Environment Committee on May 9th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Linda.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I have completely opposite issues.

I'm concerned, Ms. May, that you are watering down those obligations. Right now it says, “must take into account”, and all of our witnesses were saying please replace “by considering” with “take into account”. I'm puzzled why you'd take that out.

Also, it already references matters within federal jurisdiction. You have listed some of those, but there may well be matters under federal jurisdiction that are not included in that list, and so it may be less of a responsibility than as it stands now.

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

May I respond to Linda?

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Be very quick, because I'm running well past the time.

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

I do not take out any of the language that's there now. It still says that it must take into account and lists those subtopics (a) through (g). The language still concludes that it must take these into account. This isn't adding anything new. This is a question of scoping the project. When is a federal trigger tripped?

The current approach of the bill is to assess very few projects, and only if they're major. We know that environmental impacts from federal projects can occur even if the project is not major, even if the project is relatively small but happens to occur in a place with a highly vulnerable ecosystem, and it will completely escape the notice of people if we're working solely from a project list.

This is to restore what we had since 1976, during a time in which we had Progressive Conservative federal governments, in which we had, for a while, Conservative governments where 99.9% of the projects proceeded. It did not ever obstruct development. What it did was ensure that development within federal jurisdiction went through an environmental screen. It's pretty essential.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I'm not sure it got drafted right then, because I'm of Linda Duncan's position.

You have replaced subsection (2) with all of these, and then you have subsection (2.1). It's not clear what you're trying to do here, the way it's drafted.

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

I don't understand your concern, Madam Chair.

The way it's drafted is to say that the agency must determine whether the project is triggered and linked to federal jurisdiction. That is subsection (2). Subsection (2.1) is all the language that's currently in the bill, just to say if it's a matter of federal interest, then we go to (2.1), which says it must take into account the following factors, and then those are (a) the description, (b) the possibility of carrying it out, and so on. Paragraphs (a) through (g) remain in place with the same header, “must take into account”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I've got it now.

I'm sorry, I was turning the page too early.

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

It's all right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

It was that one line.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Got it.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

So, you're making what is currently subsection (2) into subsection (2.1)?

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

No, I'm making—

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

No.

Line 32 ends up, “In making its decision, the Agency must take into ac-”, and then she adds in “must determine” and she puts all these things in. Then, it carries on and says, “If the Agency determines that the designated project is clearly linked to matters of federal interest, it must take into ac-” and then it picks up, “-count the following factors:” and goes on.

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

Yes.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I would like an interpretation by our officials.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

No, it doesn't need an interpretation.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

No, I need an interpretation, because the rules of interpretation are that if you start specifying, then it excludes the others. The way it's drafted is a little odd. I just want to have certainty in the way it's drafted, because it starts out by saying—

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

No, I understand your concern.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

—“matters of federal interest”, and then it starts listing specifics. I would like to know, in the rules of interpretation, by giving those specifics, if it takes away anything that might not be listed. That's my concern.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Who would like to answer that one?

[Christine Loth-Bown]

I'll turn to Justice to answer that.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Those are legislative interpretation rules. I just need to be clear.

[Jean-Sébastien Rochon]

I'm sorry, Madam Chair, I'm trying to catch up with the—