Evidence of meeting #2 for Subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Finance on Bill C-38 in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was environmental.
A video is available from Parliament.
8:25 p.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
The additional environmental impacts, perhaps a tripling under the tripling of production...how will Bill C-38 reduce those impacts?
8:25 p.m.
President, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
I expect it won't reduce the impacts. Those projects will continue to be evaluated as they were before. The outcomes will be assessed. If they can be mitigated, the projects will go forward. This is not about reducing environmental impacts; this is about improving process so projects can be properly assessed.
8:25 p.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
When they are properly assessed, that's usually included.
Given the increased scrutiny of the environmental impacts of the oil sands, how do you anticipate these changes to environmental laws in Bill C-38 will improve your industry's social licence to operate?
8:30 p.m.
President, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
I think social licence is driven by performance, it's driven by how we communicate, and it's driven by the integrity of the regulatory process. I don't see anything in any of these changes that are being proposed that would negatively impact any of those. In fact, I see some things that will improve environmental oversight and regulation. If anything, if we have a more competitive and more credible regulatory process, which I think this will result in, that will be a plus, not a negative, in terms of social licence.
8:30 p.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
You think it will improve your industry's social licence to operate. Is that correct?
8:30 p.m.
President, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
I think having a credible, efficient, effective regulatory process will improve social licence.
8:30 p.m.
President, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
That's what this is about.
8:30 p.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Will Bill C-38 improve your industry's social licence to operate?
8:30 p.m.
President, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
Bill C-38 will lead to credible environmental assessment more efficiently and more effectively than we do today, and that will assist in increasing our social licence.
8:30 p.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Can you comment on how transparency on greenhouse gas emissions will be assured now that the government is repealing the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act?
8:30 p.m.
Conservative
8:30 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Centre-North, AB
I believe the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act is contained in another section of the budget implementation act. Our focus is on part 3.
8:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
Ms. Duncan, Ms. Rempel has a valid point. Perhaps you could stick to the purview that we've been given by the parent committee, the finance committee, which is to study this particular section. I believe the Kyoto Protocol is in part 4 of the bill.
8:30 p.m.
Conservative
8:30 p.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Well, I think it's very significant. This is a point of order, so the time shouldn't count. Also, the repeal is part of this budget bill and is extremely important.
8:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
Ms. Duncan, I've made a ruling. We were given a mandate from the committee. I don't have any authority other than that mandate that's been given to us by the finance committee to study anything outside part 3 of this particular bill. If we want to spend all of our time on points of order about what we're going to talk about and not going to talk about, we're not going to get through this in a very effective way.
Mr. Julian.
8:30 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
A point of order, Mr. Chair.
First, of course, you don't subtract time from an individual who's questioning when a point of order is raised by the government.
Secondly, you've already ruled. A week and a half ago you ruled in this committee, when the minister raised the Kyoto Protocol, that information and subjects that the ministers had raised in their testimony were then subject to discussion by this committee.
8:30 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
You've already ruled, and you ruled exactly the opposite of what you're saying now.
8:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
I'll respond to your point, Mr. Julian.
If you listened to what my words were in that particular case, it was brought up by a witness who was testifying before the committee. That was raised by the minister at their appearance at that particular session of the committee. I haven't heard the word “Kyoto” mentioned once by any of the witnesses who have testified here. That was the essence of my ruling.
Ms. Duncan, I can't do anything about the mandate we've been given, which is to study part 3 of this bill. If I'm out of line, please point out to me the section in part 3 that addresses the Kyoto Protocol and I'll have a look at it.
My understanding of the legislation is that the Kyoto Protocol is contained in part 4 of the bill, and therefore Ms. Rempel's point of order is valid, and my ruling is that the question is out of order.
8:30 p.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Okay.
Again, to Mr. Collyer, the National Energy Board evaluates projects to ensure that they are in the public's best interest, meaning that decisions are based on evidence, hard facts, and science, not politics. Do you think politicians have the necessary expertise to gather, synthesize, and analyze the vast amount of data collected for a pipeline review and to make an evidence-based decision?
8:30 p.m.
President, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
What we've said consistently is that the regulatory process needs to be embedded in a broader public policy framework. I would expect the Government of Canada to defer to the regulator on those matters that are directly the purview and the expertise of the regulator. But I would also suggest that there may be occasions when a broader public policy is relevant to the final decision. That, I would argue, should be used selectively and carefully. But I think there is a time and a place for government to make decisions in the broader public interest.