Environment Committee on May 8th, 2018

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We will be opposing these changes. It's our belief and understanding that cultural aspects are included in the social dimensions of this definition.

We do, though, recognize the need for some greater clarity on the factors to be considered in assessments, and that's why we'll be proposing a change to the definition of “effects”. That will come in Liberal motion 3, which will amend the definition of “effects” to clarify that this includes both positive and negative consequences.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Okay.

Monsieur Godin.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Chair, I am getting lost in the French version.

I do not know which sentence the amendment that the NDP is proposing refers to. It says that it refers to lines 16 and 17 on page 5. The proposed change starts with “taires”, but which word does it go with?

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

So you found the section, “Effects”.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

She's adding quite a bit, including the word “cultural” just after “health”, and then at the end, “consequences of these changes”.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

At the moment, the word “sanitaires” does not appear in the clause.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

It's line....

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

In the version I have in my hand, it says, on line 15, “soit aux attributions que l’autorité fédérale doit exercer pour permettre l’exercice en tout ou en partie d’une activité concrète”. The word “concrète” is on line 17.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I'm at the end of line 15.

We're wondering what version you have. Do you have the original one we got?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

I don't know.

The one the clerk just gave me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

No, page 5 of the bill.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

We have it here, and it definitely is. Do you want to see?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Sorry, Madam Chair.

I was looking at page 6. Please excuse me, it is my mistake. I apologize.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

That's okay, I think we're all going to have a couple of hiccups as we go through this. No worries.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

PV-3.

Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This is very similar to the one we just looked at, and I'm disappointed by the argument of my Liberal friends that “cultural” is automatically subsumed within “social”. It was clearly stated in the expert panel that culture is a fifth pillar of sustainability. We can hope it will be read into “social”, but there's certainly no damage done by improving the bill. We've rejected so much of what the expert panel recommended, but surely ensuring that cultural conditions are expressly included in this definition.... It's just to look at changes to the environment, health, social, cultural, or economic conditions.

ln looking at the impact assessment, we wanted to make it broader. We wanted to look at that specifically and explicitly more than the natural environment by itself, which was always the case with our previous versions of CEAA, going right back to ERP.

In this case, I'll stop there and say that both my third and fourth amendments deal with this point.

Madam Chair, if you wanted to deal with my Green Party amendment 3 and Green Party amendment 4, they both are in response to evidence we've heard that culture is a stand-alone part of the sustainability equation. We should include it in the definition, and both my third and fourth amendments speak to that. Especially since we're slowed down by doing recorded votes, if you want to put them both together, I wouldn't object.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I probably would, but we'll end up opening up more discussion, so I think we'll just do the two separately. I don't want to have more discussion about why we're doing that. Is there any discussion about what you've brought forward in PV-3?

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings)])

We'll move on to LIB-3.

Mr. Amos.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

As was alluded to just a moment ago, LIB-3 seeks to provide clarity and certainty as regards the definition of “effects” to incorporate both positive and negative dimensions as consequences of the changes.

We've heard from a number of stakeholders that this is important, both those who could be characterized as being much more pro industry and those who are on the other side of the spectrum. I think this will help clarify for stakeholders what the expectations are, and provide greater clarity to the public as well.

It will also complement other amendments that will clarify both positives and negatives and the consequences to be considered in assessments and decisions. This is going to dovetail with proposals later on in the document.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Okay.

Mr. Sopuck.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

The Conservatives will be supporting this amendment. It's a very good amendment in our view because too much of environmental impact assessment is considered to be negative, that all that's looked at is the negative. I think it's important during these processes to talk about positive economic effects, job creation in local communities. I presume this is what this amendment will deal with.

Also, I like the fact that this amendment also reflects the fact that not all environmental change is bad. Changing an old growth forest to a young growth forest has different species and different ecological processes that are not necessarily bad. We will be voting in favour of this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Ms. Duncan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I'm not sure how this meshes with other parts of the bill where we talk about adverse impacts.

I find it unnecessary. I've never participated in a tribunal review where the proponent didn't spend most of the time talking about the economic benefits of the project. I think it probably conflicts with other parts of the bill that simply talk about adverse impacts.

Does this mean that we're going to remove the phrase “adverse impacts” everywhere in the bill it's stated? If so, I would find that unfortunate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

When we're talking about adverse impacts, typically we're talking about adverse impacts to our environment. The word “consequences” as used here, by qualifying it and saying there are both negative and positive consequences, goes back to the definition of sustainability. We've heard our minister and the Prime Minister say time and time again that the economy and the environment go hand in hand.

That's why it's very important that, when we talk about consequences, which people typically would assume are negative, we clarify that they are both positive and negative. There are positive consequences for the economy. There may be some adverse impacts. We're trying to find the appropriate balance so that we have prosperity in our country and a clean and healthy environment.