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.
7:20 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I'd like a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
7:20 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Chair, the expert panel on the National Energy Board commissioned by the government has said that one of the most significant reasons, if not the most significant reason, the public noted distrust of the NEB was the makeup of its board. There was a strong perception that the board overrepresented oil and gas interests. Canadians voiced a desire for broader experience and expertise at the strategic level.
That advice cost the Government of Canada over $1 million. I did an access to information request to find that out. Expert panels aren't cheap. These were very well-qualified people, including Brenda Kenny from the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association.
The strong recommendation based on that advice is to improve and entrench in the legislation a requirement for a broader level of relevant expertise and experience, including from such things as climate science, renewable energy, community development, as well as understanding traditional knowledge of the indigenous peoples.
Thank you.
7:25 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Madam chair, may I just ask Ms. May if she is replacing the term “traditional” with “indigenous” knowledge.
7:25 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I'm not able to change my own amendments because of the way the committee motion that brought me here is drafted. I certainly don't object to changing that, but I'm not in a position to change it myself.
7:25 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I'm sure you're excited to support it, Ed, so if you want to make the change for me, it would be very friendly.
7:25 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
If you bring something forward that is reasonable, I will support it.
7:25 p.m.
Green
7:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Nobody looks like they're moving that, so let's move on.
Shall amendment PV-98 carry?
7:25 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I'd like a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
7:25 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Madam Chair, we are now on page 105.
NDP-71 is consistent with further recommendations about broadening the scope of determining when someone is in a conflict of interest. I would bring to your attention the way proposed section 29 is written. It very specifically says, “while exercising the powers or performing the duties and functions of a commissioner”.
That's a pretty specific, narrow activity. You could be appointed as a commissioner, and you haven't done any work yet, and you decide to enter into a contract with one of the people who have applied, and it may or may not be reviewed. You could be holding a contract with one of those parties, but you don't do the work while you are sitting in your office and doing your work.
I am deeply troubled by that very narrow description. We know why the NEB was struck down. It was because of activities between members of the NEB, governments, and officials who had interests in various proponents. Supposedly it was just friendly, it was at another activity, and so forth. I don't know why the government wants to do this so narrowly. I think it's just going to open a Pandora's box for concerns being raised.
I would strongly recommend taking out “while exercising the powers or performing the duties and functions of a commissioner” to make clear that, if you are appointed as a commissioner, you simply will have clean hands.
7:25 p.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Madam Chair, I'd like to ask the officials here about the example that was provided of someone being appointed as a commissioner, not having done any duties in that role yet, but being involved in the investments or activities that she's concerned with. Would they not have to relinquish any of those other shareholdings and so on before taking on any duties as the commissioner?
May 22nd, 2018 / 7:25 p.m.
Terence Hubbard Director General, Petroleum Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
That would be the intent of those provisions, yes.
7:25 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I'd like a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
7:30 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Chair, I imagine people will recall that the National Energy Board expert panel also recommended that the newly created Canadian energy regulator should “publish regular reports on incidents and compliance actions” so that any interested party will know what happened, why, and what was done in response. That's taken from page 82 of the expert panel report.
What I've done here is very straightforward, and I do think this is the kind of reasonable thing that Ed wants me to propose so that he can support it.
This is for you, Ed.
Proposed subsection 32(2), which appears under “Inquiry”, sets out what the commission may inquire into in terms of accidents, what we might do to prevent accidents, and decisions made.
At the moment, there's no requirement in the act to report on any of that, so it's a very straightforward and common-sense approach to say that the commissioner must make public the determinations that are made under proposed paragraphs 32(2)(a), (b), and (c). Once the commission has done this work, publish it. Make a report to which the public has access, and be more transparent about the work of the commission.
7:30 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
No, but I would like a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])