Evidence of meeting #113 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 line.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Brent Parker Director, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Division, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
I might just add that proposed paragraph 32(a) notes that if an impact assessment is referred to a review panel, it cannot be substituted, so those projects done in collaboration with the offshore boards would all be done by a review panel. They would actually not be available for substitution if (a) remains.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I remain concerned about this, because there are strange things in this bill. For example, under this bill, the minister cannot refer a matter to a panel if an authority has already made a decision. That raises this question: why would an authority be allowed to make a decision before the decision is made about whether there needs to be an impact assessment?
That doesn't give me any assurance. The question then would be, why didn't she refer it to a panel? Why does she allow them to go first ? That doesn't give me the assurance—
Director, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Division, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
I can speak to that. In proposed section 7 of the bill, there are prohibitions for federal authorities to take decisions, and that ensures the impact assessment must be done and must be completed first for those projects that are on the project list. But in cases where a proponent has already received authorization by a federal authority—and this is largely in relation to transition—those projects that might be coming onto the project list, then, would not be subject to an assessment under this particular piece of legislation because they've already commenced construction. There are some other specific transition provisions related to that as well.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I would have been assured if it had said “before the proclamation of this bill”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Okay. I got it. Thank you very much. That was good clarity on that point.
Shall the amendment carry?
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I'd like a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I don't know if any of these overlap. I don't think they do.
I just want to say at the outset that tabling this is a hard decision, given all the problems with the substitution, and the fact that it's never been used historically. Frankly, I think the whole section should be removed, but I'll make an attempt to improve it.
There are extreme concerns in the public with this whole part of the bill, particularly because there is no way that the federal government can bind a provincial review process. They have their own jurisdiction to decide on public participation, to decide what the review...or to decide on the terms of reference. It's a bit of a nonsensical section.
I'm changing (a) to reference paragraph (a.1), which is my (b). If you go to line 17 on page 25, what I'm adding in...in other words, the minister could not approve a substitution “if the process followed by a jurisdiction includes a consideration of some but not all of the factors set out in subsection 22(1)”.
In other words, they can't allow substitution of a provincial, territorial, or any other process if that other process does not require the review of all the factors in subsection 22(1), and “through a single and coordinated assessment”, unless it's with assessment. This act right now requires that all 22 factors be considered, so this is saying that you can't do a substitution if they don't also include all those factors.
It adds in at line 20 on page 25, “be given an opportunity to and will participate in the assessment”.
Again, there's no power in the federal government, even under this bill, to change the participation rights of a provincial review process, but we can make an attempt in that amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Linda, I had given everybody two minutes to explain their amendment. Can you please wrap it up?
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
In sum, rather than going through all the sections, I'll simply say—
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I have a point of order, Madam Chair.
I think, typically, when Ms. Duncan has been raising amendments that include a number of subamendments, we've dealt with them separately.
Conservative
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I would like to see them dealt with separately, because each one of them deals with—
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I understand that. I'm asking, is she prepared to have these considered separately, with separate votes, or does she want this as one big amendment?
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I appreciate your intervention. I know it's going to be voted down anyway.
I think I've made my point about the substitution part. The most critical part is where the minister is authorized to gather more information. That provision is inadequate, frankly. The expert panel was very clear that the federal authority must have the opportunity to request additional information. The problem is, in that part of the bill, there's no necessity, then, for her to undertake her own separate review. She can't require the other jurisdiction to revisit the review based on the additional information that she thinks is lacking.
All of my amendments go to the fact that this whole part of the bill is inadequate to ensure that federal matters of jurisdiction are considered, and that the public and indigenous people will have an equal opportunity to participate in that review.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I'd like a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you.
I am adding in an (a.1). That is intended to ensure that any substituted process is concerned with the impacts only within that jurisdiction's mandate and won't have adverse effects on federal jurisdiction.