Evidence of meeting #90 for Natural Resources in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Thank you.
I have one point of concern with the subamendment. Just to be clear, after we're done with the subamendment, Mr. Chair, are we still dealing with the speaking list on the actual amendment?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
I had you on the speaking order of the amendment as well. Once you're done, we will proceed by voting on the subamendment. If there's no further debate, then we will go back to the amendment, conclude debate and have a vote. Then we will proceed to the clause.
Conservative
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Okay. I have comments for both parts here. I'll save some of them for the amendment, and I'll just deal with the parts in the subamendment here.
Part of what's being removed from the amendment by the subamendment in particular is the wording “the environmental characteristics of the offshore area that support that industry.” I think that's a very important phrase to possibly keep in there. The reason is that we heard witnesses talk extensively about characteristics of the seabed that are impacted by having multiple wind turbines anchored to the ocean floor. Also, with all the interconnecting cabling and things like that, that does alter the characteristics of the ocean floor, which changes the habitat for the various species that live on or close to the bottom of the ocean.
I think it's important to recognize that this is a very important factor in this discussion. Simply saying, “consideration of effects on fishing activities” is only about fishing in and of itself. It's not actually about the environment that the fish or other species of the ocean live in.
I think that's why having that specific language around “environmental characteristics” was included by my colleague from Lakeland. I think it's important to make sure that it's a fulsome point in there, particularly because where the original amendment is located is in regard to the principles of this portion of the bill, which is also the general rules of the offshore renewable portion.
I'll have more comments later on that little bit, which I'll do under the amendment when we get back to the original amendment. However, as far as the subamendment goes and making sure we talk about “the environmental characteristics”, I do think we need to make sure there is some language in and around there just to make sure that we're not forgetting about the fact that there's so much more than just the fishing activity to consider when we're talking about the development of offshore renewable energy.
As I say, I have more comments that I'll use for the amendment. I'll stop right now.
Conservative
Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer—Mountain View, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My question is the wording or lettering we see in front of us with the subamendment. Of course, it says that after line 27, we are then putting another (a) and (b) into it. That is the way it is written here.
I'm curious as to whether that is intended to be a replacement for the line item (c) that we have in CPC-12, or whether that goes back and attempts to make changes in the (a) and the (b), which, of course, it is saying takes place after that.
I'd like some clarification. After line 27 is where we had talked about entering (c) for CPC-12. With the rest of this, it's unclear as to whether the intent is to take what we see in (c) and amend it in the subamendment.
I'm questioning the way the lettering is done here.
Conservative
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I think it states where it fits, so it doesn't.... It's not.... You would have the (a) and the (b) added, and we're substituting the wording.
I can pull it out. That's exactly what I was just pulling out in the legislation, if you want me to I can actually do the cross-reference for you, but the line pieces are quite clear.
If the officials have it right in front of them.... I am turning to the right one right here.
Conservative
Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer—Mountain View, AB
Could I respond so that everyone knows what I'd like to see them looking for?
Conservative
Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer—Mountain View, AB
When the legislation comes out—and all of these things have to be cross-referenced—I just want to make sure. In proposed section 98.7 under “Principles”, are we talking about (a), (b) and then this is (c) with adjustments to it, or are we taking the (a) and (b) that is done in the subamendment addressing the (a) and (b) that come under “Principles”.
Is this entirely just a subamendment on CPC-12, which is the one that is labelled as paragraph (c)?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Thank you, Mr. Dreeshen.
Ms. Dabrusin has something to add.
I can also go to the legislative clerk, but I'll go to you, Ms. Dabrusin.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I'll just point out that the way the subamendment is listed, the (a) and (b) are not part of the substitution wording.
If that helps to clarify it.... I'm sure the officials have something else to add, but the (a) and (b) are the wording of the subamendment. It's that we're saying, (a) we're proposing this substitution, and (b) we're proposing this substitution, but the (a)....
Liberal
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
Our point, MP Dabrusin, is of course that it's Conservatives who are trying to insert this principle. We were attempting to do that with my amendment (c).
Thank goodness my colleagues have asked for the hard copy of (a) and (b), which you propose.
What they're asking is whether it will look like your (a) and (b), which we agree, as indicated by MP Falk, are a good expansion and detailed follow-up on the proposal that of course Conservatives have made to implement this principle into the bill.
Their question, I think, is whether the (a) and (b) proposed in your subamendment replace the (c) that is the principle that Conservatives are trying to implement into this, which is the importance of the environmental characteristics in the marine ecology and the ocean floor, as well as the principle to protect the livelihoods and small businesses of fishers and lobstermen and women.
What my colleagues are asking about is clarity on the subamendment you've proposed, and whether the legislation will look like (a), (b) and (c), or whether it will just be (a) and (b) replacing (c).
I'd like to thank the NDP-Liberals and, clearly, the officials who worked on the subamendment before we got the hard copy, for accepting the insertion of this important principle to protect the environment and the marine ecology of the ocean floor, as well as the livelihoods of fishermen and lobstermen.
I think we're prepared to support the subamendment if it just does better with the whole principle of this Conservative amendment specifically related to, as you said, the issuance of the submerged land licences.
We'd just like to thank you for your acceptance and improvement on the Conservative attempt to insert these principles into the bill.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I'll ask the legislative clerk to explain it, but it's a subamendment to the Conservative amendment. That's the way it is when you look through the wording.
I'll let the legislative clerk make sure that I'm using the correct terms when I'm saying that, but I also want to be clear that there was an emailed copy of this subamendment. I'm glad everyone has a hard copy now, but it wasn't that this was a surprise subamendment.
Maybe the legislative clerk can better explain what I've just said in proper legal terms.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
I'm going to go to the legislative clerk first, and I think that might address some of the concerns that have been raised.
Émilie Thivierge Legislative Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As was mentioned, the subamendment is on the amendment, so it's not touching proposed paragraphs 98.7(a) or (b). It's just touching proposed paragraph (c). If it were to be adopted, the new (c) would read as, “during the submerged land licence issuance process, importance shall be given to the consideration of effects on fishing activities.”
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the legislative clerk. I think that clarifies our confusion here on this side a little bit.
The way the subamendment has been presented here, it looks as though there will be two additional sections added or replacing...but you're just itemizing the changes. The (a) and the (b) have no significance in the actual subamendment. It's just that there will be two changes to the amendment.
That's all. I think that helps us clarify where things are at.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
I think that is clarified. I think everybody understands.
Thank you for the subamendment, Ms. Dabrusin, and all your answers to provide clarification for everybody.
To be clear, we are now voting. CPC-12 was moved. We had a subamendment moved by Ms. Dabrusin. We are voting on the subamendment.
(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
We will now go to amendment CPC-12, as amended.
Mr. Patzer, you are on the speaking list, so I want to go to you to provide your commentary.
Conservative
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate that we now have this hammered out.
I would also like to point out that I got the email at 3:55 p.m. with the subamendment, so it's not like we would have had time to review it and try to propose any other amendments to the subamendment.
I'm wondering if I could have the indulgence of the committee here to possibly try to make a.... As I alluded to in my remarks earlier around environmental characteristics, I'm just wondering....
We've agreed on a good subamendment here. I'm wondering if there's any way now to propose an amendment to that subamendment. Maybe I have to come back with a written copy later, but I'd like to have a quick discussion about it right now, because I do think it's important to have “environmental characteristics” included in this new, amended version of the amendment.
I'm trying to envision it in my head because I don't have the actual text of what the new amendment looks like. I think that after “consideration of effects on fishing activities”, we could add in “and the environmental characteristics of the offshore area”.
I'm wondering if the committee would consider that. I just want to get thoughts from the committee about that to see if there would be an appetite to do something to that effect. If that's the case, I'd be happy to work on a hard copy to distribute to the committee.
I want the committee's input first, before I go through all that work, to see what the appetite around the table would be for language like that.
Then I'd like to get back to my other point, but I want to deal with this first, if that's okay.