Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 11th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Good morning, everyone.

We are here today for two reasons: one is to deal with clause-by-clause of Bill C-5, and the second is to have a meeting on future business of the committee, which we will do at the completion of Bill C-5.

We have with us today officials from the Department of Natural Resources. We have with us today Jeff Labonté, director general, energy safety and security branch. Welcome. We have Samuel Millar, senior director, frontier lands management division, petroleum resources branch. Welcome. We have Anne-Marie Fortin, senior counsel, legal services. Welcome to you. We have Tyler Cummings, deputy director, frontier lands management division, petroleum resources branch. Welcome to you.

From the Department of Employment and Social Development, we have Brenda Baxter, acting director general, workplace directorate, labour program. Welcome to you.

I think we've had you all at our committee before, if I'm not mistaken. You are welcome back again. We really do appreciate your taking the time to be here today and helping us with this important legislation.

Before we get started, I would just like to ask for the consent of the committee to group, as we go along, the clauses where there have been no amendments brought forth, and to vote on those. Then we'll stop at each clause that is amended and deal with those separately.

Is it agreed by the committee that we proceed in that fashion, group all clauses for voting that have no amendments proposed, and then stop at the first amendment, deal with that, and then go on to the next group and vote on the group together? Is it agreed that we proceed in that fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I hope I was clear. It's a little awkward.

Of course, we start with the title, which we put aside until the end. The discussion on the title is postponed.

So we have clauses 2 to 44. There were no amendments proposed for those clauses.

Is it agreed that we pass those clauses unamended?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

On division.

(Clauses 2 to 44 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 45)

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Clause 45 is the first clause that has an amendment. I'm going to move to that amendment, and I'm pretty sure it's a Liberal amendment. It's Liberal amendment 1, moved by Mr. Regan.

Mr. Regan, do you want to move the amendment? If there is any discussion you would like on that, go ahead, please.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I move this amendment. It would require consultation with, obviously, the provinces. That's already required in the legislation, but also with other interested stakeholders. I think this coincides with the testimony we heard at committee about the importance of consultation on this question of the word “danger”, which is of importance to all parts of this industry and all those who work in it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You've heard the proposed amendment by Mr. Regan.

Is there any discussion on Mr. Regan's proposed amendment?

Yes, Ms. Block.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good morning to our departmental officials. I'm very glad to have you here today.

On that note, Chair, I would ask if we could ask of the officials if they could provide us with any sort of advice on this amendment and any implications that there might be?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Excellent advice, Ms. Block.

Who would like to speak to that?

Mr. Labonté.

[Jeff Labonté, Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Department of Natural Resources]

I would start and then turn to one of my colleagues.

In starting with this particular proposed amendment it's correct that the current Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador accord act and the Canada-Nova Scotia accord act both require consent and agreement between the provincial governments and the federal government to move forward with any kinds of aspects in this regard. So there is an element that already accounts for the fact that the provinces have mirror legislation and would be required to work collaboratively with the federal government.

I'll turn to my colleague Sam Millar, who would be able to explain a little bit more. But the approach in which this particular aspect of how one might define this would occur, would occur through regulations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Millar, go ahead please.

[Samuel Millar, Senior Director, Frontier Lands Management Division, Petroleum Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources]

Thank you. If the committee would just look at the first line of that clause, it reads:

Subject to section 7....

That's of the current act. Section 7 of the current act, the Canada-Newfoundland accord act, says in part that:

the Federal Minister shall consult the Provincial Minister with respect to the proposed regulation and no regulation shall be so made without the approval of the Provincial Minister.

[Jeff Labonté]

If I add to that step, the regulation-making authority would require that any change or definition would be made public and that there would be an opportunity for any interested party to comment on the regulations that are being proposed by both governments. Therefore, the regulations being made would go through two public processes. There would be an opportunity for labour groups or environmental groups or concerned citizens to comment on the regulations before they were ever enacted.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You've heard the comments of the officials here today. Is there any further discussion on this?

Mr. Regan.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that there's a difference between consulting someone and publishing regulations in the Royal Gazette and hoping that they might be aware of the Royal Gazette and notice them, and therefore be able to comment. It seems to me that the responsible thing in this kind of case is to in fact consult those groups that clearly have an interest, and that's what I'm proposing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Is there any further discussion on this amendment?

(Amendment negatived)

Now we have to vote on the unamended clause.

(Clause 45 agreed to)

Now we're dealing with clauses 46 to 52.

Is it agreed that we pass clauses 46 to 52 unamended?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

On division.

(Clauses 46 to 52 agreed to on division)

(On clause 53—Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act—transitional regulations)

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

The next amendment is to clause 53 and that is government amendment 1.

Who would like to speak to that?

Mr. Trost, go ahead, please.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is a fairly technical amendment. It changes the wording from

the 1st Session of the 41st Parliament

to—wait for it—

the 2nd session of the 41st Parliament

Then there's some other wording here required to allow for the tabling of the transitional regulations pursuant to the Canada-Newfoundland accord act. This motion is also required to amend the titles of the transitional regulations to include the word “Canada” in the title of each regulation in clause 53. So this is purely about changing the wording to put in “Canada” and to make sure we're in the right session of Parliament.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

The motion has been moved. You heard Mr. Trost's discussion of the motion.

Mr. Julian, do you have some comments to make as well?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

I had my request in to Mr. Trost.

Was this done in consultation with the minister?

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

I'm sure it was. You're sure I read this in such detail and came up with this amendment myself. This is just one of those technical amendments that the lawyers come up with, and I'm the guy presenting it today.

I honestly couldn't tell you, because I haven't talked with the minister about it. The first portion of my answer was slightly sarcastic, but the serious portion is that I haven't really talked with anyone about this. I'm just presenting it today.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, I think we can infer that there were some problems with the initial bill as brought forward, which are now being corrected by the government side. Certainly, though we would have preferred that it be in more perfect form when it was brought forward, we're at least happy that the government is trying to adjust for the mistakes that were made initially.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Is it agreed that the amendment to motion 53 as proposed by Mr. Trost pass?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 53 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 54—Chief Safety Officer powers)

On clause 54, we have government amendment 2.

Go ahead please, Mr. Trost.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Yes, this is going to be a bit of a theme. It's another technical amendment. This motion is to amend the title of the transitional regulations to include the word “Canada” in each regulation's title in clause 54. So "Canada", vote for it.