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
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
And do you know what? I think it's an excellent thought, but as much as I might think that's a good idea, I think future ministers would ensure there was always balance, and they're not precluded from ensuring that indigenous representation remains a minority.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
It's a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we're on PV-91.
Ms. May.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Again, this is to the same point, but phrased differently and in a different proposed subsection.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I'd like to have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Actually, if we're going to PV-92, that was not allowed because it was in direct conflict with Linda Duncan's last amendment, so I now move to PV-93.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Oh, I misunderstood what you said when you introduced her amendment for a vote.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
It's my fault in the way I said it. It is “if adopted”, not “moved”. It's my fault, sorry. It wasn't adopted. You're good to go.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Well, then like Lazarus risen again, let me point out that amendment PV-92 would allow the Governor in Council to ensure we had a board of diverse expertise, including—and I think this is really important—“relevant experience and expertise in climate science”. That would be phenomenal to have on a CER board, as well as renewable energy, community development, and an understanding of the traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples.
Of course, this would be a broad range of experience and expertise not limited to these, but we'd draw attention to these because they've been so significantly lacking in the past.
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
Madam Chair, this is dealing with the issue of time limits on how long a person can serve on a board. The current legislation at clause 10, proposed subsection 21(3), puts a time limit in place for how long the CEO can serve, but at the moment directors seem to be able to be appointed for an indefinite period, and that doesn't seem like a good idea.
If we're going to put a time limit on the CEO, why do we not put a time limit on directors? I don't see a rationale for it, and on that basis I'm proposing, at line 11 on page 100, a proposed subsection 15(2.1), that reads:
(2.1) No director is to serve in any capacity if they have served a combination of terms totalling ten years.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Madam Chair, I have a question for Ms. May. Is it the intention that if a director has served for 10 years and they stepped down for a year, they would not qualify at any time in the future to rejoin?
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
That's an interesting hypothetical. The way it was drafted was to ensure that a person who has served 10 years cannot continue to serve. Given your hypothetical and the way this is drafted, the answer would be yes. If you stepped down for a year merely to refresh yourself and stepped back on, you would be seen to have overstayed your term. There would be a term limit.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I think the same would apply when thinking of the CEO under the current drafting.