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.
Noon
Liberal
Noon
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
I think my colleagues have spoken adequately to the importance of it, and I would simply suggest that we move straight to a vote.
Noon
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Is there any discussion?
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Next up is NDP-1g.
Linda.
Noon
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Yes, that's on line 38 of page 2, and it changes “the importance of cooperating with jurisdictions” to “the importance of cooperating and coordinating with jurisdictions”. I recall that in the text of the bill, they reflect both of those, so I think it's important in the preamble to say that.
Noon
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Thank you.
Is there any discussion?
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're now on NDP-1h.
Linda.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
We are now on page 3, replacing lines 1 to 11 as follows....
Again, this is consistent with what intervenors have called for. It would expand the subject matter to include impact assessments and regional and strategic assessments.
For the second “Whereas”, which starts at line 8, the amendment replaces it with the following:
Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes that impact, regional and strategic assessments contribute to Canada's ability to meet its international commitments in respect of the environment and climate change;
Again, it is making the point of covering all three types of impact assessment in the act. The act is very specific. It talks about impact assessment. It talks about regional assessment, and separately it talks about strategic assessment.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Yes. It relates to lines 14 and 15 on page 3. Currently, the preamble only speaks of the importance of encouraging innovative approaches and technologies to reduce adverse changes. This one would change it to “and technologies to avoid and ameliorate adverse changes to the environment”, and it also adds in “cultural conditions”, which was a strong recommendation by many witnesses and in many briefs.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
We have NDP-3. As a ruling, the vote will apply consequentially to NDP-57. That's on page 241. If adopted, NDP-4 cannot be moved because there's a line conflict.
Ms. Duncan, do you understand?
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
We're on NDP-3, and I'm telling you that the vote will apply consequentially to NDP-57, which references page 241. Moreover, if it's adopted, NDP-4 cannot be moved because then there would be a line conflict.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Are we voting on this the way we did on NDP-1 with the (a), (b), (c), and (d), or all—
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Yes, I don't know why the drafter drafted it the way she did for me and not for others, but that's what she did. She was being efficient.
This is on lines 8 to 12 on page 4. It's intended to expand what is considered to be a designated project.
Right now, those are carried out in Canada on federal lands and designated by regs. That's by the cabinet or by the minister. We include section 112 in the amendment because the minister can also make regulations, and for some reason, that is not mentioned. So we're adding in not just paragraph 109(b), which is cabinet power, but also section 112, which is the ministerial regulation-making power. Added to that, we have:
(c) may have effects on
(i) the outstanding universal value of a World Heritage site found on the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization World Heritage List,
(ii) one or more species at risk, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Species at Risk Act, or on their habitat,
and
(iii) migratory birds, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, or
(iv) transboundary waters on a transboundary airshed; or
(d) may have significant adverse effects on any Indigenous group or the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982
I am adding in here, “and as enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.”
The strong feeling, particularly as put forward by indigenous witnesses, was that the definition of “designated project” is too narrow. This adds a lot of jurisdictional law-making powers for legislation that has already been enacted that would consider it to be a designated project.
12:10 p.m.
NDP