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.
Liberal
Liberal
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?
Liberal
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.
Liberal
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
What do you mean by the words “directly related to the designated project”?
Liberal
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.
NDP
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?
Liberal
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Yes, the last line, “and are directly related to the designated project”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I'm getting the sense that he doesn't want to change it.
Mr. Sopuck, be quick.
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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
So you're good with “and are directly related to the designated project”.
Conservative
Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
A recorded vote.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
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?
