Transport Committee on Nov. 28th, 2017

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I'd like to speak to Mr. Cullen's comment. There's no offence taken about the reputation of one minister or another. In the long term, the potential harm I see with the misuse of the exemption power is that a minister 30 years from now may say that it's in the public interest to have crude shipments coming in and out purely because of the economics of it.

As for the circumstances in terms of the appropriate use of an exemption, I think that use would likely extend far beyond one month, if I'm talking about the kinds of circumstances where there is an earthquake, or a tsunami, or whatever it might be. I'm thinking specifically of the Fukushima disaster in Japan. This is a multi-year thing. It's the timeline that I have some reservations about.

Although I appreciate the spirit of having it published in the Canada Gazette, I think that's helpful for people who watch the file very closely. I have two coasts in my own riding, and the spirit of this bill is very important to me. Nobody back home is watching the Canada Gazette, believe it or not. I think that if there were a broader exercise in publishing this on a more readily accessible source, it might be more appropriate.

I don't know if members have had the opportunity to look at the amendment that I intend to bring up to deal with this, but I hope it achieves the spirit of what Mr. Cullen is aiming at. I hope he appreciates that we're not just shooting this down for the sake of being difficult.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Hardie.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I share the concerns about transparency. It's here where I personally would like to rely on the fact that there are many eyes on the coasts. There are many eyes in those communities. They will notice if something big is coming through, and coming through in a regular fashion. It will come to the notice of the public, the legislators, the media, etc. Yes, I would say that's probably more efficient and effective than putting something in the Canada Gazette.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I see no further discussion.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Next is amendment NDP-7. Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I'll speak to this quickly. My friend will be subbing for me in a moment.

I know that not everybody reads the Canada Gazette, which I see as shameful. I think it should be required reading.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

When I'm trying to put my seven-year-old twins to bed, I always give them the Canada Gazette, and it's amazing how it just knocks them right out.

This amendment is an effort at transparency. Again, once an exemption has been made, it would be put in the Statutory Instruments Act—that's the way we went through it this time—just to tell Canadians that it happened. I know that there may be many eyes on the coast and people are watching, but that's not the point, right? If the government is okay with making a decision, the government should also be okay with making that decision public. The vehicle we have, as uncaptivating as it is, is the Canada Gazette. That is the way the government tells the Canadian people that something has happened, such as orders in council and whatnot.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Would the department have anything new to offer on amendment NDP-7?

[Natasha Rascanin]

I would just add a clarification that the Statutory Instruments Act is deemed not to apply in this legislation because its requirements would not allow quick and timely possibility for an exemption, in the way this exemption is suggested, so that unforeseen circumstances could be dealt with quickly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Hardie.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Department staff, do you foresee some supporting regulations coming along to accompany this bill? Again, in the interests of transparency and of guarding against the future misuse of what is fairly broad discretion by the minister, is it possible that regulation could actually be more prescriptive in terms of what must be done when a minister exercises this discretion?

[Natasha Rascanin]

I just want to clarify that the exemption from the Statutory Instruments Act applies only to clause 6, the exemption clause. It does not apply to the entire legislation, so it allows for an exemption clause to be exercised. We believe that's sufficient in that case.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

But it's specifically to clause 6 that I am referring. My question—or make it a suggestion if you like—is that something be put in regulation that requires a certain level of transparency so that the minister is required to let the public know when this is happening and the reasons for it.

I guess I'm asking if that's possible outside of this piece of legislation.

[Natasha Rascanin]

I'm not able to answer that question.

I think transparency is being suggested through other amendments that are coming up.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Next is amendment NDP-8.

Mr. MacGregor, would you like to move that? Would you like to speak to it?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

I would, Chair, and thank you very much for recognizing me. I'm glad to see my colleagues dropping in like this.

I just had a quick conversation with my colleague Mr. Cullen, and it appears to me that all of our amendments to this bill are an effort to increase a little bit of public scrutiny.

On a personal note, as a coastal British Columbian and a proud Vancouver Islander, I know that Mr. Cullen and his colleague Mr. Donnelly, both coastal British Columbians, do have the interests of our communities at heart. I sincerely hope my colleagues will see the wisdom in these amendments and give them some great consideration and offer their support for them.

I thereby move the amendment, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Would the officials like to speak to amendment NDP-8?

Are there any questions or discussion?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Next is amendment G-1.

Mr. Fraser.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Chair, I will say, perhaps for the benefit of Mr. MacGregor, who came in partway through today's meeting, that the purposes of the last few amendments I hope to achieve with this amendment.

I explained to Mr. Cullen that I shared some of his reservations about the exercise of an exemption power without some opportunity for the public to scrutinize the use of that power. I think it's an important suggestion. Where we differed was only on the mechanism to achieve that. I had some reservations around the Statutory Instruments Act only because of the timeline with which it could preclude the use of that power in an urgent situation.

The proposed amendment would add a third subsection that would require the minister to make accessible to the public, on the Internet or by other means, the use of the public interest exemption so that they're not operating in secrecy. That is really the intent of this proposed amendment.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 6 as amended agreed to)

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

On a point of order, Madam Chair, after we consider clause 7, I'm wondering if we can group clauses 8 through 23 together as a single vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you for that suggestion. I will need unanimous consent to do clauses 8 to 23 together when we get there.

(On clause 7)

We are now on PV-4.

Would the department like to comment on PV-4?

[Natasha Rascanin]

I think we've covered it already.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you.

Are there any comments or suggestions?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

On NDP-9, we'll go to Mr. MacGregor.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Chair, it's pretty clear what our amendment is trying to do here. In clause 7 we're replacing line 12 on page 4. It's basically to change the maximum carrying capacity.

I just have a technical question. My notes here say that a first amendment was required. Is this still in order?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Yes, I'm advised that it is.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Then I so move the amendment, Madam Chair. I'll leave it at that.