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.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
Madam Chair, the members on this side of the table appreciate the intent, but LIB-41 gets at the core of what we want to do to achieve amendments on this aspect, so we'll leave it at that.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Let's have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
We're going to move to amendment LIB-40, please.
It's making an amendment at line 38 on page 38. Rather than “referral is posted on the Internet site”, you have it say “referral and the reasons for it are posted on the Internet site.”
Mr. Aldag.
May 22nd, 2018 / 11:40 a.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Simply, we feel that this will enhance transparency, and the reasons then will be communicated to Canadians. That's the essential reason for this amendment.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
There is a call for a recorded vote.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 9 ; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Thank you very much.
Kumbaya, we're doing very well.
Next up is amendment PV-56. Ms. May.
11:40 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
This is to the same effect as my previous amendment, Madam Chair, although it appears in a different place.
Looking at page 39, in the referral to the Governor in Council there's that same anomaly of the government's deciding that adverse effects are in the public interest rather than deciding that the adverse effects are justified because of an affirmative finding by cabinet that a project is in the public interest.
Cabinet should actually go through based on evidence, and it would be good if they were directed to do it.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
All right, thank you very much. That's clear.
Shall the amendment carry?
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I'd like a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
11:40 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
This is the same effort to ensure that the minister's determination in respect of a project and the Governor in Council's determination in respect to a designated project must include considerations, etc.
I'm inserting at lines 17 to 18 that, found within the factors in proposed section 63, an affirmative finding that a project is in the public interest shall be related to whether the adverse effects are justified.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Let's have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
11:45 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
This recommendation came to committee through West Coast Environmental Law, among others. As the bill currently reads, both the minister's determination and the Governor in Council's subsequent determination that a project should proceed and that there are factors in the public interest.... The current language says that the determination of both the minister and the Governor in Council “must include a consideration of the following factors”.
To clarify that the minister and cabinet are required to determine whether the project is in the public interest and what their consideration is of factors, it's not merely that they must include a consideration, but that the determination—and this is the effect of my amendment—“must be based on the following factors”, or not really based on, but must include a consideration.
11:45 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
You're not saying “must” because that's my amendment. Yours says "are to be".
11:45 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Oh, that's yours, right. Mine says "are to be". Sorry about that, Linda. They “are to be based on” the following factors:
I think that's the inference of consideration, but it doesn't say that the minister must conclude that the factors, once considered, provide a basis on which you can find that the project is in the public interest.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
This is actually a substantive change. It's moving from consideration to basing a decision on certain factors.
Obviously, Ms. May does want to slow down and halt any development of resource projects in Canada. This would be the stake into the heart of our development industry when it comes to mining, when it comes to oil and gas development. I don't know how we, as members of Parliament, can support this kind of an amendment. This is just going too far.
11:45 a.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I would just comment that if the wording as it is right now—“must include consideration of”—does not mean that they genuinely must take those into account.... It seems Mr. Fast is suggesting that it's completely discretionary. I would suggest that we vote on that basis. That is the way it is being interpreted by some parties.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Yes, I heard that.
If this is adopted, NDP-44, PV-59, PV-60, NDP-45, and LIB-41 cannot be moved because there will be a line conflict.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8, yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We are now on NDP-44.