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.
6 p.m.
An hon. member
No.
6 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Good, okay. All right.
This section deals with the designated project findings of a review panel and the automatic referral for designated NGO projects regulated under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act or the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, and that would deal with matters that would exclude that section, which I tried to remove, of exemptions under those two acts.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Next up, we know that amendments LIB-12, PV-22, NDP-26, and PV-23 were dealt with under amendment LIB-9, so now we are at amendment PV-24.
6 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
On amendment PV-24, we're now on page 17 dealing with timeline issues. This would change proposed subsection 18(1), which currently says:
If the Agency decides that an impact assessment of a designated project is required—and the Minister does not make an order under section 17
—and so on. I would replace that with:
18(1) If an impact assessment of a designated project is required
—and then replace the other lines with:
the designated project—the Agency must, within the timeline agreed between the Agency and the proponent
—which replaces the lines that deal with 180 days after the day on which it posts a description. It allows a timeline to be negotiated as opposed to being imposed. In other words, it removes 180 days and replaces it with the specifics of what this particular project requires.
Is everybody with me on that? It takes away a set timeline of 180 days and replaces it with “within the timeline agreed between the Agency and the proponent”.
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Is amendment PV-24 clear?
Shall the amendment carry?
It's a recorded vote?
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 1)
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Amendment LIB-13 was dealt with under amendment LIB-9, so that one is not happening and we will go to amendment LIB-14.
No, sorry, I'm going to go back to the one we just got, which is amendment PV-19.1.
Ms. May.
6 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
We're going back to page 16. We're back into that section we spent a lot of time on, entitled “Decisions regarding impact assessments”. These are the sections that guide the agency's decisions. As far as I recall, we haven't accepted any amendments to this process, although we've had a number of amendments go around it. I would be adding a new proposed subsection 16(2.1), so after the factors that the agency must take into account, there would be a new mandatory establishment that there would be an assessment, either very preliminary—the agency could decide what kind of assessment, obviously....
To make it really clear, this is re-establishing the law list that was repealed in the omnibus budget bill, Bill C-38, in the spring of 2012. We have had federal laws triggering environmental assessments from 1976 until 2012. There are only three federal statutes, only three kinds of decisions by three different ministers, that would trigger an environmental assessment or an impact assessment.
The first would be a decision by the Minister of Fisheries under the Fisheries Act to permit any temporary or permanent alteration to or destruction of fish habitat. We had this before, for decades. It was killed by the previous government. It was a very good protection for fish habitat and for review of projects.
Then (b) would be a decision of the Minister of Transport, under what's now renamed the Canadian navigable waters act, to issue a permit pertaining to navigable waters, whether or not these are listed in the schedule. This is basically the form of what we had before 2012, acknowledging that we now have a schedule. Under the new version of the navigable waters act within Bill C-69 we have two kinds of navigable waters: those that are covered by the definition and those that are in the schedule. This would require that any decision by the Minister of Transport related to a permit pertaining to navigable waters, whether in the schedule or not, would trigger an EA.
Last would be a decision by the Minister of Environment under the Species at Risk Act to permit activities that pose a threat to a listed species.
The granting of those specific three kinds of permits only under those specific sections of those stated laws would trigger an impact assessment, if you accept my amendment, which is, as you can see, a very critical rebuilding of trust in the impact assessment process.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
I've never heard so much nonsense in my life. When one looks at the navigable waters act, for example, the issue with it is the definition of what a “navigable water” is. The courts decided, before the changes in 2012, that a water body that could float a canoe for three days was a navigable water. That was why the act was changed, because it got ridiculous in terms of court actions against proponents for small water bodies that were really, clearly, not used for navigation purposes. This particular amendment needs to be defeated.
6:05 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I think it's a good amendment but it needs something added.
To make it consistent with the rewriting of that provision by the Liberals, it should read, under proposed subsection 16(2.1), “For the purposes of subsection (1), a project involving any of the following decisions requires an assessment prior to” . Under the existing act, if any of those authorities have already made the decision, it precludes an assessment. The important thing in here is to say, in these circumstances, before they make these decisions, there must be an assessment.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
6:05 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I'm adding the words “prior to” after the words “an assessment”.
6:05 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I just read it, “For the purposes of subsection (1), a project involving any of the following decisions requires an assessment prior to”.
6:05 p.m.
Green
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I don't want debate. We don't need debate. I want clarity.
Is there some clarity here?
6:05 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Yes. I think that if Bob looks at the definition of “navigable water” in the new act, it precludes the scenario he described. It refers to a navigable body of water that is used or where there is a reasonable likelihood it will be used by vessels as a means of transport or travel. It precludes the concern that was raised before 2012. It's a very defined navigable water—
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Okay, we're going to start a whole discussion going back and forth, and that's not really—
6:05 p.m.
An hon. member
[Inaudible—Editor]
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Let's stop, please.
I'm getting some advice here that the amendment to the amendment isn't actually working, because it's a list. It's an assessment and then there's a list, a decision of the Minister of Transport.
6:10 p.m.
Legislative Clerk, House of Commons
If you read the sentence, it doesn't make sense.