Environment Committee on May 9th, 2018

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Yes, on the proponent's request for an extension. That's all the proponent wants. The proponent isn't offering additional information and isn't proposing to open Pandora's box again, but simply saying, “You've asked for these studies and information. The time limit that you've provided me with by legislation is not quite enough. I need an extension”.

The agency says, “Sure, we'll give you an extension. However, you know that Pandora's box? It's now open, and we need additional information and studies.”

We're simply eliminating that potential penalty for asking for an extension.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Fair enough. I think you've made your point.

Mr. Sopuck.

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

I just want to re-emphasize the point as someone who's done fieldwork.

Often proponents are up against weather and other extenuating circumstances that preclude them from providing the information on time. I don't think there's a project proponent anywhere in the country who wants to game the system and not provide the information, but some things are just beyond a proponent's control.

I think this is a very fair request to provide the proponent with certainty and also the flexibility to get more time to gather the information that is required. Again, we should trust the agency at the very outset to scope the project accordingly so there's no need to ask for the agency to ask for more information.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

We'll see how the committee votes.

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, 6; yeas, 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will move on to LIB-15.

Mr. Fisher.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Madam Chair, we are moving now to page 19, line 17, and I am happy to move this amendment by Mr. Amos. It amends clause 1 by:

(a) replacing line 17 on page 19 with the following:

Madam Chair, should I read all of this, all the way to the bottom, into the record?

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

It's not necessary. I think everybody's has it in front of them. They got the package last Friday.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

If you look at where “Factors – impact assessment” is, that's where we start, and we're replacing line 17 on page 19 with:

22 (1) The impact assessment of a designated project, whether it is conducted by the Agency or a review panel,

Part (b) of the amendment is a new paragraph 22(1)(a), and part (c) is a new paragraph 22(1)(f). If you want me to read those into the record, I can.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

No, you don't need to read it into the record.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Again, this provides more clarity on what factors are going to be considered in assessments and in the decision-making. Will has other amendments coming forward, but this one would complement a proposed change to the definition section, again further clarifying that a project's effects include both its “positive and its negative consequences”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you for that.

If we adopt this amendment, NDP-27 and CPC-1.3 cannot be moved because there will be a line conflict. NDP-27 will be dealt with because it will fall under this. It's the same issue. If it's adopted, CPC-1.3 and PV-17 cannot be moved because, again, we'll have a line conflict.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I'm willing to live with that if you are.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Let's just see how the vote goes.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I have an amendment to make now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Do you have an amendment to the amendment?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

It is to amend Mr. Fisher's amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Let's hear your amendment to the amendment.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I like what you're saying, “Agency or a review panel”. I'm also proposing that. That's good, but can you please add to line 19 on page 19, in (a), “the direct or incidental changes to the environment”?

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

“Or” or “and”?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

It could be “direct and incidental” or “direct or incidental”, but “direct or” probably.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Are you on part (f) “any alternatives to the designated project that are technically and economically feasible and are”?

Where are you?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I'm in (b), line 19, page 19, under (a). The amendment says, “changes to the environment”, and I am requesting that you add at the front end of that, “the direct or incidental changes to the environment”.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Would it be, “The direct or incidental changes to the environment or to health, social or economic conditions”?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Yes.