Evidence of meeting #114 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 see.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
This is an amendment to effect change provisions dealing with projects regulated by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, specifically to permit designated projects related to uranium mines and mills to access the agency assessment provisions of the act, including the suite of provisions related to co-operation with provinces and indigenous governing bodies.
This amendment does this by adding an exception to the decision statement, considered to be part of licence under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act section of the decision statement portion of the act, for uranium mines and mills from the power of the minister to designate conditions in relation to a project that includes activities regulated under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act through a decision statement.
As Bill C-69 is currently written, in the proposed “Limitation” subsection of the agreement to establish a review panel, the minister must not enter into an agreement with any jurisdiction that has powers and duties in relation to environmentally assessing a designated project if that designated project includes physical activities that are regulated under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act or the Canadian energy regulator act.
This amendment makes a language change to clarify that in the proposed “Obligation to refer” section of the act, the minister must refer physical activities at a nuclear facility that are regulated under the act or the Canadian energy regulator act to a review panel. It also adds an exception to the proposed “Obligation to refer” section of the act, stating that physical activities at a uranium mine or mill are not included in the minister’s obligation to refer physical activities at a nuclear facility that are regulated under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act or the Canadian energy regulator act to a review panel.
Finally, the rationale is that uranium mines and mills, like all mines and mills, are subject to provincial regulatory and permitting frameworks, but they’re also regulated by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Bill C-69 would preclude co-operation and preclude agency assessment for all designated projects that are regulated by the CNSC, treating all such projects as exclusively in federal jurisdiction. There is no justification for this differential treatment as the complexity and impacts of uranium mines and mills are not in any different category from those of other mines and mills, and co-operative approaches are just as valuable.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I think that’s clear.
If we adopt this, then CPC-7.1 cannot be moved, because there will be a line conflict.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I would like a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
For the same reason as we presented before, Madam Chair, there’s no reason uranium mines should be treated differently.
Liberal
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
This was a request from the Mining Association of Canada, who, you may recall, appeared before us. They specifically asked for this amendment. Those details are in their brief. I have a copy of their brief if anyone wants to see it.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I would like a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
This is a housekeeping amendment that will clarify that enforcement of certain project conditions and decision statements would be the responsibility of the relevant regulator. It sounds like it would be logical, but it’s not really clear in the designated conditions or decision statements incorporated into a CR that the permit must be enforced by those particular regulators.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I'm puzzled as to what matters an enforcement officer can actually enforce under this bill. Maybe the officials could tell us.
Vice-President, Policy Development Sector, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
The conditions of a decision statement that is issued by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change following a decision are enforceable conditions, and those can be enforced under the enforcement powers in this act by enforcement officers of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, which would become the impact assessment agency of Canada.
I believe this proposed amendment is trying to make it clear that conditions of a decision statement that are the responsibility of a regulator would be enforced by that regulator, and then any subsidiary conditions that don't fall directly to a life-cycle regulator or regulator would thereby be enforced by the impact assessment agency of Canada.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I'd like a recorded vote.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
Churence Rogers Liberal Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL
Madam Chair, again this is in the spirit of the some of the other amendments I've introduced regarding timelines and trying to provide for more timely assessments.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I'd like a recorded vote.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
We'll move on to LIB-45.2.
Sorry, it's a mistake. It's our fault.
We're on NDP-47.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
This was called for by a good number of those who participated in the interviews for the expert panel, and also by those before us. It would simply add a statutory right to appeal of a ministerial or cabinet decision on designated projects. The appeal would be to the Federal Court and would be on questions of law and mixed questions of law and fact. It was specifically recommended by both the Canadian Environmental Law Association and by Professor Dr. Meinhard Doelle, who proposes that we have an additional tribunal, which we'll come to later.
This is normal for any type of assessment process like this, and it's kind of surprising that it's missing. It is normal in any provincial environmental assessment process that you would be able to seek a determination on a question of law or mixed question of law and fact.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I'd like a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])