Finance Committee on June 4th, 2012

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Yes, I move NDP-38, that Bill C-38, in clause 142, be amended by deleting line 31 on page 158 to line 8 on page 159.

I would like a recorded vote, Mr. Chair.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

(Clause 142 agreed to on division)

(Clauses 143 to 162 inclusive agreed to division)

(On clause 163)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We have amendment NDP-39.

Ms. Leslie has indicated that she wants to speak to it.

Ms. Nash, do you want to move it?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I'll move NDP-39, that Bill C-38, in clause 163, be amended by deleting line 31 on page 181 to line 8 on page 182.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Discussion, Ms. Leslie?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The proposed amendment deals with the Species at Risk Act. As I'm sure all of you know, the Species at Risk Act is an important piece of legislation to protect our species at risk. Currently the way this amendment is written....

I'm sorry. I'm getting my amendments mixed up, I guess. The way the government amendment is written, it would allow the minister to have as many times as he or she wanted to allow a reapplication for a permit that would actually disrupt species at risk.

Just saying that makes me realize why we so badly need the NDP amendment. If we have a herd of caribou in northern Canada where a development project, a mining project, or any kind of project is going to disrupt this herd, which we know are a species at risk, this makes no sense. Why in the world would we give authority to the minister—a political appointment, not a scientist—to issue permits to allow that herd to be disrupted for an infinite amount of time, for as long as she or he wants?

It makes absolutely no sense. These are species that are at risk. By their very definition, we shouldn't be allowing for any kind of impact that makes it less likely that they will survive and less likely that they will flourish or perhaps even come back as a robust species.

This NDP amendment would actually get rid of that power, because, quite frankly, it's too much power for the minister. If scientists have decided that this is a species at risk, we shouldn't allow the minister to just willy-nilly allow these permits that will disrupt those species.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Ms. Leslie.

Is there further discussion on this amendment?

Mr. Van Kesteren.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

The NDP member is suggesting that we delete line 31, which would make authorization, again, for five years of permits and five years of agreements. The government feels that, with longer durations, authorizations can be issued for a period better suited to the activity in question. Longer-term authorizations will also allow the federal government to work with project proponents and other partners in achieving long-term meaningful conservation actions for species at risk in Canada.

This is important in a context where protection and recovery actions, such as restoring habitat or increasing the number of species, often must be undertaken over a longer period than the existing duration of permits—like three or five years. Longer-term authorizations with enforceable conditions will therefore provide for improved compliance, certainly for stakeholders, and will set the right context for more effective longer-term conservation acts as the permit conditions.

On the other part, has the member spoken to line 35 on page 181 and line 8 on page 182? I would like to speak to that as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

It is my understanding that she spoke to the entire amendment. I would do so at this time, Mr. Van Kesteren.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Then I would add that legally binding timelines to be set in regulation will ensure a consistent approach across federal statutes when it comes to timelines for issuing and renewing permits. Environment Canada will continue to re-evaluate the SAR authorization requests rigorously to determine what risk the proposed activity poses to the protected species and if the activity can be authorized without jeopardizing the survival or recovery of species at risk.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We'll go to a vote on NDP-39.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

A recorded vote on this, please.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 163 agreed to on division)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Colleagues, can I group clauses 164 to 169?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

This essentially takes us to the end of part 3.

(Clauses 164 to 169 inclusive agreed to on division)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Colleagues, we are at the end of part 3.

It's about 6:25 p.m. We have 15-minute bells at 6:30 p.m., so we have a short time to get to the House.

We also have 23 votes tonight, which was not expected when we established our timetable. We were supposed to sit until 9:30 p.m. I suspect we'll be voting for at least a few hours—unless something changes in the House, but obviously we don't have control of that.

I'm going to recommend to the committee that we start again with part 4 tomorrow at 3:30 p.m. I just think that would be best. Frankly, to ask officials and interpreters and others to stick around for three hours, when we may come back for only half an hour tonight, I just don't think is reasonable.

Ms. Nash.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Chair, I understand what you're saying, that we don't know how long we'll be tonight. Most of the votes are not from the NDP, so I'm not sure how long they'll take.

I just want to express a concern that we have enough time tomorrow to be able to go through all of part 4, where there's a vast array of many, many substantive changes.

We're able to go up until midnight, I assume?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Yes. The motion says that at midnight, if, say, we haven't finished debating all the clauses and voting on all the clauses, then I, as your chair, according to the motion, have to put the vote on each successive clause. So the vote would be on each clause, but if members wanted to debate a clause that I had not yet gotten to, then they could obviously not speak to that clause. Obviously, I'm assuming that members have certain clauses they really wish to speak to, and I'm assuming that all members of the committee would want to get to all the clauses by 11:59 p.m.

I mean, we could come back tonight. The problem...and you're absolutely right, it's not the three parties sitting here who are forcing 23 standing votes, but unfortunately the rules of the House are such that we could have 23 standing votes. That's the situation we find ourselves in.

Mr. Marston.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

I'm just curious; we have half-hour bells, do we not?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

No, we have 15-minute bells.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Oh, well.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay? So I'll adjourn, and we'll come back tomorrow at 3:30 p.m.?

Okay. Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.