Natural Resources Committee on April 23rd, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Good afternoon, everyone.

We're here today to deal with Bill C-46, an act to amend the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act. We will go through this bill today clause by clause.

From the Department of Natural Resources, to give us advice as requested by committee members, we have with us today Jeff Labonté, director general, energy safety and security branch, energy sector. Welcome to you again, sir.

We also have Terence Hubbard, director general, petroleum resources branch, energy sector. Welcome to you again, sir.

We have Christine Siminowski, director, energy safety and security branch, energy sector. Welcome to you.

We have Joseph McHattie, legal counsel. Welcome to you again, sir.

We'll get right to it. As you know, we are dealing with clause by clause. We'll start with the amendments in the order they apply to the clauses. So those that apply to clause 2 will be dealt with before clause 3 and so on. Some deal with many parts of a clause and extend over pages, but we'll keep them in order and deal with that.

We'll stand or postpone the short title until the end as usual.

(On clause 2)

We will start with NDP-1. I'll refer to them as they are listed on your sheets. On the sheets they indicate not only the clause the amendment applies to, but also the lines and page. I know that you have all gone through this and worked on it already, but from that you can follow along quite easily. I will keep you on track of where we are and what we're dealing with.

Let's start with NDP-1.

That was put forward by Mr. Caron.

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

We proposed this amendment because of how the term "ground disturbance" is defined in the bill. The idea is to regulate what goes on above ground so as not to overly restrict pipeline companies when it comes to what goes on underground.

Farmers need a clearer explanation of what they're allowed to do on their own land so they don't have to do all kinds of research to find out. In its brief, the Union des producteurs agricoles recommended that the two paragraphs in question be removed, which is what we are proposing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay. You all have the proposed amendment in front of you. Is there any further discussion on the proposed amendment?

Now we go to the vote on NDP-1, the proposed amendment to clause 2 on page 2.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

A recorded vote, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay, recorded vote.

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

We go now to PV-1.

Ms. May, you're here to speak to that. It's put forward by you as the defendant. You get roughly a minute to speak to it if you need it. You don't have to use it all.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm here, as the committee members will remember, due to a motion passed by this committee that deprives me of my rights at report stage by offering the opportunity to appear before the committee. Not to put too fine a point on it, that was something I found to be less than satisfactory, but I comply with your motion.

The first amendment that I'm presenting today is in relation to the definition of “ground disturbance”. The committee will recall evidence from those involved, particularly Union des producteurs agricoles, that the cultivation of less than 45 centimetres below the surface of the ground could impede the planting of alfalfa which has occurred over quite a long period of time. Their belief is that they did not have a problem with the presence of pipelines in areas where they were cultivating alfalfa to depths of more than 45 centimetres. So they believe this proposed paragraph should be deleted from this legislation to avoid unnecessary conflict between agricultural producers and the pipelines as now defined as a “ground disturbance” under the definition section found at page 2.

I hope that's clear.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Ms. May. I think it is clear.

Is there any further discussion on PV-1?

Do you want a recorded vote?

[An hon. member]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

A recorded vote.

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

We go now to Liberal-1. We can't actually deal with Liberal-1 because it's identical to PV-1, which has been defeated, so that's off the table.

We now go to Liberal-2, and that is a proposed amendment to clause 2 on page 2.

Go ahead, please, Mr. Regan.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We heard from the same group to which Madam May just referred. This was a concern about the fact that you have some pipelines that are buried at 1.6 metres and you have others at 0.9 metres. They're not all going to be buried at the same level.

However, when the NEB is considering applications for pipelines it knows where they're going to be buried and what the plans are, and there is no reason that it couldn't make the decision about what the appropriate depths could be. This provision would allow the board to set the appropriate depth in each individual case.

It is clear, as they say with alfalfa, that the roots can go down six metres. I'm disappointed that we didn't pass the last amendment. I hope we'll pass this one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You have heard Mr. Regan's motion and his comments. Are there any further comments on this proposed amendment LIB-2?

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

We go now to the private member's amendment PV-2 by Ms. May.

Go ahead, please, Ms. May. You can speak to your motion.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

It's a small technical point, Mr. Chair, but I'm not a private member, and in this context “PV” has been chosen by the House of Commons to designate “Parti Vert”. I think they didn't want us confused with the “G” that stands for government—until the day that Greens are the government, and then the G will work perfectly. So for now, “Parti Vert” is the reason we have the “PV”.

I'm sorry for the interruption.

The amendment I've suggested here is in recognition of a lot of the testimony—the committee will remember it—on the concern that the act not denigrate from first nations' rights. The way my amendment would slot in is that on page 2, in the spot just above the proposed subsection 3(3), we would insert this paragraph, numbered as subsection 3(2). It speaks for itself:

For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from the protection provided for existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada by the recognition and affirmation of those rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

So it's a “for greater certainty” clause. I believe it speaks for itself, but it would go a long way to ensure that first nations did not have the concerns, which were expressed before this committee, that the bill would denigrate and abrogate from their rights.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you.

Is there any further discussion on this?

Ms. Block.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We will be opposing this motion, because we believe that this proposal is redundant for the very reason that legislation of this nature cannot do that: it cannot abrogate or derogate from the constitutionally protected rights contained in section 35 of the Constitution Act.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Ms. Block.

Is there any further discussion?

Do you want a recorded vote?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I don't believe I'm in a position to request it one way or the other. My motions are deemed to have been tabled, and I'm not a member of the committee, but I appreciate your asking.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay. I'm not sure about how we determine this, but let's have a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

Now all the amendments that were put forward for clause 2 have been disposed of.

(Clause 2 agreed to on division)

Now, from clause 3 to 14 there are several clauses with no proposed amendments. Is it agreed that we pass these clauses together as a group?

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

We want to separate clause 5 from them. Can you deal with clause 5 separately?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay.

Shall clauses 3 and 4 carry?

(Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to)

(Clause 5 agreed to on division)

(Clauses 6 to 14 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 15)

The first proposed amendment to clause 15 is NDP-2. I believe it's Ms. Duncan's.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much.

The ones for “NDP” and “Duncan” are all NDP amendments, but I will speak to this. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm proposing two amendments to clause 15. The proposal was to replace lines 5 to 7 on page 5 with a more delineated attention to the fact that safety and security of the public and company employees are quite different from the security of a pipeline itself and then the protection of property and the environment.

I simply divided those out to make clear, if you're going to mention a provision, that you're talking about impact upon people rather than infrastructure.

The second amendment merely simplifies. I found proposed subsection 48(1.2) extremely complicated to try to read. In keeping with plain language, which is now the approach in drafting, I simply amended to make more concise that there is the power to take action.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay, you've heard Ms. Duncan's comments on her motion, NDP-2.

Is there any further discussion on that?

Do you want a recorded vote on all of them?

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

No. We can just vote.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We go now to PV-3.

Ms. May, go ahead and explain that proposed amendment.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In this amendment, what we're attempting to do again is to ensure that the way in which the bill is interpreted and applied will not be negative for first nations' rights.

The Assembly of First Nations' evidence before this committee was that they were concerned that aboriginal treaty rights are not included as factors for which the board may order a company to take measures under the section. The Assembly of First Nations is recommending that the National Energy Board be empowered to make orders to recognize, protect, and implement aboriginal and treaty rights.

That will be accomplished through the insertion at the end of subsection 48(1.1) of a paragraph (c), “the protection, recognition and implementation of aboriginal and treaty rights”, giving the National Energy Board the ability to order a company to take measures in respect of those considerations that are critical for the Government of Canada to ensure that first nations' treaty rights are protected by those dealing with pipelines in their territory.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay. You have heard the comments of the mover of PV-3.

Is there any further discussion on PV-3?