Finance Committee on June 4th, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. I'll take them separately.

(Clause 94 agreed to)

(Clause 95 agreed to)

(Clause 96 agreed to)

(On clause 97)

Thank you, Ms. Gowing, for being here. We appreciate your participation.

We shall move on to division 9, the National Energy Board Act. It has one clause, clause 97.

We shall welcome officials from Natural Resources, and on clause 97 we have two amendments by the Green Party.

I'll just give you a heads-up, Mr. Hyer. I do have a ruling, but I'll give you time to speak to your amendment here.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Thank you very much.

I'll start with amendment PV-27. We have serious and deep reservations on two major points. The first is the potential for such a service to unintentionally place what is now wholly legislative jurisdiction, the protection of parliamentary privilege, into the hands of the executive.

The second is the job security—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Hyer, this is PV-26. Sorry about that.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Sorry. I stand corrected. Thank you very much.

This amendment would undo the change proposed by Bill C-59 to expand the maximum natural gas exportation licence to 40 years from the current maximum which is 25. Recognizing the importance of responsible and sustainable resource development, this change would mean that all stakeholders would get fewer opportunities to revisit projects that had previously received approval, depending on their positive or negative impact on the environment and economies of the communities that they affect.

As West Coast Environmental Law, a B.C. environmental law advocacy group that opposes the change, says, “It is quite possible that something thought to be a good idea today may not be in 25 years' time with the advent of climate change, economic shifts, increasingly harmed environment, and other potentially unforeseen alterations to the landscape. By lengthening the maximum term of licencing we're removing our ability to revisit these important questions and continue to ensure that our decisions are working to the advantage of everyone.”

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much, Mr. Hyer.

I have a ruling as the chair on this amendment.

Bill C-59 amends the National Energy Act by altering the maximum period for the duration of export licences. This amendment proposes to re-establish the maximum period for the duration of export licences that is currently in the act. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 766, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill”.

In the opinion of the chair, therefore, this amendment attempts to maintain the maximum duration period for export licences that is currently in the National Energy Act. This is contrary to the principle of the bill, which is to establish a new maximum duration period for export licences. Therefore, this amendment is inadmissible.

Is there further discussion on clause 97?

Monsieur Caron.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I will be brief, Mr. Chair.

We understand why the Green Party has proposed this amendment. However, we believe that there is an immediate and pressing need to be able to amend and repair the review process so as to ensure that projects, such as natural gas projects, will be studied thoroughly and considered on their merit.

This is not a matter of the duration of licenses, but of whether an export license should in fact be granted to a project. A more thorough process in the future would help resolve this issue.

We will vote in favour of the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

All in favour of clause 97?

[An hon. member]

A recorded vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

It will be a recorded vote on clause 97.

Mr. Saxton.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

So there are no more amendments PV-25 and P-26? They are gone. Is that right? They're toast.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

That's right, but I prefer to say inadmissible.

(Clause 97 agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0)

We'll thank our officials for division 9 for being with us here today.

We'll now move to division 10, Parliament of Canada Act.

(On clause 98)

We have three Green Party amendments from Mr. Hyer. Mr. Hyer, you can address them separately or together, as you may wish.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Separately, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Separately. Okay.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We'll do amendment PV-27.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

You have to listen to a few words again.

We have serious and deep reservations on two major points here: the first is the potential for such a service to unintentionally place what is now wholly legislative jurisdiction, that being the protection of parliamentary privilege, into the hands of the executive; the second is the job security of the men and women of the current House and Senate parliamentary protective services.

That's it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

No, I'm sorry, that is not it. I'll be quick with the other part.

This amendment would remove the language that could have implied that the Minister of Public Safety would be on equal footing with the Speakers in determining the terms and conditions of the arrangement whereby the RCMP will supply security services. It must be clear that the Speakers are wholly responsible for the terms of the deal, with the minister playing a consultative role only. “For greater certainty” clauses have no statutory impact, and the language in the operative section must be clear.

This amendment seeks to reduce any ambiguity about whom this new director will be accountable to. As the director will remain an active member of the RCMP under this act, it must be made clear that the Commissioner of the RCMP may take no actions to interfere with the role and duties of the director that may exist under the RCMP Act. While we don't presume that any responsible commissioner would take those actions, we must as legislators ensure that no commissioner could take any actions that would constitute breaches of our sacred and important parliamentary privilege.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to Ms. Bateman, please.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The government does not support this proposed amendment, for the following reasons.

This provision, as originally drafted, provides the mechanism by which the Speakers of the Senate and the House of Commons will enter into an arrangement with the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. Under this arrangement, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police will be a service provider to the office of the parliamentary protective service and will lead an integrated security force.

This service agreement must be executed by two main parties: first, the houses of Parliament as represented by the two Speakers, as the party that is procuring services; and second, the executive as represented by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Commissioner of the RCMP as the party that is providing the service. It is important that this provision clearly identify both parties to the agreement and respect the minister's accountability for the RCMP as a government entity for which he is responsible as a steward of public resources.

This suggested amendment would not achieve this and would negatively impact the stability and effectiveness of the new integrated security service.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Ms. Bateman.

We'll take the vote on amendment PV-27 first.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Mr. Hyer, we'll go to amendment PV-28, then.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

In my nomenclature, we would be going to.... I thought amendment PV-28 was the same as amendment PV-27, and I thought that amendments PV-29 and PV-30 were together.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Do you want to vote on amendment PV-28, then?

[A voice]

No, it isn't. It's different.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I have amendment PV-28 as a separate one in my package.