Question has been called. Mr. O'Reilly, you may close debate on the motion, as your last comment was procedural in nature, and that was my mistake. Mr. O'Reilly, to the motion.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I believe I heard the Minister say that concerns had been raised by OROGO and the NEB. This gets back to this issue of concurrence by the federal government, and I'd like to raise a point of privilege that this is impinging upon my ability to do my job as an MLA and put forward a motion for consideration of the House. I think this is thwarting my ability to bring forward a motion that is in the public interest, in my view. I turn my mind to some of the comments that were made yesterday by the Minister, as well, where, you know, federal consent was being sought as far back as July 2018, when the bill was before the committee, and now I hear again today that concerns have been raised by the National Energy Board staff, perhaps, and that's going to influence, perhaps, the way that we vote in Committee of the Whole, now, and the work that I try to do as an MLA, so I'd like to raise this as a point of privilege. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. I will consider the point of privilege, but I will need to take some advice, so we are going to take a brief recess while I consider it.

---SHORT RECESS

I will call the committee back to order. Committee, thank you for your indulgence. This is the first point of privilege that has been raised this Assembly, I believe, so I just want to make sure we are getting it right.

I am going to go back to Mr. O'Reilly so that he can clearly lay out his point again, and then I am going to allow debate, after which time I will come to a ruling. First, I have Mr. Testart.

Point of order, Mr. Chair. I will just quote from our procedural text, Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, 6^th edition. A question of privilege. This is 26(2).

A question of privilege, on the other hand, is a question partly of fact and partially of law, the law of contempt of Parliament, and it is a matter for the House to determine. The decision of the House on a question of privilege, like every other matter which the House has to decide, can only be elicited by a question put from the Chair by the Speaker, and resolved either in the affirmative or the negative, and the question is necessarily founded on a motion made by a Member.

Further, part 3, the Speaker can rule on a question of order. The Speaker cannot rule on a question of privilege. If the question of privilege is raised, the Speaker's function is limited to deciding whether the matter is of such a character as to entitle the motion which the Member has raised, the question desires to move over the priority of the orders of the day.

In the case of committees, and I'll quote again from section 107, which is the extension of privilege to committees, it says, "Breaches of privilege in committee may be dealt with only by the House itself on report from the committee. Thus, should a point of privilege be raised, the appropriate course would be to refer it to the Speaker when the Chair of Committee of the Whole reports back to the House, and that the Speaker determine whether or not the point of privilege entitles the Member to raise a motion."

So, as pointed out, the precedent here is that the whole House must decide matters of privilege, as privilege is an inherent component of each individual Member who is elected to this House to exercise, and the House collectively, but only the House collectively, can exercise and determine questions of privilege. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for the Chair of a Committee or even the Speaker to exercise the final determination of privilege, and this matter should be reported to the House proper and the Speaker make a prima facie ruling on whether or not the Member who has raised this point should be allowed to raise it forward. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

According to our rules, section 20(4), the Speaker may allow debate to assist the Speaker to determine whether there is a prima facie case of breach of privilege. I misspoke. I am allowing debate to determine whether there is a prima facie breach of privilege and not to rule on the breach of privilege.

Thank you for the education in legislative rules, though, Mr. Testart. Once again, Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I brought forward this motion in good faith to attempt to provide some substance for the annual report requirements for the regulator. Committee raised this issue, as well. We have been working with the Minister's staff to try to come to some understanding or whatever on this.

I find out in the House from the Minister that the Minister and his staff have been talking to the National Energy Board and the Office of the Regulator of Oil and Gas Operations about whether this is acceptable to these outside organizations, institutions, and from what the Minister said there are concerns that have been raised that have the implication of influencing how some Members may vote on this.

We are here to do a job in the public interest to make the best possible laws. Having an outside body influencing what we are doing here I just don't think is an appropriate way for us to create new legislation.

Look, I recognize everybody is rushed, and in an ideal world there might have been an opportunity to reach some sort of accommodation on this understanding, but to receive the information in Committee of the Whole while the motion is before us is not helpful, and I think has the effect of chilling the kind of decision that we can and should be making freely as Members of this House to bring forward the best possible laws for our people. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Further from committee? Mr. Testart.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think the point that the Member is raising is fundamentally around the role of Members who are participating in committees such as this one to determine the merits of legislation in a detailed clause-by-clause review and proposed amendments, which is an inherent privilege of Members and an inherent role of the House in exercising its own independence, so the House is allowed to pursue its duties that are important for the passage of laws. To have outside interference either in the form of a consideration that has been raised by a third party that is, in fact, influencing the decision making of a Minister to concur with an amendment raised by committee, which is allowed by our rules but must be carefully balanced with, also, the merits of that. There is a difference between, I think the advice being given to a Minister to reject an amendment that is not in proper form, which is not keeping with the rules of amendment or has a serious public policy concern that the amendment could jeopardize the sound functioning of the law.

In this case, I don't think the justification and what the Member is relying on is something quite different. It is merely that these discussions are taking place at a level outside of this process, and as a result we are unable to make changes or modifications to the bill through the amending process. I think that directly impinges upon, as the Member has said, his rights as a Member to exercise bringing forward amendments and changes in good faith within the realm of our rules and the realm of our privilege.

It just seems to me like these kind of determinations of outside actors, especially in keeping with the spirit of our consensus traditions, those should be freely shared with committee and made explicitly clear, and not just be told the rationale is we cannot change this because we have been told by someone we're not going to do it.

I think that does have serious consequences on the future of legislation that is brought forward. The role of committees is not merely to rubber-stamp legislation. It is to sincerely and solemnly review these things, and that is an inherent privilege. We jeopardize the ability of the House to freely and informally look at these things if those outside contingencies, especially when they are governments, are allowed to be the primary consideration in whether or not the Minister applies his concurrence on amendments, or whether or not the House does, in fact, vote something down for that justification.

I do support the point of privilege. I hope you will consider the merits of the point that has been raised. Thank you.

Thank you. Further from committee? Minister Schumann.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let's make something very clear here. We didn't just go off and do this on our own. We talked to the law clerk about this issue before we went out and did this, and we got consent from the law clerk that we would be able to share this information. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister. Anything further? Seeing nothing further, I am going to once again call a brief recess while I consider the debate. Thank you, committee.

---SHORT RECESS

Thank you, committee. I will now call Committee of the Whole to order. The Member for Frame Lake has raised a point of privilege. It is my role to determine whether this raises issues of privilege.

At the heart of the Member's point of privilege is that bodies outside this House may be influencing the Minister and Cabinet's consideration of his motion to amend a clause of Bill 37, and that this interferes with his privilege and prevents him from making changes to the bill.

First, the Member's point of privilege is premature. The Member moved a motion, and the question on that motion has not been called and no vote taken. The Member supposes that, as the Minister does not support the motion, his efforts to amend the bill will not succeed.

The Member's concerns do not raise issues of privilege. The Member remains free to bring forward an amendment to the bill and encourage Members to support it. How Members choose to vote on the motion and what consultations or discussions they have had in reaching their decision is not relevant to the Member's ability to bring and encourage adoption of the motion.

I find that the Member has not raised an issue of privilege that should be referred to the House. Thank you, committee. To the motion.

Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed?

---Defeated

To clause 6. Does committee agree?

---Clauses 6 through 8 inclusive approved

Clause 9. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. This clause is about making sure that proof of financial responsibility remains in force during a suspension or abandonment of oil and gas facilities.

I want to thank the Minister for providing a letter to me yesterday. I tabled this earlier in the House. It provides some detail about how this is actually done in practice by OROGO. What this does is require that there be a one-year period after successful abandonment or decommissioning of a facility or an activity, I guess, that the financial responsibility has to stay in place for that long.

I would like to ask the Minister: how was the period of one year determined? Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. ITI worked closely with OROGO and NEB to help ensure that the regulator holds proof of financial responsibility if there is a risk of spills or debris from work or an activity. Clause 9 extends the proof of financial responsibility requirement by requiring the holder of an authorization to ensure that the proof of financial responsibility remains in force for the duration of the work or the activity and for the period of one year after the regulator notifies the holder that all work that had been authorized has been successfully abandoned or decommissioned in accordance with the Oil and Gas Operations Act and its regulations. The one-year period following successful abandonment or decommissioning is similar to subsection 27(1.2) of the Canadian Oil and Gas Operations Act. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Well, what I actually asked for was some rationale as to why the one-year period. I understand that that is the case in the federal legislation. It's what we inherited. So what kind of process did the department go through in examining whether this one-year period was appropriate or not? Thanks, Mr. Chair. You know, all I want to know is why one year was picked. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Mr. McEachern.