Thank you, Madam Chair.
This is amendment PV-5.
Originally when I started bringing amendments to committee, someone said that, if we call it “G” for Green, we're going to think it's “government”. That's why we're going to call them all PV, in case you're wondering. It's Parti Vert-5. One day it will mean “government”, but for now and for the foreseeable future, it means Parti Vert.
It's a very strange section that I propose to delete. I can't imagine what it's doing in here. The minister said to us just the other day that the key principle is one project, one assessment. We all know that, for many years, that has gone in the direction of joint reviews: joint panel reviews and federal-provincial reviews. One project, one assessment: we've been doing this for a very long time.
Although my amendment starts with a change to page 8, that's just to keep consequentially what happens on page 29, which is the limitation on the establishment of a joint review panel under subsection 39(2). I propose to delete it. This is the advice from briefs, particularly from the Canadian Environmental Law Association. In a nutshell, the current law says that the minister can appoint a joint review panel based on striking an agreement with another jurisdiction, except if it's a pipeline or a nuclear reactor. Nothing regulated under the Canadian energy regulator or the Nuclear Safety and Control Act can go to a joint review.
I'm baffled. This contradicts the minister's intention entirely. It's in flat out conflict with the government's stated goal of one project, one assessment. I'm baffled by it, and it makes no sense. The brief we have from the Canadian Environmental Law Association said, “We are unaware of any persuasive public interest rationale for this highly questionable prohibition.” Not only are they unaware of any rationale, it runs directly contrary to what the minister said she wants to do with this bill. Please delete it.