Evidence of meeting #111 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was definition.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1 p.m.
Brent Parker Director, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Division, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
I can speak to that in the context of this act.
In the subsequent provision under the definition of “jurisdiction”, paragraph (d) actually outlines “any agency or body that is established under an act of the legislature of a province”. That covers municipalities.
1 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
They're creatures of the provinces, so paragraph (d) covers them.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Perfect. Thank you very much for that clarification. That was helpful.
1 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I don't believe that all municipalities have duties, functions, and powers related to assessing the environmental effects of designated projects, so it's a very narrow provision. Unless you happen to be a municipality.... A small town probably doesn't have legislation allowing it to assess the environmental impacts of a project. They can appear and testify, but....
1 p.m.
Liberal
1 p.m.
Director, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Division, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
It does speak for itself in the way that member Duncan outlined. You would have to have functions related to an impact assessment in order to be recognized as a jurisdiction there.
1 p.m.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Madam Chair, I would like to hear opinions from the experts at the end of the table about this question.
If we agree to this amendment, is there a risk that the act will be confusing and invalid?
1 p.m.
Director, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Division, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
I can't opine on whether to accept it, but certainly, from a technical perspective, there is provision to be included now as a jurisdiction where there is an implication of their being involved in the impact assessment. The proposed amendment would expand that to include all municipalities, as I understand it, so it would be different from what's proposed here.
1 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
To our officials, is there other federal legislation that specifically references municipalities, as opposed to what is defined here, which is “any agency or body that is established under an Act of the legislature of a province”?
1 p.m.
Vice-President, Policy Development Sector, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
I would turn to our Justice colleagues for interpretation of other pieces of legislation.
1 p.m.
Counsel, Department of Justice
Madam Chair, off the top of my head, I don't know of such legislation. If you'll allow me a minute or two, I can look it up for you.
1 p.m.
Liberal
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I'm okay with waiting to get clarification.
We'll move on, if we can. The next is PV-5.
Ms. May.
1 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
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.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Is there any further discussion?
Does anybody want a pause to consider?
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Madam Chair, I would like to point out another grammatical error in the Green Party’s amendment number 5.
If I read it correctly, after the words “aux lignes 33 et 34”, we have this: “d) au titre d'un accord conclu en vertu des paragraphes 39(1) ou (3)”, but in the amendment, only paragraph (3) is being replaced.
It is a question of grammar. I am not sure if you understand me. In the French version, it says that “projet de loi C-69, à l'article 1, soit modifié par substitution, aux lignes 33 et 34, page 4, de ce qui suit:
d) au titre d'un accord conclu en vertu du paragraphe 39(3)”
There's a figure missing.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Give us a minute. We'll look it up to see what happened there. There was a little bit of challenge with the translation of what you were saying.