Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:

That Bill C-69, as amended, be not now read a third time, but that it be further amended,

(a) on page 94, in clause 6, by replacing line 34 with the following:

“(4) The chairperson must not be appointed from the roster and the persons appointed from the roster must not con-”; and

(b)on page 95, in clause 7, by replacing line 23 with the following:

“(4) The chairperson must not be appointed from the roster and the persons appointed from the roster must not con-”.

In amendment, it was moved by the Honourable Senator Cordy, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dyck, that Bill C-69, as amended, be not read a third time but that it be further amended — may I dispense?

On debate, Senator Griffin.

Honourable senators, I’d like to speak briefly in support of Senator Cordy’s amendments.

At issue here, as she clearly stated, is the chairmanship of review panels for designated projects regulated by the petroleum boards.

Under the proposed impact assessment act, a member appointed by the minister from the roster, including members of petroleum boards, can chair review panels for designated projects regulated by that body.

Members of the petroleum boards, Canadian Energy Regulator and nuclear commission have technical and regulatory expertise that can be very helpful. That they should have a seat at the table is not being disputed by this amendment or by me. However, the question is the appropriateness of their ability to chair review panels.

Honourable senators on the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources have weighed in on the ability of members from the roster being able to chair review panels for projects under the purview of the Energy Regulator and nuclear commission.

The committee heard from witnesses, including many from the East Coast, regarding the chairmanship of review panels for designated offshore activities in the Atlantic region. Their testimony was consistent: Allowing a panel member from the petroleum board roster to chair review panels would enhance the influence of the petroleum boards.

The committee heard this from the Clean Ocean Action Committee, the Ecology Action Centre, the Sierra Club Canada Foundation, the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs Secretariat, Ecojustice, the Campaign to Protect Offshore Nova Scotia, and the Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen’s Association.

Many of those people noted that a good working relationship had started regarding uses of the ocean. The fishermen’s livelihood depends on the Atlantic Ocean and they certainly want panels to be very fair.

There was broad consensus on this point on the East Coast. I sat in on the meeting in Halifax. I was really impressed by the points that were being made, where the wealth of our waters, the health of our community and the health of our people are inextricably interrelated.

I thank Senator Cordy for proposing this amendment. I encourage all honourable senators to join me in supporting that amendment.

Senator Griffin, would you take a question?

Honourable senators, I was going to ask this question of Honourable Senator Cordy but Honourable Senator Griffin was recognized before I had an opportunity to ask the question.

I’m curious if Honourable Senator Griffin or Honourable Senator Cordy have spoken to the Government of Nova Scotia or the Government of Newfoundland about this proposal. If you have, do either of those governments support this motion?

Honourable senators, I have not spoken to the governments. When the witnesses spoke in Halifax, Honourable Senator McInnis was also present at that hearing. He made the point that there are agreements with the various provinces. I’m not party to those agreements. Honourable Senator Cordy knows more about the agreements. I’m sorry I popped up so fast and ruined your question to Senator Cordy. I’m not in a position to repeat any more than what I heard of the testimony in Halifax and to support Senator Cordy’s motion.

Are honourable senators ready for the question?

In amendment, it was moved by the Honourable Senator Cordy, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dyck, that Bill C-69 as amended be not read a third time but that it be further amended — shall I dispense?

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?

I hear more yeses than noes.

Those in favour of Senator Cordy’s amendment please say “yea.”

Those opposed to Senator Cordy’s amendment please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the nays have it.

I see two senators rising.

Is there an agreement on the bell?

The vote will take place at 11:16 p.m.

Call in the senators.