Environment Committee on May 8th, 2018

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I was intrigued by the reference to jurisdictional law-making powers. This is the classic case of strangling development in red tape. There are more criteria and more challenges for any developer who wants to come to Canada to invest in our economy. That is the problem. That is why we see record levels of investment fleeing our country. It's because we're strangling businesses with red tape and we're taxing them to death. I hope the message gets through to this Liberal government that we cannot afford to do this.

To be fair, this is a proposal by the NDP, but it's just taking it one step further, with more red tape.

What are we going to do to our economy in the long term? This is a huge step backwards. There's been a very clear signal sent to the international investment community that Canada is one of the last places right now that you want to invest in. This would just exacerbate that problem, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Is there any discussion on this or can we move right to the vote?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I would like to respond.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Okay.

You have a few minutes left in your five minutes.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

It could be seen as going backwards or it could be seen as going forward.

The government has committed to restoring public faith in the impact assessment process. Before the Harper government's evisceration of the federal assessment law, these triggers used to exist. Any matter that was under federal jurisdiction, in fact, would trigger a review.

What is happening is that under this bill, with its very narrow definition of designated project, unless the minister and cabinet decide to list a specific project, it's not going to be covered by the bill. There is very, very deep public concern. One of the criteria included here, the one dealing with world heritage sites, was included specifically because of the Mikisew Cree and their experience with the federal government refusing their continuous requests for a federal assessment of the impacts of both the Site C dam and oil sands operations on Wood Buffalo National Park, a world heritage site. Without these additions, they have no faith that a federal assessment will ever be triggered. That is why they have specifically requested that these provisions be added.

There's also the concern that proposals for impact assessments of national parks are continually rejected. There are apparently 500 examples of that happening. So there is strong support for expanding these criteria.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Okay. I just want to remind everybody that the committee did pass a motion that basically restricts each party to five minutes for each clause—not for each amendment. I'm being very generous, but I want people to stick to discussing the amendment, or I'm going to have to cut them off. I don't want to do that. I want to stay focused and to try to get through the amendments, and to discuss those rather than other things that may be on members' minds.

Shall the amendment carry?

[Some hon. member]

Can we have a recorded vote?

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Okay.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1)

That did not carry.

Linda, that gives you a chance to bring forward amendment NDP-4.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

This involves page 4, lines 9 and 10. It deleted from (b), under “designated project”, the phrase “or designated in an order made by the Minister under subsection 9(1)”.

I don't know why, but that's the proposal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Okay.

Linda, I just want to bring to your attention that on this one, the vote will apply consequentially to amendment NDP-20. I just want to make sure you're aware of that.

Is there any discussion on amendment NDP-4?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

How does that apply to NDP-20?

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Let's just turn to NDP-20 on page 49. It references the same paragraph. NDP-20 seeks to replace line 9 on page 13 with the words, “is referred to in subsection (1).” the following:

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

It only references proposed section 9. I don't see why that would remove NDP-20.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I'm not sure, either.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Let's deal with it when we get to it, but I see absolutely no rationale for that at all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I am looking at it, and I'm not entirely clear. The analysis was done. Let's take a three-minute break, so we can get the details.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Order, I'd like to start the meeting again.

Linda, just to be clear here, NDP-4 is a definition, and you're taking out the piece that reads, “designated in an order made by the Minister under subsection 9(1).” In the definition, you're taking out the reference to the minister designating.

In NDP-20, you talk about what the minister must do in designating. So these two amendments don't go together. You don't want to take it out of here, if you want to have it dealt with in NDP-20.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I disagree. It's a completely different issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Well, one's a definition.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

In proposed section 9.... Was that on page 12?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Yes, page 12.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

In proposed subsection 9(1), it has “The Minister may”, and you have “must”. Why would you take it out of the definition if that's what you want to do in NDP-20?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Because we are changing what proposed subsection 9(1) says. So I've lost this one. My change to proposed subsection to 9(1) stands. It didn't pass, anyway, so the recommended change I have—

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

We haven't voted on it.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Well, come on. The Liberals are going to vote down every amendment of mine. You know it will happen.