Evidence of meeting #3 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was federal.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you.
We are voting on BQ‑5.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The amendment merely seeks to ensure that projects are compliant with existing provincial legislation.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.
Are there any questions or comments? Does anyone need any clarification?
Go ahead, Mr. Lauzon.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
What the amendment proposes with respect to provincial legislation already applies, so we will be voting against it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Mr. Lauzon.
Are there any questions or comments? Does anyone need any clarification?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
Thank you, Chair. I so move.
This is an effort to meet the government's claims that this bill will adhere to timelines by embedding timelines right into the bill. This would enforce a 90-day deadline for a final decision after a ministerial recommendation with mandatory reporting on delays to ensure timely decisions and prevent indefinite political limbo for major projects.
Of course, we campaigned on review processes. We were shooting for a maximum one-year cap with a six-month target, so that is what we propose in this amendment. However, since the government has not even included the two-year timeline it keeps claiming is in this law, if we don't have support for the one-year timeline amendment, we would certainly accept from the Liberals the two-year timeline to at least codify their stated goal right in the law.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Before I turn the floor over to Ms. May for PV-4, I just want to read that if PV-4 is adopted, BQ-7 and BQ-9 cannot be moved due to a line conflict. Also, PV-4 is identical to NDP-21 and BQ-8.
With that, I'd like to turn the floor over to Ms. May to move the motion.
Ms. May, the floor is yours.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to address for a moment the honourable member Mike Kelloway and let him know I speak to him from his riding. This may explain some of the Internet issues.
PV-4 is widely supported, as you mentioned, Mr. Chair. It's identical to NDP-21 and BQ-8. It is also in the testimony supported by West Coast Environmental Law, Ecojustice, the Canadian Environmental Law Association and numerous other organizations, as well as, I think, some other parliamentarians.
This changes one line only in clause 4—line 18 on page 9—which currently says that this act ceases to have effect five years from the date on which it enters into force. This amendment would shorten that time to two years. It would read “order under subsection (1), after the second anniversary of”.
Again, this is supported by a staff lawyer from West Coast Environmental Law, Anna Johnston, who I think put it well. If the bill is truly about dealing with our current trade crisis, it should be constrained to a more reasonable timeline.
With that, I submit the amendment for your consideration, and hope it will carry.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Ms. May.
Are there any questions or comments?
We will hear from Mr. Lauzon first, followed by Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to propose a subamendment to PV‑4.
Where it says “second anniversary”, I propose that “second” be replaced with “fourth”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Now that a subamendment has been moved, do you still wish to comment, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval?
Should I turn it over to Ms. May to allow her to speak to Mr. Lauzon's subamendment?
Ms. May, did you hear the subamendment proposed by Mr. Lauzon?
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Yes, I did. I wouldn't consider it a friendly amendment. The purpose of the two-year sunset clause is to keep the lifeline of this bill to a more reasonable time limit. Four years is not substantially different from the existing five years under the bill. Two years is more reasonable.
I respect the work the Bloc Québécois has done, but in this case, I do not agree with the subamendment to change the wording in my amendment from “second anniversary” to “fourth anniversary”. I think keeping “second anniversary” is essential.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Ms. May.
Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, would you like to speak to the subamendment? If not, I will put it to a vote.
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
I would perhaps like to add something.
Actually, I wanted to apologize to Ms. May. I think the amendment she proposed is very good. That said, even though I recognize once again that the subamendment would address the weaknesses of the current bill, I will unfortunately have to vote against that subamendment and against Ms. May's amendment, since I think the committee is more likely to pass BQ-7.
Liberal
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Perfect.
We will now vote on Mr. Lauzon's subamendment.
(Subamendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Are there questions or comments on PV-4 before we go to a vote on PV-4?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We will now go to BQ-7.
You have the floor, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The objective of BQ-7 is actually to ensure that, in the event of the prorogation or dissolution of Parliament, the powers conferred in the proposed subsection 5(1) cannot be used. We believe that would ensure better parliamentary oversight of this exceptional power.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.
Are there any further questions, comments or clarifications?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings)]
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
We will now move on to BQ-9, I believe.
Go ahead, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
I believe BQ-9 was deemed inadmissible.
As to BQ-8, I no longer wish to propose it to the committee.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
That's fine. So you wish to abstain from moving BQ-8, is that correct?