Evidence of meeting #112 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 agency.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Not according to the legislative clerk. We'll take one quick look and make sure.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I still disagree with why they would argue that. I mean, I lost that one, and therefore that wasn't changed, and therefore this should be valid.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
There is no change, and therefore I should be able to propose this alternative.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
If you had accepted that amendment, it might have made a difference, but you did not accept the amendment.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
This is a provision related to the transportation of dangerous goods, which I've also already tabled in the House. It is a matter of great consternation to a lot of the Canadian public that, under the existing provision in law, even though the minister has long had the power for discretion to call an assessment where there is public concern, or where information comes to her attention that there may be significant adverse effects, she has never used the power.
The recommendation is to make that mandatory. I see no logical argument for where information has been brought to the attention of the minister that the project may cause significant adverse effects that she does not have to call a review.
If that's not the case, it basically makes this bill the “let's not have federal assessment” bill, because every other provision simply gives them the discretion. If an authority has decided that we don't need to have an assessment, well, there can't be an assessment. If they want to have somebody else do the assessment, we won't do a federal assessment.
This is the only occasion where we will know for sure that there will actually be a federal assessment: because the minister has been apprised of the fact that there may be significant effects from the project. I find it very hard to find any logical reason not to say it in that way.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Do you intend for us to do each of these pieces separately? Is that what you're trying to do?
NDP
Liberal
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I'm looking at the opposite. Sorry. Oh, I'm already tired, and we've only been here one hour.
Let's just deal with this one.
Conservative
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
This is a guaranteed way of chasing away investment in Canada. Basically, you're compelling the minister to order an assessment “when there are public concerns or when information is otherwise brought to the Minister's attention”. It doesn't stipulate the gravity of those concerns or the science that backs up those concerns. If somebody comes forward and complains, those are concerns. They complain and say, “Hey, I have a concern about a particular project; there will be some adverse effects.” Remember, the wording is “may” cause significant adverse effects.
If one person comes forward, the minister must act. The minister, in a situation like this, needs to have the discretion available to assess the seriousness of a complaint about a project and the cumulative effect of a number of complaints on a project.
It goes back to ministerial discretion. I don't believe that we should have ministerial discretion as a rule, but there are times when it makes eminent sense for a minister to have that discretion, so that you don't have situations where projects that really should not have to undergo an impact assessment by any stretch of the imagination suddenly have to, and incur all those additional expenses that will likely chase away that particular investment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Yes, a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
There is no point in moving NDP-20(b) and NDP-20(c) because they're related, too.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Fair enough. That's why I wondered if you wanted to do them all, but okay. That's good. This amendment NDP-20, in its entirety, did not carry.
Thank you.
PV-13 was done before, so that's out.
