Environment Committee on May 10th, 2018

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

Once again, Chair, we just spoke to this. This specifies how indigenous knowledge would be considered in decision-making and reconcile this with the need to ensure this knowledge is protected. I think we've already had a discussion around that, so thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Okay. Shall the amendment carry?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Recorded vote.

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

There's a new version of LIB-21. Does everybody have the new version?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I have one dated April 27.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

There's additional content that was added, (3.2).

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I don't think I have it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Okay, we'll give you the copies.

Mr. Amos.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Chair. Obviously this is being brought on the basis of improving the panel reports. We support transparency generally, and I think that improving the reports is going to help us get there. This is one of several amendments in that respect.

This motion in particular is going to help address concerns related to reporting of the impact assessments that the agency undertakes. A lot of this is also about consistency, because the amendment calls for the report that's completed by the agency to include the same elements as those underlined in proposed section 51(d) and includes a requirement for recommendations with respect to mitigation measures and follow-up. I think that's a net improvement to the agency report process, and the public will appreciate the transparency aspect of all of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Ms. Duncan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I have a question of clarification. Everywhere else in the bill we refer to “reasons”, and here Mr. Amos has chosen to say “rationale”. Is there a reason why we're using a completely different term here? Does it mean something different?

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I confess I didn't consider the distinction of those two terms. We can ask our legislative experts at justice if they see any distinction between those two terms.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

The old version said “reasons”.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Is there a sense that there's an inconsistency there that's problematic?

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Go ahead, please.

[Jean-Sébastien Rochon, Counsel, Department of Justice]

Thank you, Madame Chair.

There are none that I can see. “Reasons” and “rationale” can be used interchangeably.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

You see “rationale” and “reasons” to be interchangeable?

[Jean-Sébastien Rochon]

Yes, we do have reference to “rationale” in regard to review panels, so it is in the act elsewhere and it bears the same meaning.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

With that, I think we're good.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I think that's clear.

Shall the amendment carry?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Could we have a recorded vote, Madam Chair?

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

We're moving on to PV-32.

Go ahead, Ms. May.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As you can tell, this is not intuitive to read because it talks about replacing lines and other lines. Let me explain the rationale of what this is doing. Again, this is based on advice from West Coast Environmental Law, in this case, dealing with what I think a lot of witnesses certainly agreed was an excess of ministerial discretion.

The exercise of discretion here in proposed section 31 is the minister's discretion to substitute another process and working with another level of jurisdiction. What the amendment that I'm proposing does is to tighten up and provide more guidance to the exercise of ministerial discretion, by removing the words “subject to sections 32 and 33” and instead saying, “if the minister is of the opinion for the process”.

Then, further down, I suggest inserting the conditions that are found in proposed section 33 in a more mandatory fashion. It becomes a condition baked into proposed section 31 on the exercise of the minister's discretion to substitute, so that the project meets the conditions set out in proposed section 33. It's a tightening up of discretion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Yes, Mr. Fast.