Environment Committee on May 9th, 2018

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I certainly acknowledge that they're enforceable. Whether they are enforced is a different matter altogether. The biggest complaint I hear in my office is when Canada's laws are not enforced or not enforced sufficiently. I think this, as a stated purpose within the bill, is eminently sensible. Canadians expect their governments to enforce the laws and regulations that they pass.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

It's a good discussion.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I rest my case. Part of doing the environmental impact assessment process is to identify where there may be significant impacts. Then there will be conditions attached, and some of those conditions will require that federal authorities exercise their regulatory powers. There's a whole part of this act as well called “Administration and Enforcement”, sections 120 to 151, and I just simply thought that it's part of the act that should be referenced. If we don't want to talk about the regulation and enforcement, so be it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Shall the amendment carry?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I'd like a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

We'll have a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we're on LIB-7.

Mr. Amos, go ahead.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Madam Chair, this is an amendment that would seek to amend the mandate subsection of the purposes section with a view to working towards better enhancing our commitment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

We heard many, many comments from indigenous representatives and organizations, and this is one of a series of four amendments that I'm bringing on this subject. It really goes straight to that bottom-line issue of respecting the federal government's commitments with respect to the rights of indigenous peoples of Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Shall the amendment carry?

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

I'd like a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Okay.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 5; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Next up is amendment PV-12.

Ms. May, go ahead.

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

Madam Chair, it's been a while since you heard from all the witnesses, but I just want to preface this by saying that this amendment comes from the expert advice, from Professor Martin Olszynski, who is one of the pre-eminent experts in environmental impact assessment in Canada. He's at the University of Calgary's faculty of law. He's provided some examples in his evidence of where the words “scientific integrity” have been used in other jurisdictions. In particular, the U.S. Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act require that U.S federal agencies ensure “the professional integrity, including scientific integrity, of the decisions and analyses in environmental impact statements”.

The U.S. Geological Survey similarly has a section on scientific integrity which says that those employees of the geological survey “communicate the results of scientific activities clearly, honestly, objectively, accurately, thoroughly” and expeditiously.

You might think that this is automatic and that anyone doing scientific work is going to report it honestly and ethically and that scientific integrity will matter to any government, but there's a pattern. It's been discussed in some recent news articles, and I've seen it myself over the years in environmental assessment. Consultants hired by the proponent can put pressure on or even add it after the fact to the reports that were done by scientific researchers. The word “devastate” for instance can be edited to “alter”. That's a real life example.

This would be a new subsection 6(3) to be found in the mandate section. There is a subsection 6(2), which I leave unchanged. Subsection 6(3) would say:

(3) That the Government of Canada, the Minister, the Agency and federal authorities must, in the administration of this Act, exercise their powers in a manner that adheres to the principles of scientific integrity, honesty, objectivity, thoroughness and accuracy.

I'm sure the government of the day absolutely supports this. You might think it's redundant, but believe me, and if you don't believe me, please believe Professor Olszynski. This is really important if we can add this in.

Thank you.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I want to speak to that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Okay.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I'm so glad that Ms. May has tabled this, because if she hadn't, I was going to table a slightly different version.

We have received briefs from a number of scientists in Canada—unfortunately, after we had to submit amendments—who are deeply concerned that there's a lack in terms of reflecting scientific integrity in this bill. There are a lot of concerns with the way impact assessments have been proceeding, and that's what's causing a lot of people to get arrested.

Professor Olszynski has pointed out to me why he has used the wording he has. I thought it was a bit extreme, but it's very important that we know why he has put this in.

We actually signed the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation. It's a sidebar agreement to NAFTA. In that agreement, we agree to co-operate and to work with our partners, the United States and Mexico, to have harmonized policies.

The United States passed these rules some time ago. The Council on Environmental Quality regulations of 1978—a long time ago—for the National Environmental Policy Act required that federal agencies ensure “the professional integrity, including scientific integrity, of the discussions and analyses in environmental impact statements”. I can give this information to the analysts.

Also, the U.S. Geological Survey Manual, in chapter 500.25, titled “Scientific Integrity”, at paragraph 7 requires United States government employees to “communicate the results of” their “scientific activities...honestly, objectively, thoroughly” and expeditiously.

This is common language for our trading partner to the south, so I think it's a very sensible recommendation to be included in the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you.

Mr. Sopuck.

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

I think this one makes a lot of sense. Back in a previous life, I had to administer environmental licences and send test results to the relevant authorities, and numbers, hopefully, don't lie. If you do your job correctly—

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Kumbaya.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

We don't need Kumbaya.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

We need data.

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

We need data, absolutely, and I find that data is sorely lacking in much of these environmental debates. I think this side is very much inclined to support this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Shall the amendment carry?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

A recorded vote.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

That carries. Congratulations. Well done.

Let's move on to NDP-20.

Actually, wait a minute. This one was dealt with under NDP-4, so this is already done.