Natural Resources Committee on April 23rd, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you.

Are there any further comments on amendment NDP-14?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we have amendment PV-13. Ms. May has indicated she wants to withdraw it. She can't, because it's been moved and is before the committee. So it's up to the committee. Shall we just go straight to the vote on amendment PV-13?

Is there unanimous consent to withdraw amendment PV-13.

(Amendment withdrawn)

Next is amendment PV-14.

Our mover isn't here, but we go ahead still with such motions, as they're deemed to have been moved. Is there any discussion on amendment PV-14?

Ms. Block.

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

Mr. Speaker, we will be supporting this amendment. Our government has consistently indicated that we will pursue companies to make them pay in the case of a spill. Bill C-46 seeks to codify the polluter pays principle into law to ensure that all companies operating pipelines are absolutely liable and able to pay for costs and damages resulting from an incident.

This proposed change would be consistent with the government's intent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Is PV-14 carried unanimously?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We go now to NDP-15.

Ms. Duncan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

My amendment simplifies proposed subsection 48.18(2) and removes the codicils. I would instead simply say: “A pipeline claims tribunal is to be established if the release has caused extensive damage, compensation is sought in respect of that damage and it is in the public interest to do so.”

I don't see any clear rationale or purpose in adding all those codicils to that. Why should it not just simply be based on “in the public interest to do so”?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Ms. Duncan.

Is there any further discussion on NDP-15?

(Amendment negatived)

We'll go to amendment PV-15. Is there any discussion on that?

Ms. Duncan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

This is something that I don't really have clarification on. Is it the intention of this legislation that each time there's a spill there's going to be a new tribunal, or is there going to be a permanent tribunal? The legislation is very confusing. It's not clear on that.

If there is a permanent tribunal, I think the recommendation is a good one. If there's going to be a separate tribunal every time there's a spill, then it would only logically make sense if treaty or aboriginal rights are potentially impacted.

Maybe we could turn to the government officials or someone to explain to me exactly how this legislation will work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Labonté, go ahead, please.

[Jeff Labonté]

Proposed section 48.18 establishes that the Governor in Council can establish a tribunal, or may designate a circumstance in which the government needs to intervene, and in those circumstances when it's in the public interest, it could establish a tribunal. The legislation does not intend to establish a tribunal in a permanent fashion, nor for every spill, but only when a spill is of such significance that it would be efficient to have a tribunal.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you.

[Jeff Labonté]

That's the rough policy logic behind it: where needed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you.

We'll go to the vote.

(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Is there any discussion on PV-16?

(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll go to the vote on PV-17.

(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we go to NDP-16. This is the last amendment proposed for clause 16.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is similar to the previous amendment that I made to ensure accountability in the promulgation of regulations. The regulations as referenced here are very important to give substance to the bill, and this simply provides that there be a reporting on why no regulations have been coming forward within two years of the coming into force of the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Ms. Duncan.

Is there any further discussion?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we go to the vote on clause 16 as amended.

(Clause 16 as amended agreed to on division)

We go now to amendment NDP-17, which is dealing with clause 32 on page 32.

My apologies. We have to deal with all the clauses that have no proposed amendments before we go to that.

Shall clauses 17 to 31 carry?

(Clauses 17 to 31 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 32)

Now we go to amendment NDP-17 on clause 32, which is on page 32.

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

Amendment NDP-17 would add subclause 93(7) to clause 32, imposing a two-year deadline on the arbitration process. If the committee was unable to reach a decision in two years, the board would be required to provide an explanation.

Here again, the amendment is based on a recommendation made by the Union des producteurs agricoles. In its brief, the UPA indicated that, combining all the timeframes allotted for each of the steps, the process takes 30 months, undermining the credibility of the process.

So we are proposing amendment NDP-17 further to a recommendation from the UPA regarding a measure that will directly affect farmers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you.

Is there any further discussion?

We'll get a recorded vote on NDP-17.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clauses 32 and 33 agreed to on division)

(On clause 34)

We have amendment PV-18.

Is there any discussion on PV-18?

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

Can we just have two seconds?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Sure, go ahead.

There is no discussion? Okay.

(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clauses 34 to 36 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 37)

We have NDP-18 as a proposed amendment to clause 37.

Go ahead, please, Monsieur Caron.

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

Thank you.

Amendment NDP-18 would amend section 132(2)(f) of the act to require the court to consider, at the time of sentencing, the fact that the offender was subject to the order of an authority and that the offence was committed as the result of such an order.

The purpose of the amendment is to prevent situations like the one in Lac-Mégantic, where the engineer was by himself for the trip and had to leave the train unattended in order to sleep. The engineer was alone as a result of the employer's instruction and was nevertheless found liable. So the amendment seeks to keep that kind of thing from happening in the case of pipelines.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Monsieur Caron.

Is there any further discussion on NDP-18?

We'll go to a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We have another proposed amendment to that clause.

On NDP-19, go ahead, please, Monsieur Caron.

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

The purpose of the amendment is to prevent companies subject to a court order or conditions imposed by the court, further to a leak, from applying for new authorization under the National Energy Board Act until all of those conditions have been lifted.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Merci.

Is there any further discussion?

Ms. Block, go ahead, please.

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

Mr. Chair, I would like to ask the officials to comment on this amendment if they would.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Labonté.

[Jeff Labonté]

The purpose or intent of the bill in this set of clauses is obviously to give some guidance to what might be sentencing provisions. In this particular instance it essentially says that the offender may not apply until the period the court considers appropriate. There is the potential circumstance of what one might call “habitual offenders” and there might be circumstances in which the court may wish to recognize that there is a regular or systemic issue, as opposed to simply meeting the conditions and releasing one's conditions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Is there any further discussion on NDP-19?

(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We have one more proposed amendment to that clause, NDP-20.

Go ahead, please, Monsieur Caron.