Senator Cardozo: We had a good discussion about clauses 21, 22 and 23 — the “Henry VIII” clauses. In some ways, they’re “notwithstanding” clauses. They say that the government can go ahead and do this notwithstanding this list of acts that are listed in schedule 2. Is there a way to constrain the use of that, other than dropping it, as you suggest? I’m thinking either a sunset clause or perhaps a requirement that the invocation of that section be placed before Parliament for information purposes.

We haven’t talked about the process here, but time is running out. The House is rising at the end of this week. We will be voting on this next week. If we could have the House make these amendments this week, it would be much easier to make this happen. Do you have any suggestions about how we could constrain these clauses?

Mr. Olszynski: We could simply remove the reference to enactments in clause 22. So the power could be there to amend regulations, flesh out the act itself or amend regulations even under other statutes. That’s fine.

If you think about it, this chamber and the other place are the primary bodies for law making, and the executive makes subordinate legislation. Regulations are subordinate legislation. I have no problem with subordinate legislation amending subordinate legislation. It becomes weird when subordinate legislation can amend primary laws that you folks have debated and passed. You could simply remove the references to enactments, and then it becomes a power to amend regulations, and that’s essentially fine.

It’s interesting, although I haven’t heard that other version. Yes, the other version would be to seek consent, essentially, from this place and the other place when you want to change a law. Again, it brings you and this process back and it brings transparency to this system, which is so important for accountability. So I think there are ways to do it.

Senator Cardozo: Where are the words enacted? Is that in clause 21?

Mr. Olszynski: It’s in clause 22, actually.

Senator Cardozo: So how would it read? Instead of, “The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the minister responsible . . . .”

Mr. Olszynski: Yes, “The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation . . . make regulations . . . .” and here it says, “. . . exempting one or more national interest projects from the application of any provision of that enactment . . . .” I would remove “. . . of any provision of that enactment . . . . ” and simply say, “. . . from the application of any provision of regulations made under an enactment.”

Senator Cardozo: So then we wouldn’t be touching the acts as listed in the first list in part 1 of schedule 2; we would just be touching the regulations in part 2 of schedule 2?

Mr. Olszynski: Yes, that’s correct.

Senator Cardozo: That is a significant change.

Mr. Olszynski: It’s just four words.

Senator Cardozo: What about a sunset clause?

Mr. Olszynski: The act does have a sunset clause.

Senator Cardozo: It just has a review clause.

Mr. Olszynski: The power to list projects expires after five years, and then there is a review clause in clause 24. There has been some discussion about that because five years seems like a very long time. Three years might be better.

Senator Cardozo: What kinds of projects would you suggest that would be sustainable and yet economically beneficial?

Mr. Olszynski: I don’t know if my colleagues want to jump in, but there is obviously a lot of excitement around east-west transmission lines. I think that is critically important. Those are outside my wheelhouse, but they are something we should be driving for, especially when you look at the fact that most of our electricity trading is actually north-south. That doesn’t make sense; we should have a national grid. I like trains. We’re in a train station, so some high-speed rail would be great. I don’t know if my colleagues have anything to add.

Mr. Ginsberg: Without naming a specific project, as the minister said, proponents have to come forward with them. In terms of what’s appropriate for this legislation, I would go back to my comment about the criteria, which is that they have to be not only economic accelerators but also accelerators of our environmental ambitions and goals, because those two things go together and cannot be decoupled.