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.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
The frame could be large or it could be smaller, but it doesn't exclude it from consideration, right? When you're scoping, you're determining the width and breadth of that particular element.
Vice-President, Policy Development Sector, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
You're doing that. You may also be saying it's not relevant to a particular assessment and providing a rationale for that.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Okay.
Why wouldn't the minister's agency have the ability, as is currently provided in the bill, to determine the width and breadth of the traditional knowledge piece as it relates to a particular project?
Vice-President, Policy Development Sector, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
It goes against the “must”.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I haven't had my question answered. There is nothing in this bill that gives the panel any authorization to scope the review. So is the decision that the panel will have no role in working with all of the participants in helping to scope the review?
I'm puzzled that we don't have (a), (b), and (c).
Vice-President, Policy Development Sector, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
A decision to move to a panel is taken by the minister.
NDP
Vice-President, Policy Development Sector, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
The scoping of the factors happens before there's a decision. It happens in the early planning phase, in terms of doing the tailored impact assessment guidelines, and then if there are, in addition, once the panel is struck...because the panel is struck after that.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I was asking you where in this bill it gives a power to the panel to further scope the review. I don't see a provision anywhere here.
Vice-President, Policy Development Sector, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
The terms of reference for panels, as I indicated earlier, are there in proposed subsection 41(1).
Liberal
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I'd like a recorded vote.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 5; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
We now go to NDP-28. If it's adopted, NDP-29 cannot be moved because there will be a redundancy.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I am choosing not to do NDP-28. I prefer to do NDP-29, if that's all right.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
This is after line 14 on page 21. There's a big gap after line 14. It's before “Impact Assessment by Agency”. What I'm adding in is a (d), and that would be:
(d) a member of the public or any Indigenous group that may be affected by the carrying out of a designated project and that is participating in the assessment or consultation relating to the designated project.
This has to do with having to make information available. Right now there's only an obligation to give that information to the agency, the review panel, and the government but nobody else who is participating in this review. This was specifically raised by Nature Canada and the Mikisew Cree. It's critical that the information be made available and disclosed to all parties affected and participating in the review, and that would include any public intervenors and indigenous peoples.
Liberal
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I would like a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 1)
Liberal
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Chair, this one takes a bit of navigating because the changes are made at page 21, line 14, but they affect maintaining a delegation power that exists a couple of pages later, at page 23. I say that just so you can follow, so everyone can be prepared as I explain this.
This is based on a recommendation from the Canadian Environmental Law Association. In section 24 we have an exclusionary section, “Application only when no referral to review panel”. This is how it currently reads:
Sections 25 to 29 cease to apply to a designated project if the impact assessment of the project is referred by the Minister to a review panel.
CELA's point is that section 29, which allows a project to have a delegation to another person, body, or jurisdiction, in carrying out the impact assessment of a designated project, is still relevant, even if they've decided to go to a review panel. Even if they don't, deleting section 29 doesn't really make sense, because by maintaining it you'll see more of an opportunity for government officials at different levels to work together in a coordinated and co-operative manner. That's the rationale for, essentially, leaving section 29 in, even when the project is referred to a review panel.