Environment Committee on May 10th, 2018

[The Chair (Mrs. Deborah Schulte (King—Vaughan, Lib.)), Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I'd like to get the meeting started. Thank you very much. Everyone who should not be here needs to go, but it is open.

We're back today and doing our clause-by-clause of Bill C-69. Before we get started where we left off, at amendment PV-29, I again want to bring to everybody's attention the motion that we're operating under. That motion tells us that “the Chair may limit debate on each clause to a maximum of five minutes per party, per clause”.

We have spent two days on clause 1. I've been very generous with people. I will continue to be reasonable, but to make sure that we continue on with a very large number of amendments, I'm going to ask those presenting their amendments to limit that to two minutes maximum.

I've heard from those around the table that they could not sit later in the day because they needed the time in the evening to be able to prepare, to do their research, and to understand each of these amendments. We did get the amendments last Friday. We really shouldn't need any debate on these. We've had lots of time to consider them and see where they fit in and what they mean. However, a subamendment to the amendment will need time, and I will give time for people to ask the necessary questions to understand a subamendment.

Given that this is the way I'd like to proceed, we will start with PV-29.

Ms. May, the floor is yours for two minutes.

(On clause 1)

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Not to take time now, but I'd like to remind this committee that I'm here due to a motion passed by this committee, and time limits relating to my participation can't be imposed on top of a motion that you've already passed and that ensures I speak to every amendment. As you know, I've been very flexible and have not insisted on speaking to every amendment, but those are the terms of the motion you passed, which requires me to be here. I'm in a different position. It's not one I like, but it is based on the motion you passed.

To go back to my amendment PV-29, this goes to an issue that I know means a lot, and particularly, I'd have to say, to Mike Bossio.

I've heard you speak so passionately about the right to public participation, Mike, and I know the Liberals care about this. I know the Conservatives care about it, as do the NDP and Greens. My amendment deals with the frequently heard complaint from witnesses before this committee that the rights to public participation, which admittedly are expanded in this bill by removing “directly affected” as a limitation, are not defined at all.

What my amendment attempts to do on page 22 in line 8 is to insert after the words “to participate” the word “meaningfully”. Meaningful participation will give the courts something to look at if in fact participation involves engagement that is not meaningful. Secondly, this amendment deals with the same issue, but it's found later in the bill, on page 34, where, under proposed section 51, the practice of holding hearings is referred to, and where it states:

hold hearings in a manner that offers the public an opportunity to participate

Again, that is with no guidance. My amendment would include providing the public an opportunity to participate meaningfully, and then, as further clarification, an opportunity to be heard and to ask questions.

Those are my amendments to flesh out what we mean by “public participation”. Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Mike.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Once again, I want to thank Ms. May for bringing this forward, and once again, in the spirit of it, we are also putting forward a motion like this one that would clarify the need for meaningful participation in impact assessments.

The amendment I am proposing would support certainty in timely assessments by ensuring that this participation takes place within a specified period of time. We as well will be moving a motion that will be addressing some of where you're going with this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I do not want a lot of back-and-forth. Sorry.

Linda.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I just wanted to say that all three parties have put forth the exact same amendment, so I'd be happy if Ms. May got the credit for that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Ms. Duncan, I think you were out of the room when I mentioned this. I've heard from members that they wanted to take the time in the evenings because they needed to go through all the amendments and be prepared for the next day's meeting, and that's why we couldn't sit later in the evenings. I don't want a lot of discussion on how these work because we shouldn't have a lot of questions. We should have done that work ahead.

Second, going forward, when I call the vote, the vote is called, and I'm not going to go back. I'm making that really clear. I was very generous yesterday, and I've had a lot of noise about it, so when I call it, that's it. We'll pause, and I will then call a vote, and then we won't go back, please. Thank you.

Okay. I think the discussion has been had. The comments have been made. Shall the amendment carry?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I'd like a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

We'll have a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Chair, I have a question emanating from your comments just a minute ago. You suggested that there shouldn't be any debate now going forward because we've had time to consider the amendments. The whole purpose for us being at this table is to debate and to try to persuade others at this committee of our views. We may fail in that venture but at least it is fulfilling the democratic mandate.

I also note that we have officials from the departments here who are rightfully here to answer questions that we legitimately have. I have found that in the last two meetings you have been very fair with all of us. If we can carry on with that spirt of co-operation, I think we'll be able to move through fairly quickly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I am very fair, as you know. I just want to make sure that we are not deliberating too long, going over the same ground. I'll keep an eye on what's going on and we'll go forward accordingly.

I just want to be strict. Once I call a vote, I think we need to do the vote and not go back.

We are now on LIB-19.

Mr. Bossio.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I just spoke to this amendment, Chair, so I don't think that much more really needs to be said about it. As you know, I am very concerned about meaningful public participation, and that's what this amendment goes towards.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Okay. Shall the amendment carry?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I'd like a recorded vote.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

That's great. Now, we're on PV-30.

Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This amendment is based on a recommendation from the Canadian Environmental Law Association. It removes a set reference to 300 days with instead providing an opportunity for submitting it no later than the day set under subsection 16(3). This would allow for the time limits to be set based on the specific needs and issues presented by a particular project, with recognition that one size doesn't fit all, and maybe some projects need less time and some projects need more time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

We'll have a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

We are now on CPC-2.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

What we are doing with this is lowering the time frame from 300 to 280 days.

The proponents obviously support a science-based review and, certainly, a tight timeline in this. By lowering the timeline, it improves investor confidence that reviews can be done in a reasonable time frame.

I think it is a fairly reasonable amendment to ask for, and it sends a strong signal to the investment community.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Shall the amendment carry?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I'd like a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Now we're on PV-31.

Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

In the same section, this is dealing with the nature of the report that is submitted to the minister, taking into account reports. This is an agency report to the minister. The current version of this says that:

The report must set out the effects that, in the Agency’s opinion, are likely to be caused by the carrying out of the designated project.

From there, I would suggest the amendment that:

(3) The report must provide a summary of the comments received from the public in relation to the designated project, the Agency's response to those comments, and a summary of reasonable alternatives to the project as well as set out the effects that, in the Agen-

It's an expansion of the information that the minister would have and an expansion of the information that the public would have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Ms. Duncan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

This is an issue that I raised yesterday, and it's starting to be a problem throughout this bill. I have no problem with Ms. May's proposal, except that it only mentions comments received from the public and doesn't include comments received from indigenous groups. The bill goes back and forth, sometimes just talking about the public, sometimes talking about indigenous groups. In other places, the bill requires specifically—and I think, in fact, the Liberals are going to be proposing an amendment somewhere here to add in a necessity—that indigenous submissions be considered.

I would accept the amendment, but I would give it a subamendment, and after the word “public”, say “and indigenous groups”.