The Chair: Because Ms. May is not here, the amendment is deemed moved, and now we’re open for debate on the amendment.
Megan Leslie: Is this on amendment MAY-1?
The Chair: That’s correct.
Megan Leslie: Thank you.
The Chair: I do have a ruling on it, but is there debate first?
Okay. The motion has been made. However, the ruling is that Bill S-15 amends the Canada National Parks Act to ensure continuity of existing leases, easements, and licences of occupation in or on the Sable Island National Park Reserve of Canada. This amendment proposes to subject the continuity to pending consultations with first nations and the general public.
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on page 766:
An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.
In the opinion of the chair, this condition is contrary to the provisions of clause 3 of Bill S-15 and is therefore inadmissible.
This ruling also applies to amendment MAY-2.
(Clause 3 agreed to)
(Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to)
(On clause 6)
The Chair: On clause 6, amendment MAY-3 is deemed moved. Debate.
Michelle Rempel: With regard to this particular amendment, it’s my understanding that it contradicts the 2010 Canada-Nova Scotia MOU, in which Canada and Nova Scotia agreed not to recommend the “creation of a federal protected area” that would have an adverse impact on their interests in and management of offshore petroleum resources.
The amendment also contradicts the terms of the 2011 Canada-Nova Scotia national parks agreement. Industry may need access to Sable Island to conduct low-impact seismic from time to time to ensure that any offshore activities are conducted in a fully informed and environmentally safe manner.
As we have heard in witness testimony from across the spectrum of witnesses in the last two meetings, Mr. Chair, we do believe that through the development of the management plan, or potentially another instrument, this particular activity can be defined and put into a formal framework of some type, such that it can be done without adversely impacting the ecological integrity of the Sable national park.
(Amendment negatived)
The Chair: I have a ruling on amendment MAY-4 as well.
Bill S-15 amends the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act by prohibiting any work or activity related to the drilling for petroleum. This amendment would permit the establishment of any facilities related to emergency evacuation without the board’s authorization.
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on page 766:
An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.
In the opinion of the chair, this amendment is contrary to the provisions of clauses 6 and 8 of Bill S-15 and is therefore inadmissible.
The Chair: Amendment MAY-5 is deemed moved.
(Amendment negatived)
The Chair: We’re on amendment MAY-6.
(Amendment negatived)
The Chair: We’re moving to clause 7. We have two amendments, MAY-7 and LIB-2.
Ms. May’s amendment is deemed moved. Is there debate on the amendment?
Ms. Leslie.
Megan Leslie: It’s not actually debate, I should have said “point of order”.
There is a problem with the translation from English to French. If you look at proposed subsection (2) in the amendment, it says, “within 60 days” and there’s nothing in the French version that says “60 days”.
I’m not asking for a ruling, just that it’s on the record that the two versions match.
The Chair: Are we okay to proceed based on making the English version applicable to the French version?
We’re going to proceed as “within 60 days”.
We’re still on amendment MAY-7. Is there further debate on amendment MAY-7 with the point of order?
Ms. Rempel.
Michelle Rempel: Again, I would just point out on this particular amendment that in the first component, part (a), the amendment is not in line with the 2010 Canada-Nova Scotia MOU in which Canada and Nova Scotia agreed not to recommend creation of a federal protected area that would have an adverse impact on their interest in management of offshore petroleum resources.
My apologies to the translators for speaking that fast.
Also, the amendment is not in line with terms of the 2011 Canada-Nova Scotia national parks establishment agreement.
Furthermore, this section is calling upon Parks Canada’s expertise to advise the board about potential impacts about proposed work or activities on Sable Island. It’s appropriate that the agency be the one identified in legislation to carry out the activity. The rationale is similar for the second part of the amendment with regard to the MOUs.
The Chair: I just want to come back and allow our analyst to respond to Ms. Leslie’s point of order regarding the reference to “60 days”.
David-Andrés Novoa (Procedural Clerk): To clarify, in the French version the 60 days is already included in the bill. The line is not amended, and therefore there is no need to change it.
An hon. member: Oh, fascinating.
The Chair: Is there further debate on amendment MAY-7?
(Amendment negatived)
The Chair: With respect to amendment MAY-8, there’s a typo. It should say “be amended by deleting lines 26 to 28 on page 5”. This amendment is identical to amendment NDP-2, so our action on this one will apply to amendment NDP-2.
Is there debate on amendment MAY-8?
Ms. Leslie.
Megan Leslie: Mr. Chair, once again, I understand the issue of needing mirror legislation, but we are legislators around this table. If we legislate, then others will follow. I think this motion is in the best interest of Sable Island, and I hope that my colleagues will consider that when deciding how to vote.
(2110)
The Chair: I’m sure they’ll listen.
We’re going to proceed now to Ms. Rempel, and then Mr. Woodworth.
Michelle Rempel: I actually believe, Mr. Chair, that this amendment is poorly structured because by striking out the last line, the proposal deletes reference to allowing the emergency evacuation of offshore workers.
The Chair: I pointed out that line 29 should not be in; it should be line 28.
Michelle Rempel: We are legislators here; however, we have heard from witnesses that it is important to respect the legislation passed by our colleagues in the Nova Scotia legislature. I would recommend not supporting the amendment because of that, and also that we follow through with appropriate discussions as part of the parks management planned development.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Woodworth.
Stephen Woodworth: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
In response to questions that I asked this evening, the witness who was representing the board gave a fairly good description of some of the kinds of geochemical, magnetic and gravity explorations that would be considered under this subparagraph of petroleum exploration activities. He described very well the extremely negligible impact that they would have. In my view, it would be acting completely arbitrarily to delete the subparagraph that allows such negligibly impactful activities to occur.
The Chair: Is there further debate?
Ms. Rempel.
Michelle Rempel: I want to emphasize that we have heard from witnesses both on Thursday and today that defining this particular term as well as the framework in which it would be operating is possible through other mechanisms. It should be approached that way rather than by seeking to amend mirror legislation.
(Amendment negatived)
The Chair: Mr. Woodworth, and then Ms. May. Oh, Ms. May, I’m sorry. You’re not a part of the regular committee so your participation is limited to introducing your amendments.
Elizabeth May: Mr. Chair, can you seek permission for me to speak to my amendments?
The Chair: The only way that a member of the House of Commons who is not a member of the standing committee has an opportunity to speak is with the unanimous consent of the committee.
Elizabeth May: I was invited to be here, but not given notice of the meeting until later in the day today, and I was in British Columbia.
The Chair: We were all given notice of this meeting late in the day, Ms. May. We all received late notice.
Ms. Rempel.
Michelle Rempel: Mr. Chair, I believe at the beginning of this meeting you sought unanimous consent to move to clause-by-clause review of this legislation upon the completion of witness testimony. By that, there was notice given.