Evidence of meeting #12 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was amendments.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We support the amendment proposed by Ms. May for greater oversight of the veterans context on the board by the ombudsman.
I should say, while I have the floor, that we think clause 276 itself, which would cut the maximum size of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, is regressive. The Conservatives have already shamefully cut benefits for our veterans.
We need greater oversight, not less, so we would oppose this clause.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
Very briefly, Mr. Chair, I want to remind my colleagues that the chair of the board is in the most knowledgeable position to advise the Minister of Veterans Affairs Canada of the board's operational needs respecting the appointment of both permanent and temporary members.
Additionally, the veterans ombudsman's role is defined in order in council and includes reviewing systemic issues related to the board. Recommending board members does not fall within his mandate. Further, it would place the ombudsman in a conflict if he were to advise on appointments to the board that he is mandated to review.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you, Mr. Saxton.
We'll now do the vote on amendment PV-14.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 276 agreed to)
(On clause 277)
We have amendment PV-15.
Ms. May, does your previous argument carry, or do you want to address this specifically?
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
This is a completely different section. It's not division 11 anymore. We're into division 12, page 218, The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act.
I hope people will agree this time that my amendment is reasonable. I think all of my amendments have been reasonable. I keep hoping that we won't have just an accidental vote in favour of one of my amendments.
Colleagues, in this one you'll note that the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board is receiving a tweak in terms of how the minister puts together the board. It adds the ability of having no more than three of the twelve directors residing outside of Canada.
Given that this is an important function dealing with a large amount of funds that are the fiduciary responsibility of the Government of Canada to maintain properly, I think it's only appropriate that although those directors may reside outside of Canada that they be Canadian citizens.
The amendment I'm putting forward would ensure that all directors of the board are Canadian citizens, whether they live in the country or not.
Conservative
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Mr. Chair, the NDP is not in favour of this amendment.
First of all, I'm the pensions critic, and I met with the CPP Investment Board people on November 4 and have reviewed their white paper on what they call international directors. We support the clause as it's written because it would permit a maximum of 25%, three of 12, and the clause merely says, “endeavour to ensure that no more than three of the 12 directors...”, and does not require citizenship, as Ms. May has pointed out.
We believe that the CPPIB is a huge success story for Canadians. It's grown from $12 million in 1999, to now $166 billion under management for eight million Canadian contributors and beneficiaries.
We want the best and the brightest to play this role, so we do not support this amendment.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
I think Mr. Rankin said it all, so I don't need to add to that.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
It's nice to see some cross-aisle cooperation.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 277 agreed to)
Can I group clauses 278 to 281?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
(Clauses 278 to 281 inclusive agreed to).
(On clause 282)
We'll deal with clause 282, and we have amendments PV-16 through to PV-19, and amendment BQ-3.
Ms. May, you have about four minutes for your amendments, please.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Chair, within omnibus Bill C-4, we are now at division 14, which relates to changes to the Mackenzie gas project management.
Historically, the Mackenzie gas pipeline project and its attendant governance structures have been impressive and also based on the multi-stakeholder, multi-partite relationships that exist in the Mackenzie Valley in order to ensure that the various first nations communities, the territorial governments, and others were involved in managing funds.
This moves us in the direction, as so much of this act has done, to ministerial discretion instead of the boards that were there before.
I'll move quickly through my specific amendments.
PV-16 is to amend the purpose clause of this section. It actually adopts language that is currently found in the Northwest Territories Heritage Fund Act, to include in the purpose of the act that it is for “present and future generations”. The impact of amendment PV-16 is to add the focus on future generations as well as present generations.
The changes that are being made to clause 282 are replacing lines...that essentially operate, under amendment PV-17, to inject sustainable development criteria that the minister would consider in determining which projects were eligible for contributions. We are trying to ensure, through this amendment, that a joint review panel reports and that the ongoing consultations that led us to where we are today would be honoured; and proposed new section 8.1 would ensure the criteria for determining the projects in respect of contributions; would include such things as socio-economic impacts; would consider adverse cumulative effects; would consider adverse cumulative effects not only on the ecosystem but on economic, social, and cultural well-being, inequities in relation to positive effects within and among communities, any adverse impacts of boom-and-bust cycles that tend to be attendant to projects like this, where most of the jobs are in construction and then things fall away; and adverse cumulative impacts of the project overall. That's amendment PV-17.
Amendment PV-18 amends the act in terms of the creation of advisory committees that will advise the minister on the administration of the act, again trying to counterbalance the level of ministerial discretion that is being injected here, and ensure that the fund is administered with respect to community needs. It's a response to the replacement of the corporation by the minister. It had been the corporation in the past, as I mentioned earlier, which was seen as fairly neutral and independent.
The last of this group of amendments, amendment PV-19, ensures that there will be a report tabled in Parliament to report on the use of the fund and progress that's being made in meeting the objectives of the act.
These are very consistent with the changes that Bill C-4 is putting forward, but they bring back the changes to meet the objectives of the project to date, in other words, a commitment to future generations, a commitment to sustainable development, and more public transparency as to how the minister is distributing funds found within the Mackenzie gas project's impact fund, which is being created here.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you, Ms. May.
We also have amendment BQ-3.
I will allow Mr. Plamondon to address amendment BQ-3 briefly.
Louis Plamondon Bloc Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC
I'll be brief, Mr. Chair.
It would involve increasing the planned reserve from $500 million to $650 million. I think that would be much more appropriate.
Let's keep in mind the repercussions in the United States, in the case of the Kalamzaoo River. Based on recent estimates, the cost would exceed $750 million.
So, it's better to err on the side of caution. I think $650 million would be more appropriate.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Fine, thank you.
I have two rulings on two of the amendments.
Mr. Rankin, do you have some debate first?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Amendments PV-16, PV-17 and PV-19 are in order, but I have a ruling on amendment PV-18.
Bill C-4 seeks to establish the Mackenzie gas project impacts fund to fund projects that mitigate existing or anticipated socio-economic impacts on the communities in the Northwest Territories. The amendment attempts to establish a committee to advise the minister on the administration of this act.
As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on pages 767 and 768: Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.
Therefore, in the opinion of the chair, the amendment proposes to establish a new committee, which would impose a charge on the public treasury. I therefore rule the amendment inadmissible.
I also have a ruling with respect to amendment BQ-3.
Bill C-4 seeks to establish the Mackenzie gas project impacts fund to fund projects to mitigate existing or anticipated socio-economic impacts on the communities in the Northwest Territories. The amendment attempts to increase the amount available for the fund from $500 million to $633 million.
As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on pages 767 and 768:Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.
In the opinion of the chair, the amendment proposes to increase the amount of the fund, which would impose a charge on the public treasury. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.
Colleagues, we will be voting on amendments PV-16, PV-17 and PV-19, but I will allow further debate on clause 282 and these amendments.
Mr. Rankin, go ahead, please.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you, Chair.
We support each of the amendments by the Green Party that were proposed a moment ago by Ms. May.
On the merits of this division, in clause 282 in particular, the changes would concentrate more power in the hands of the minister by creating a new entity to pay organizations to carry out projects to mitigate socio-economic impacts for communities in the Northwest Territories, in place of what is currently in place, an arm's-length corporation, which I think raises serious concerns about accountability and transparency and funding decisions.
The omnibus bill before us, Bill C-4, would repeal something that created a crown corporation established to administer the Mackenzie gas project impacts fund and would give the job to the minister. The minister would have up to $500 million to play with, kind of like the EI fund which successive Liberal and Conservative governments have plundered. We don't want any more concentration of power in ministers and more political discretion given to them, and therefore, we would oppose that.
Conservative
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
I will speak very briefly, Mr. Chair.
Ms. May proposes amending the criteria. The criteria will be developed in consultation with regional organizations and stakeholders. Furthermore, with regard to reporting and transparency, should the Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency be designated as the minister responsible for the fund, CanNor would support the minister in this role. This means CanNor already reports to Parliament through the estimates process, and going forward, these reports could include information related to the fund.
Additionally, CanNor's proactive disclosure practices already include quarterly reports on its grants and contributions awards.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you, Mr. Saxton.
We will vote on amendment PV-16. Can I apply that to amendments PV-17 and PV-19?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
All those in favour of clause 282?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
(Clause 282 agreed to on division)
Can I group clauses 283 to 287?