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
Let us now vote on BQ-20.
I wish to point out that, if BQ-20 is adopted, NDP-26 cannot be moved or debated since there is a line conflict.
Go ahead, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
BQ-20 has the same objective. We can therefore vote on it.
Liberal
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
The objective of this amendment is indeed similar to that of BQ-19 and other previously moved amendments. We do not intend to designate a project to be of national interest without the support of the provinces concerned. That is obvious.
Why do we want to leave some openness in the text? That is because the proposed wording in the amendment suggests that a single province could block a project of national interest.
That is why we will vote against BQ-20, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Before we vote, I just want to say for the record that BQ-20 would give all the provinces and territories the power to accept or refuse a project within their borders. It is not only Quebec that would have that power. The other provinces and territories would also have it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.
We'll go to a vote, colleagues.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We have NDP-26. There's a line conflict with PV-8, BQ-19 and BQ-20.
Are there questions, comments or clarification on NDP-26?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We are now on NDP-27.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We'll go now to—
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Pardon me, Mr. Chair, but I thought we were voting on NDP-26.
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
In that case, I vote in favour of the amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Do we have unanimous consent to allow Mr. Barsalou-Duval to change his vote on NDP-27?
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
Thank you, Chair.
Again, given the lack of transparent decision-making and the wide scope and scale of political decision-making that this bill allows, Conservatives are attempting—and hoping the Liberals will accept—to provide transparency to the project list. This amendment would strengthen that transparency by requiring all national interest projects to be published in an online public registry with clear details, costs and timelines. That, we believe, would ensure that Canadians and proponents could hold the government accountable, understand why each project qualifies and be confident in the process. We propose this, mainly, on the principle of transparency and accountability.
Liberal
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Sydney—Glace Bay, NS
Thank you Mr. Chair.
We have a subamendment. I can read it into the record.
I move that proposed paragraph 5.1(2)(c) be deleted, and that proposed paragraph 5.1(2)(d) be renumbered as proposed paragraph 5.1(2)(c). It's removing proposed paragraph 5.1(2)(c) because the cost estimates could include market-moving information.
Liberal
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Sydney—Glace Bay, NS
Yes, I think that's being circulated or being sent, one or the other.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
The subamendment to CPC-6 is being distributed to all members in both official languages.
It looks like members are ready to vote on the subamendment proposed by Mr. Kelloway.
(Subamendment negatived)
We go back to CPC-6. Are there any other questions or comments?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
On CPC-7, we turn it over to you, Ms. Stubbs, once again.
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
Mr. Chair and all colleagues, this amendment, again, would give concrete timelines for approval. We think that this is particularly important for national interest projects and proponents. Of course, since the government has not included the two-year timeline that they keep talking about within the legislation, we're putting forward this amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Ms. Stubbs.
Are there any questions or comments? I see none.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now I turn it over to Ms. May for a brief introduction to PV-9.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Again, this is an attempt to create greater certainty and to ensure that, as the ministers make their decisions, they don't undermine other commitments the Government of Canada has taken.
As a previously defeated amendment attempted to insert the concept of protecting biodiversity, this amendment, PV-9, seeks to amend Bill C-5, such that the minister is required to be satisfied that the project will not undermine Canada's global biodiversity goals. In putting the project under consideration in schedule 1, they must first be satisfied that biodiversity goals undertaken internationally by Canada will not be undermined.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I don't know if it's still your riding or not, Mike, but it's still God's country. I'm sorry, but I just have to say it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Ms. May.
Are there any questions, comments or clarification? Seeing none, we'll go to a vote on PV-9.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Green