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.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I would like a recorded vote.
(Subamendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
I'd like a recorded vote.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
11:55 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Again, we're looking at page 27, lines 34 to 36. This is a recommendation from the Canadian Environmental Law Association to delete the 600-day time limit in order to allow review panels to develop an appropriate project-specific timetable for the public hearing and delivery of the panel's report.
Having worked with the time limits that were in CEAA 2012, in Bill C-38, they became unworkable and contributed to the violation of procedural fairness rights in a hearing in which I was an intervenor. I would hope we would not repeat that mistake and allow the review panel to set a time limit that's appropriate for the project and its review.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I just want to let people know that if it's adopted, amendments PV-42 and CPC-3 cannot be moved because there will be a line conflict.
Shall amendment PV-41 carry?
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I would like a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
We will go on to amendment PV-42. If this is adopted, amendment CPC-3, again, cannot be moved because of a line conflict.
11:55 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
The irony of this bill is it provides hard time limits for project reviews but doesn't necessarily provide the time limits one would expect for the minister to act to provide public information. This timeline is to add, “(1.1) No later than 10 days after the day on which the Minister has appointed to a review panel the minimum number of members required, the Agency must establish a date by which the panel must submit its report with respect to the impact assessment to the Minister.”
Again, it's allowing for that conversation to take place but with a 10-day time limit.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I'd like a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
Thank you.
I think it's critical that there be timelines, because there have been experiences in the past where panels just endlessly added time, weeks and months. We saw that in the second iteration of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline review. My amendment proposes to lower the review timeline very modestly from 600 to 560 days. I think that's a reasonable amendment. It still gives lots of time for the process to unfold, but it gives the proponents a bit more certainty in terms of this process.
Noon
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I'd like a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Noon
Liberal
Churence Rogers Liberal Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL
Madam Chair, during the presentations by witnesses and stakeholders, they said that in some cases a requirement that projects with federal regulators be assessed by a panel could work against our goal of a timely assessment. This amendment is meant to address this concern by setting a timeline or baseline of 300 days for reviews of projects with federal regulators.
Other than that, I think it's pretty much self-explanatory.
Noon
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I'd like a recorded vote.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 8 ; nays 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I believe this is a very important addition. I commented on this yesterday. For some bizarre reason, this bill gives absolutely no powers to panels. In all my history in representing people before tribunals, the panel had a lot of powers.
This amends, on page 28, line 39, that provision allows the agency to require additional information but not the panel, yet the matter is being referred to a review panel.
I propose, “designated project to a review panel, the Agency or the review panel may” request.