just based on years of work in the Maritimes, is that it really matters that the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board have a legislated mandate. In fact, they have an affirmative duty to expand offshore oil and gas. That's their mandate. It comes out of the accords that were negotiated between the federal government and those provinces.
In this case, I'm deleting the sections that say the roster for an environmental assessment should include people appointed from the membership of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board. I don't know how those people could do the job they are supposed to do on impact assessment without prejudging the outcome when they have a legislated mandate in the body they serve to expand offshore oil and gas.
I think it's not personal to those individuals. It's not about the agency's record. It's just a legal fact that these entities have a statutory conflict of interest, which has not yet been removed. They could have removed it in the context of this legislation, but it was not removed. Of course, the reason it could not be removed easily is you would have to go back and revisit the accords between the federal government and the provinces.
I'm explaining this more for my friends at the end of the table who I know are new to this discussion. It is mind-boggling that this would be proposed, that members of a board that has a mandate to expand offshore oil and gas would be required to serve on panels to decide if it should go ahead or not.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
I would note that we've already touched on this in two of our Liberal amendments, LIB-30 and LIB-33, and we have upcoming Liberal amendments LIB-76 and LIB-78 that we feel address the issues Ms. May has raised.
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Garnett, you may not know the rules, but we've really run out of discussion time on—oh, on this clause we haven't.
Go ahead. You have a short period of time.
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Can you clarify, then, for those who are new, what the rules are? My understanding is that people have unlimited time to speak to things, but you may have passed a programming motion.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
You have five minutes for each clause, which means anything you use on this one you take away from the rest of the discussion on the clause.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Just be mindful of how much time you're using, because you will be taking it away from everyone else on the rest of the clause discussion. Okay?
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Okay. If there is another amendment that relates to the same clause, then any time we've used is not—