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.
Conservative
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Chair, this again comes from the advocacy, and evidence of indigenous groups before the committee. It may seem so obvious that we may wonder why the words aren't in there.
This is about the obligation of the agency in the planning phase. The current language doesn't mention the planning phase. The language as it now reads says there is an obligation to consult—not to share information, because I lost that one—with any jurisdiction, etc., that may be affected by the carrying out of the designated project.
The proposal here is to change the wording to “that may be affected by the planning or carrying out of” the affected project. I can't see an objection to including the word “planning”.
Conservative
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Madam Chair, the current wording is “site under subsection 15(3), the Agency must, subject to section 17, decide whether an impact assessment of the”.
Mr. Aldag's amendment reads:
That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 29 and 30 on page 15 with the following:
“site under subsection 15(3), the Agency must decide whether an impact assessment of the”
It's a minor change. It just provides a bit of clarity, and it reflects another motion as well. Mr. Aldag's next motion changes the minister's discretionary power in LIB-12, which provides further clarity on how the minister would exercise the provisions in section 17.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I am having some advice here that you might want to look at LIB-12, on page 74 of the package, and you might want to look at LIB-13 and LIB-56 because they are all linked.
Do you want to do all of those, and do that right now?
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
We're looking at LIB-12 on page 74, which is one minister's notice. We're looking at LIB-13, which is on page 79, and LIB-56, which is on page 235, so it's LIB-9, LIB-12, LIB-13, and LIB-56.
Mr. Fast.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
My question is for our officials.
What's being excised from this particular clause is the reference to the minister's decision under proposed section 17.
Is this amendment actually coming from the officials who have suggested it to the government? Perhaps you could provide us with an explanation of the impact of this amendment. It's somewhat slight, but it is eliminating the “subject to section 17”.
What impact will that have?
Director, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Division, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
I can speak to that.
I'm just going to look at amendment LIB-12 in terms of explaining the difference between that and what's in the act.
Currently under section 17 in the act, there is the ability for the minister to order the agency not to conduct an impact assessment. There are two reasons set out for that. The first reason, in paragraph (a), is that a federal authority advises her that they will not be able to exercise their power. The second reason is that the minister is of the opinion that there are clear unacceptable effects of the project.
The way that I understand the amendment that's being proposed is that, in this case, there would not be the power for the minister to not have the agency proceed with the impact assessment. Rather, the minister would be providing the proponent with a written notice that she's been advised of what the federal authority has indicated, or what her opinion is on the project. There would be a notice that would set out the reasons that the federal authority isn't exercising that power.
The change is that the minister currently, as proposed in the act, could instruct the agency not to conduct an impact assessment; the project would not run through that system. Whereas, in this amendment that power does not exist.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Yes.
Shall this package of amendments, LIB-9, LIB-12, LIB-13, and LIB-56 carry?
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
—that PV-17, on page 65, and PV-22, on page 75, cannot be moved because there will be a line conflict then. If adopted, then NDP-26, which is on page 76, and PV-23, on page 77, will be moot; they'll be replaced.
That's where we are.
You want to have some more discussion, so we'll have a bit more discussion.
Go ahead.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Chair, I thought that you called for the vote.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I want to know why we're removing the power of the minister to issue an order.
My second question would be under LIB-13. Who's issuing these tailored guidelines? Nobody is empowered to issue these tailored guidelines. You talk about including tailored guidelines, but nobody has the power to issue these tailored guidelines.
