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.
May 9th, 2018 / 6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
We're recommending that lines 15 to 27 on page 18 be deleted, and I'll explain why.
The extension of the time limit in subsection 19(2), at “the proponent's request, the Agency may extend the time limit”, is very reasonable from the standpoint that many impact assessments require field work. It's not all just done on the computer. There may be an ungulate survey required and the snow conditions aren't right for the aerial counts, so the proponent simply cannot meet the time limit due to weather or other limitations.
The agency can extend the time limit to gather the necessary information. However, in subsection 19(3), if the agency extends the time limit, all of a sudden the proponent may be required to provide additional information. It seems to me that the agency should be competent enough to scope out the project at the very beginning in terms of what information the proponent would be required to provide. But, again, as I pointed out, many of these studies are field studies and there are weather limitations and other limitations that can preclude reaching a time limit.
In subsection 19(4), if the agency is satisfied, it must post a notice. But, again, in subsection 20(1), it says, “If the proponent does not provide the Agency with the information or studies within the time limit...or within any extension of that time limit, the impact assessment is terminated.” It just stops. I think this is quite unfair for the proponent. Subsection 19(2) is quite good, given how difficult it is to collect information from time to time. Perhaps the community consultation has gone on longer than the original time limit that was specified.
Again, for all those reasons, I think our amendment deleting lines 15 to 27 is reasonable, because it doesn't preclude the provision of information, but it makes sure it's fair to the proponent.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Thank you.
I have some determinants here. If we adopt this amendment, then amendments LIB-27, LIB-28, LIB-32, and LIB-75 cannot be moved because this will be gone, so they will be moot. That's also true for CPC-8.1, which refers to this, so it's not valid if this is adopted.
6:15 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Sorry about this. I'm trying to remember if at all in this bill the agency is actually authorized to request additional information, because these provisions simply talked about extending time, but they don't deal with the power of the agency to actually require additional information.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Am I reading this wrong? Doesn't 19(3) do that? It refers to “additional information or studies”. He's deleting it, but it's there right now.
6:15 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Can they only ask for additional studies if they extend the time limit? Surely, that's not what—
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
No. Listen, we're dealing with this amendment. This amendment says to delete all of that. I'm not debating what's in it. I'm just saying, he's removing lines 15 to 27. He's taking out “Additional Information or studies”, “Notice posted on Internet site”, “Termination of impact assessment”, and “Notice posted on Internet site”.
I'm not debating what's in this.
6:20 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
It might limit the power elsewhere in the bill. That's why I'm asking.
6:20 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I think the bill gives the agency and the minister the power to ask for more information. I'm curious about where that is, because this may limit that power. It would be conditional only if the agency extends the time limit.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
All right. Let's just ask the experts to clarify that.
If this were to be removed, is there an opportunity elsewhere to request that additional information?
6:20 p.m.
Vice-President, Policy Development Sector, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
This is the place where you can request additional information in the information gathering place. This is at the notice of commencement and the information gathering section.
We are also currently out on a consultation paper right now to talk about what would be the limits or why you might go and request additional information, and to provide the parameters for which that information can be requested, and that would be in the information and time management regulation.
6:20 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
That doesn't answer my question.
Where in this bill is the agency empowered generally to ask for additional information at any point in the review?
6:20 p.m.
Vice-President, Policy Development Sector, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
Under “General Rules”, on page 21 of the bill, there are general rules on impact assessments conducted by the agency, starting in section 24—
6:20 p.m.
Vice-President, Policy Development Sector, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
—and going to subsection 26(2)
6:20 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
There's my question. If we don't remove subsection 26(2), does that limit it and say that they can't ask for additional information unless they've extended the time period for the review?
6:20 p.m.
Director, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Division, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
There are two separate provisions there. There's the one that Christine noted, that there's the ability to request additional information. The nature of the section that we're talking about, where we can extend the timeline in subsection 19(2), just provides the agency with the power to extend the timeline, but subsection 19(3) empowers the agency to require information of the proponent as well. Without that provision, we would be able to extend the timeline, but not actually have the power to require the information.
6:20 p.m.
Vice-President, Policy Development Sector, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
Subsection 19(1) lays out the timeline for completing the information required for an impact assessment, which is three years, and if a proponent feels they need more than three years to provide that information, then we can extend the timeline.
6:20 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I don't disagree with that. I just think it limits. So, if you want to stand by, it....
6:20 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
But you could object and say that you can only do this if the timeline is extended.
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I do want to chime in.
Really, the reason we are looking to get rid of those additional provisions in subsections 19(3) and 19(4) is that the proponent, at the commencement of the process, is required to provide certain information and study.
It may be that those studies and that information will take some additional time. There's a huge risk for the proponent triggering the extension for the time limit, because once that's triggered, the agency has the right to request a raft of new information, so why would a proponent take that risk? That's what happens here.