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.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
We're going to do them as they come. We're going to leave it at that.
It's my fault. Sorry, I got ahead of myself again. I made notes and didn't correct them when we stopped doing it.
Shall the amendment carry?
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I would like a recorded vote.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Thank you, Madam Chair. It's another housekeeping amendment.
This amendment would ensure that only applicable factors must be considered when determining whether a project outside Canada is likely to cause significant adverse effects. The factors under the proposed IAA, paragraphs 84(a) and (b), do not apply outside Canada, yet they are required to be considered for these projects.
If you want, Madam Chair, I can read you the proposed subsection 84(2), or we can understand that it's housekeeping.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
It sounds like everybody should have read this. It's been on the books for a little bit.
1:25 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I'd like an explanation as to why the federal government would not have to consider that.
1:25 p.m.
Green
1:25 p.m.
Vice-President, Policy Development Sector, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
It's because paragraphs 84(a) and (b) are directed to indigenous peoples of Canada and constitutional obligations under section 35. We're talking about projects that are outside Canada, which thereby would not affect inherent rights under section 35 of the Constitution.
1:25 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Are you sure about that?
What if it's Coast Salish people, and it's something that's affecting the Coast Salish? What if it's a project outside Canada, but it's still within the boundaries of traditional hunting and fishing of indigenous peoples in Canada? What if it's the Gwich'in people, and it has something to do with Alaska?
If they're not there, they're not there, but hypothetically, they could well be there, and because it's a project outside Canada, we wouldn't be—
1:25 p.m.
Vice-President, Policy Development Sector, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
The examples you've provided are transboundary examples, which then may be subject to the act at large. We're talking about projects here that are non-designated projects, or projects on federal land and outside Canada.
1:25 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
It's completely puzzling to me. The authority would consider impacts on non-indigenous communities in Canada and would consider comments from the public, but it would not consider any concerns identified by indigenous peoples.
Are you seriously going to put this forward?
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I would like a recorded vote.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 8; nays 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
We're now on LIB-48. If adopted, PV-70 cannot be moved because there will be a line conflict.
Mr. Aldag.
1:30 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
This one removes a qualifying statement here. It removes, “if the authority is of the opinion that it is appropriate in the circumstances”, to simply say, “such a determination and that invites the public to provide comments respecting that determination.” The intent here is to increase consistency in the bill as well as transparency.
The second part of it is changing “15 days” to “30 days”.
Those are the two elements of this amendment.
1:30 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Am I reading this to say that the authority can decide that the public doesn't have to be invited to provide comments?
1:30 p.m.
Liberal