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.
November 27th, 2013 / 5:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Do you want to address the whole issue now right up to clause 242?
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
I'm happy to do so, but I need a little latitude because I have to address the Green Party amendments as well. I have our amendments and hers to address.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Why don't we do that, then.
I had Mr. Saxton on the list first, so I'll go—
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
I think it would be best to hear from both opposition parties, and then I'll wrap up afterwards.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is the first opportunity I've had to speak today. I want to put something on the record before I speak specifically to the amendments proposed by the NDP and those by my colleague Ms. May.
I want to first say that I feel that the inability of Ms. May to participate as effectively as she has in the past and indeed the inability of all other independent members of Parliament to do so is a function of a very mean-spirited and indeed anti-democratic position taken by the Conservatives. The NDP has consistently defended the rights of independent MPs, and we continue to speak out against any measures that would limit their ability to participate in the democratic process.
I was so proud of my colleague, Ms. Nash, at this committee, who spoke out so eloquently on this very issue. I want to welcome Ms. May to this committee and say that I appreciate very much her work in this field.
I should say at the outset that on the substance I entirely support her. We as the NDP will be supporting each and every one of her amendments. I think they are well grounded in what we have heard from the witnesses. The committee will remember Mr. Bergenske of the Wildsight organization, who testified before us.
I have personally been involved in the attempts to preserve the Flathead. I've hiked in that area with many of the participants and leaders and worked with the Ktunaxa Nation as well on this issue. I salute their efforts to try to create something in this area.
The division that is before us, Mr. Chair, gives the minister sweeping powers to do whatever he feels is necessary to sell off the Dominion Coal Blocks, needless to say, to provide some funds so that the government can claim victory on the deficit. It's a great concern to us that this bill means that the sale will not have to comply with existing federal legislation respecting federal assets. What we in the NDP have been seeking is greater transparency in the sale of the land and that the regular process for selling off crown assets be followed.
We believe the sale should balance economic and environmental concerns. We've heard concerns loud and clear from the environmental community that there are simply no conditions attached to selling the land. To that end, we have several amendments to propose, but I want to reiterate our support for those of the Green Party.
May I now address our amendments?
Conservative
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Amendment NDP-15 would increase the transparency involved by requiring the minister to table a report showing the value of the lands and the sale price and requiring the minister to detail what steps were taken to ensure the preservation of sensitive environmental areas as well as preservation of access to recreational areas. That is the intent that is, I believe, reflected in the language of amendment NDP-15.
Amendment NDP-16 attempts to add clarification that none of these sweeping new powers given to the minister can be construed as abrogating or derogating from any existing aboriginal or treaty rights.
Let me just pause on that point. The amendment that is before you is entirely consistent with, I dare say, dozens of clauses in legislation that this government has brought forward to provide clarity that there is no intent in the disposition of these lands, should it occur, to derogate from existing aboriginal or treaty rights.
I presume that the government would support this amendment in particular, since it's entirely consistent with their general legislative stance. I think it would be shocking if indeed this were not followed in the circumstance. It would beg a question: if you have done it so many times in so many other statutes, why is that clause not found here?
Amendment NDP-17 requires the minister to protect sensitive environmental areas.
That is the basis of these amendments.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you very much, Mr. Rankin.
I am going to go to Mr. Saxton on this topic, please.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
Thank you, Chair. I'd like to respond to the opposition's proposed amendments.
First of all, I want to say that since 2010 the government has made clear its commitment to the protection of the Flathead River watershed. The government is in close consultation with the Government of British Columbia to determine the best way to protect the area of the Dominion Coal Blocks that overlaps with the Flathead River watershed.
While it is too early to know the scope or nature of a potential future project on the Dominion Coal Blocks, provincial and federal environmental legislation exists to ensure that any future projects on the Dominion Coal Blocks are subject to a rigorous provincial and federal regulatory review and permitting process.
The government has been and continues to be in close consultation with key stakeholders on the proposed divestiture. These stakeholders include the Province of British Columbia and the Ktunaxa Nation. Canada has a duty to consult with affected first nations under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and is respecting this duty. Legislating a duty to consult stakeholders is redundant with Canada's constitutional obligations and with the government's current approach to the proposed sale of the Dominion Coal Blocks.
The government will only proceed with the sale in a manner that maximizes value for Canadian taxpayers. The amount of the proceeds from disposition of the Dominion Coal Blocks will be made public.
Therefore, Mr. Chair, we feel that the amendments are unnecessary, create duplication, and overlap with existing environmental regulations.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you, Mr. Saxton.
Do you want to respond on this, Mr. Rankin?
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
I will respond to one point. I wonder whether my colleague would address the point I made earlier, that the amendment in question, which refers to aboriginal rights, amendment NDP-16, is derived from many other statutes in the federal domain.
Does he worry that failure to include it here would draw attention to the fact that there is no such clause here, whereas there is in so many other statutes? Doesn't that provide the potential for a problem that could be eliminated by simply doing here what you do so frequently in other statutes?
Conservative
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
Chair, as I mentioned earlier, the government has been and continues to be in close consultations with key stakeholders on the proposed divestiture. These stakeholders include the Province of B.C. and the Ktunaxa Nation. Canada has a duty to consult with affected first nations under section 35 of the Constitution Act, and we're respecting that duty.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I think what Mr. Rankin might be referring to is legislation that deals specifically with federal jurisdiction matters. I'm not sure, but possibly in this particular case it's a joint jurisdictional issue, provincially and federally and possibly municipally, and that would make sense as to why those particular clauses aren't present in this legislation.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I will deal first of all with amendment PV-7.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clauses 239 and 240 agreed to on division)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
On clause 241, I shall put the question on amendment PV-8.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 241 agreed to on division)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Colleagues, on clause 242, I'll deal first with amendment PV-9. Can I apply the vote on amendment PV-9 to amendments PV-10, PV-11, and PV-12?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We will then vote on amendments NDP-15, NDP-16, NDP-17. Can I apply the vote on amendment NDP-15 to amendments NDP-16 and NDP-17?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 242 agreed to on division)
Conservative
NDP
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
We can go to clause 248.
(Clauses 243 to 248 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 249—Definition of “amalgamated corporation”)