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.
Counsel, Department of Justice
I understand where we are. I'm just looking at subsection (2.1) and trying to figure out how this is going to work with proposed subsection (2).
In a sense you'd have to reconcile what is apparently a closed listing—
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I'm not sure you're adding in the list. It's all under paragraph 16(2)(b) anyway.
Counsel, Department of Justice
—at (2), and then under (2.1) we'd have something that's more open. I'm going to have to think about this a bit, Madam Chair, unfortunately.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
We'll suspend for a short time to give you a chance to think about it, and then we'll come back.
Liberal
Counsel, Department of Justice
Madam Chair, we considered the interplay between the proposed subsection (2), and what would now be (2.1). Proposed subsection (2) would be a closed list, an exhaustive list of topics to consider.
Counsel, Department of Justice
Proposed subsection (2) is an exhaustive list.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
The question was whether it minimizes what you already have in proposed subsection (2), which is what we have in the bill. Does it reduce what's in the bill? No, because it has proposed subsection (2.1), which is listing everything that's in the bill.
Counsel, Department of Justice
That's correct, although you would need to go through proposed subsection (2) before you get to proposed subsection (2.1).
Director, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Division, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
If I understand the amendment, it notes federal jurisdiction, and that's where the panel came from, and the bill actually in the definitions has “effects within federal jurisdiction” listed out.
In addition, it also has a definition for “direct or incidental effects”, and that definition essentially means that if there is a federal decision, any direct or incidental effects associated with that decision would be taken into account. It lists out the types of federal decisions that could be associated with the projects. That aspect is captured in the bill through the definitions.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
If I may, “effects within federal jurisdiction” is narrower than a definition of federal jurisdiction.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I agree with Linda. The language “effects within federal jurisdiction” is boilerplate Harper language that's gone in unchanged. I'm sorry for being political with our civil servants, but I do submit my amendment in hopes that it will broaden the mind to look at federal jurisdiction, and then you can look at the effects within federal jurisdiction as you scope out the projects.
Liberal
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
The amendment that I'm putting forward to Ms. May is, instead of saying “by considering”, to say “taking into account”.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I have no role at this point, because my amendments are deemed submitted by the committee process, so if the committee likes this amendment...I like it just fine.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
It would say instead, in subsection (2), “In making its decision, the agency must determine whether the designated project is clearly linked to matters of federal interest”.
