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.
11:45 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I don't think there's any point in bringing that forward. It's essentially the same, just more demonstrative.
11:45 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I'm not going to move this one because I've moved PV-58. I know I'm not allowed to not move an amendment. They're all deemed to have been moved by me because of the status of the motion the committee passed, but it's up to you. I would be standing down on this one if I had such power.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Our practice is to allow you to withdraw it if you want to withdraw it.
11:45 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
If that's the practice then I will withdraw it.
Technically—and I really do mind the technicalities of this—the motions passed by every committee in this Parliament mean that today I am in clause-by-clause on three bills at the same time, and I don't have the right to withdraw my own amendments, but I appreciate the practice, and I will withdraw my amendment.
11:50 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
You shouldn't have passed that motion if you wanted to accommodate, but never mind.
11:50 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
This is putting forward the point that you don't consider factors unless the consideration of those factors leads you to base your decision on those factors.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
If this is adopted, NDP-45 and LIB-41 cannot be moved because there will be a line conflict.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I would like a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
There's a new version of LIB-41 being distributed. I'll give you a few minutes to quickly look at it. LIB-43.1 will be affected by it. You're also getting a copy of that one.
If it's adopted, then PV-65 cannot be moved, because there will be a line conflict.
They will be taken together because we're going to do a vote, and it will apply to 43.1.
11:50 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Are you going to move it, or is it considered moved already? I have a question to ask about it.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
We've heard from stakeholders on all points on the spectrum—industry, indigenous groups, environmental groups, academics—and they've sought a tightening of the method by which factors are going to be considered, both in terms of the impact assessment reporting and also in terms of how decisions will be made by the executive.
This is language that we worked hard at ensuring was clear and provided that certainty to industry, but at the same time provided greater clarity as well that it wouldn't just be a consideration of specific factors and that it would actually be based on those very specific and identified factors in the legislation.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
If you look in the bill, you'll see that LIB-41 has the same kind of wording and the detailed reasons. That's why they apply to each other.
Ms. Duncan.
11:50 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I think it's still limiting. I don't understand how this is an improvement. I think, in fact, you're limiting how they will base their decision on the report by considering far fewer factors than the 22 factors that were considered in doing the report. Is that still the message, that neither the cabinet nor the minister have to consider all 22 factors that the agency or panel had to consider?
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
With respect, I would disagree. The language would clearly enable that the consideration would be based on the report, and that report contains all of the relevant factors to be considered.
What it really ensures is that there is a focus of decision-making in this context in proposed section 63 around the ministerial determination; it ensures it would be focused on the factors considered in the report.
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
In fact, it says the opposite. It says that it will be based on the report with respect...with a consideration to a much limited list of factors. It must be based on the report and consideration of far fewer factors.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
There's a difference of opinion, but it stands.
Shall the amendment carry?
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I would like a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 5 ; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
That applied to 43.1 as well.
Next up is CPC-6. If adopted, PV-62 cannot be moved because there will be a line conflict.
Mr. Fast.
May 22nd, 2018 / 11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
The proposal is that Bill C-69, in clause 1, be amended:
(a) by deleting lines 25 and 26 on page 39.
(b) by deleting lines 39 to 42 on page 39.
The justification for this is the government needs to clearly define each of these concepts and the criteria that must be met. Since they have not, we are suggesting to remove paragraphs (a) and (b) from proposed section 63.
The sustainability and climate change tests in the assessment portion of the impact assessment process represent risk to proponents as they add uncertainty. The whole goal of this legislation was to improve certainty and this is going in the wrong direction. Policy issues like climate change and sustainability should be deliberated on during the early planning phase and measured against any relevant and available strategic and/or regional assessments to ensure the broad policy issues do not impact the scientific and fact-based review.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
Madam Chair, I simply wanted to say that I think it's a sad day when factors to be considered in an impact assessment related to sustainability and climate change are proposed for elimination in a bill. Canadians want to see projects move forward and want to be confident that the processes that allow such projects to move forward are going to be robust. By stripping the notion of sustainability and our climate change commitments out of that consideration, it would really eviscerate the bill.
I just wanted to remark on that. I don't think Canadians would support this either.