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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Jean-Sébastien Rochon  Counsel, Department of Justice
Christine Loth-Bown  Vice-President, Policy Development Sector, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
Brent Parker  Director, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Division, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
Olivier Champagne  Legislative Clerk, House of Commons

Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Can we have a minute, Madam Chair?

The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte

Yes, I'll give you a chance to have a discussion.

The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte

That didn't take long.

Let's vote on the amendment to the amendment, which is adding the words, “direct or incidental”, to22(1)(a).

Shall the amendment to the amendment carry?

An hon. member

I'd like a recorded vote.

The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte

We'll have a recorded vote.

(Subamendment negatived: nays, 7; yeas, 1)

Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

I have a question on your last one, where you add (f), or where you're saying “any alternatives to the designated project”, etc. My concern is the issue that I raised before. You are then excluding alternatives that could deliver the need but not necessarily related to the proposal. Let's say somebody proposes a dam to provide so many megawatts or gigawatts of power. When you say, “are directly related to the designated project”, I'm not sure if that's preventing that. I'm not sure that you need those words. I think you are going to really limit any consideration of alternatives.

Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

I don't see any words that shouldn't be here.

Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

What do you mean by the words “directly related to the designated project”?

Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Again, this is Mr. Amos's amendment and he is not here to speak to it, but he wants to add clarity to the requirement to consider alternatives.

Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

I don't oppose that. It's the last line, “directly related to the designated project”, that limits the consideration of alternatives. Is that what he wants to do?

Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

It's right here. It's in (f), right?

Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Yes, the last line, “and are directly related to the designated project”.

The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte

I'm getting the sense that he doesn't want to change it.

Mr. Sopuck, be quick.

6:30 p.m.

Conservative

Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB

I think we're happy to support it. Regarding paragraph (f), I'm always skeptical about bureaucrats deciding about alternatives to projects, but the words “technically and economically feasible” certainly raise my comfort level on this one.

The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte

So you're good with “and are directly related to the designated project”.

Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON

Can we vote?

The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte

Yes, we can.

Shall the amendment carry?

6:30 p.m.

Conservative

Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB

A recorded vote.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte

Moving on to PV-25.

An hon. member

NDP-27 is done with, right?

Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON

Can we have a vote?

The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte

Hang on.

Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Why isn't NDP-27—

An hon. member

There was a line conflict.

The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte

Remember that I mentioned there's a line conflict. If we did what we did and voted for it, then NDP-27 goes. Okay?