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.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
That's a good question. I don't know where it is.
We're going to make copies of that, because everybody's going to need it.
5:55 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I apologize. I thought it had been distributed. I'm sorry.
5:55 p.m.
Olivier Champagne Legislative Clerk, House of Commons
It's okay if she just explains it, but we can make copies.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I'm just not sure that people are comfortable with it until they actually see it.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
5:55 p.m.
An hon. member
How long is it?
5:55 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I will. I'll absolutely read it slowly.
We go to line 18 on page 16, so we're still in that area. Having failed at my last (2.1), this is a new (2.1). After “two factors” would be inserted the following:
(2.1) For the purposes of subsection (1),
—which of course deals with the agency deciding if the impact assessment of the project is required—
a project involving any of the following decisions requires an assessment:
Then there are three paragraphs. Again, these will be the decisions that require an assessment:
(a) a decision of the Minister of Fisheries, under the Fisheries Act, to permit any temporary or permanent alteration to or destruction of fish habitat; (b) a decision of the Minister of Transport under the Canadian Navigable Waters Act to issue a permit pertaining to navigable waters, whether or not these are listed in the schedule; and
This means those that would be based on navigable waters as found in the definition, as well as those on the schedule, and then there is the last subclause:
(c) a decision of the Minister of Environment under the Species at Risk Act to permit—
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Hold on. I'm going to stop you, just so we don't spend time.... People are not able to follow without it in front of them, so we're going to get copies made—
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
—and then we're going to move on, because we're into other lines, and we're going to go back to that one.
5:55 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
That's fine with me, Madam Chair. I apologize that it wasn't in your package.
5:55 p.m.
An hon. member
Will we suspend?
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
No, no, not yet.
We're now on PV-20. I think everybody has PV-20 in front of them.
May 9th, 2018 / 5:55 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
This goes to an amendment to lines 19 and 20 on page 16, which now say:
The Agency must post a notice of its decision and the reasons for it on the Internet site.
This amendment would say:
(3) If the Agency decides that an impact assessment of the designated project is required, it must set the date by which that impact assessment is to be finalized. (4) The Agency must post a notice of its decision under subsection (1) and the accompanying reasons, as well as the date set under subsection (3), on the Internet site.
It's more information. I think that's the kind of thing that some committee members have liked in the past. It would provide the public more information, setting out reasons and providing a date.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Okay, you're expanding the posting notice on the Internet site.
Shall the amendment carry?
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I would like a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
6 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
On amendment PV-21, we're still in the same area but we're now just one line below:
(4) This section does not apply in respect of an impact assessment that is referred to a review panel in accordance with section 43.
Amendment PV-21 is related to UNDRIP, and I just realized that it's already been defeated, so, Madam Chair, I think I started defending amendment PV-21 without remembering that it is already defeated.
